Cops shoot home owner not intruder.


Yikes is right. This has crossed my mind in the past. What to do if you have a BG at gunpoint and the police show up? They're going to focus on the guy with the gun. Most unfortunate incident. I hope the family gets justice. The police have a hard enough job as it is and a stressful situation like this doesn't make it any easier.
 
Oh, man...what a disaster. This issue was addressed during my tactical handgun training. What I was taught apparently wasn't done here but who knows. Basically, I was instructed that when calling 911 you should inform LE that you have a weapon and also to give them a description of yourself. Whatever. Armchair quarterbacking on my part is easy and we all know things can go bad in a hurry at a time of high stress. I don't understand the cops firing on this guy immediately, if that's what they did. I mean, no warning was given? Wasn't he told to lose the weapon? Surely, he wasn't pointing the weapon at the cops, was he? This is NOT good.
 
It also occurs to me to wonder what kind of training that cops are given as per these type of situations. I mean, with 90 million gun owners in this country, the cops gotta figure, particularly if a 911 caller SAYS there's a BG in the house, that the homeowner may have a weapon. Yes? No? I'd be interested in hearing from LEO who frequent this site.
 
Wow. I just watched vid and listened to that 9-1-1 recording. Sounds ugly for sure.

As a former LEO, I can only speculate as to the frame of mind the RO's had when they entered that home. If what the wife of the homeowner says is true, she told the RO's her husband is the one who is armed, and he's the homeowner. That should have somewhat prepared the RO's for what was about to happen next upon entry - not that they would just relax and stroll in - but entering with guns blazing is the wrong answer too.

The 9-1-1 recording captures the shots fired. I wasn't there so I do not know, but I sure didn't hear anything before the shots.

PHX PD is naturally in CYA mode, and I'm not saying definitively they were in the wrong - but by default, the homeowner has a right to be armed, especially when subduing an armed intruder. Shooting first and asking questions later is wrong - for all parties, LEO and citizens alike. If those RO's actually had info on what they were responding to, I'm thinking they'll have a tough time explaining this away as standard operating procedure.

Just guessing: the RO's rushed inside and caught the already-excited homeowner's attention, and he turns to face RO's with gun in hand. You'll get shot in a quick fast hurry in that scenario.

I'm glad the homeowner did not die, but the possibility of losing his hard is horribly unfortunate.

Lesson learned, though difficult to apply in every circumstance: do NOT be armed when LEO's arrive to whatever situation they're responding to. Amped up LEO's operating with a serious pucker factor - they're humans too.
 
I thought when you took a job as a police officer you know that it comes with responsibilities, dangers, and risks. Including the risk of losing your life. If you put your self at risk ( becoming an officer) you should man up and face that fact. You have to be willing to know what is going on before you fire your weapon. Thier should be no excuses they should just lose thier job. After all if a normal citizen tried to say the same thing he would be crucified.

Me and my familly have expierienced something like this but luckly some one stoped it before it' ended up with some rookie cop blowing my sisters head off for just steping out side the door to my house when she heard a noise.
 
Scared people with guns shouldn't be police officers. you shouldn't have to worry about not having a weapon in your home when the cops arrive.
 
Thats why you shoot the intruder first , then sit down and pick up the phone and call the police


:hang3:
 
Thats why you shoot the intruder first , then sit down and pick up the phone and call the police

+1 with this train of thought. So much simpler AND more effective.

Fortunately for the homeowners, those RO's were bad shots.
 
yeah the guy didn't have the hart to shoot the bad guy so he gets shoot for holding the criminal at gun point.

I also agree with you jamie shot em then get help.
 
And here I was told that the Police and Military are the only one's with the training and competency to have firearms! I guess opinions vary . . .
 
"Shoot the intruder first and then call police" - Man, I gotta say ya'll got a cavalier attitude about shooting someone. Without knowing the particulars in this case, my assumption is the homeowner got the BG to obey his order. So, you guys are telling me that even tho the BG freezes at the sight of your gun, drops whatever weapon he might have (the threat therefore is stopped) that you'd just go ahead and shoot him? Ok, I gotta ask: how many of you have shot someone? Cause I'm not buying this line of bulls#it...

I'm assuming ya'll are yanking my chain...
 
off topic.....but looks you all are getting some snow up ND tonight?

Been flurries off and on all day. Haven't heard there is going to be any accumulation, but haven't heard the most recent weather reports, either, and it can change fast. We went from highs in the 80s to highs in the 30s in about 10 days. Can't hardly let myself start thinking about winter now or I'll be a nutcase by next May.

We all stop carrying here about late March until early-June because the Seasonal Affective Disorder we all suffer from by then makes it entirely probable that we'll all have our weapons out and be blazing away at each other in the streets.:sarcastic:

Cheers!
 
That's what I love about Florida , with their castle doctrine , after breaking the window and having a gun , blow the scum away unload the gun and lay it down and then call the police. Set down pour your self a drink and light a cigar.
 
Handcuffing is a bad idea on many levels, despite how tempting it may seem in a scenario like this homeowner from PHX experienced.

First, one of the cardinal rules in law enforcement is to never have two tools in your hands at the same time. (Flash light doesn't count.) Any one who saw the video of the LEO who shot & killed 22 year old Foster Grant by an Oakland, CA train on New Years saw a violation of this cardinal rule. Grant is dead, and the LEO's life and career are over. (Charged with homicide and going to prison as LEO... no thanks.) I'm not saying you WOULD shoot someone unintentionally while cuffing, but it's a cardinal rule for a reason. (Sympathetic muscle reflex - same reason you stay off your trigger until you're on target.)

If you're the homeowner in a scenario remotely similar to the one that started this thread, you would HAVE to use both a gun as a defensive/covering tool and try to handcuff your BG by yourself. Highly unenviable task, even for the pro who has mastered speed 'cuffing. Even if the BG is 'cooperative.' If he's not, and he's struggling to resist your cuffs and YOU... forget cuffs, man.

Second, if you have to set your gun down to effectively handcuff your BG, he may instantly decide to NOT be so cooperative and repentant once he realizes you removed your own advantage.

Third, while most states that have castle doctrine will lawfully permit you to dispatch this home invander into eternity, many states are not so tolerant of citizens handcuffing other citizens - even criminals. Would you get charged for it? Who knows, in this day and age. BUT - say you DO handcuff the dirtbag and the RO's show up and take him away and you're the hero of the block... until the dirtbag SUES YOU for injuries sustained from your improper/untrained handcuffing technique that resulted in dibilitating injuries to his hands/wrists. Now what? Hire a civil lawyer to defend your use of 'cuffs? Screw that.

Something to think about in home defense planning. Don't make a bad and dangerous situation worse. Leave the 'cuffs in the bedroom. :pleasantry:
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,538
Messages
611,233
Members
74,950
Latest member
gman8309
Back
Top