baldeagle wrote:VoiceofReason wrote:He should not have fired through the door. He should have called 911, yelled at them that he had called the police and taken cover behind a couch, another doorway, or whatever and waited. If they tried to force the door, as soon as it started to come open, unload on them.
No excuse for firing through a door that is closed and locked. He killed a man that was not an immediate threat to him.
Bad situation.
I'm just curious. How do you know that the door was closed and locked? How do you know the man wasn't an immediate threat? I didn't see anything in the article that indicated either of those two facts.
ISTM we are far too quick to judge without knowing all the facts. We make assumptions based upon our own biases of how we would handle a similar situation without knowing the details that could well change our minds.
I
don’t know the door was closed and locked. You are right I was stating what I would do in a similar situation.
The article stated he fired
through the door. Logic indicates there must have been a door between him and his intended targets and he did not see who he was shooting at (“the homeowner
did not know what was happening and fired a gun through the door”). The article did not say the door was forced open, kicked open, or opened in any manner.
If the door was still closed (whether locked or not) and they were not shooting at him, they were
not an immediate threat.
Of course no one can know exactly what happened unless they were standing behind and slightly to one side of the homeowner when it happened, but my point is that no one should shoot through a door without seeing who is on the other side and having a good idea of what their intentions are.
I don’t know about you but even if I wasn’t charged for a shooting such as this, it would eat at me for a long time that I killed someone looking for help.