Frisco Homeowner Shoots Roofing Solicitor

[G.A. Heath]

Last year Seminole had a pretty bad hail storm, and the area was flooded with roofing contractors, solicitors, and other folks involved in the business of fixing your house. I heard reports of roofers stealing competitors signs, getting into fights, and getting physical with potential customers. In all honesty I can see home owner being attacked by a solicitor who was confronted in a less than friendly manner for trespassing.

[Abraham]

Years ago, at another location, I took bids on a new roof.

I made my choice and soon the work began.

On the first day as the work progressed, one of the roofers whose bid I'd rejected, stopped by and approached me while I'm standing in the yard watching the roofing progress and obnoxiously demands to know why I chose the roofers I decided on and upon leaving hurls an insult. I got the very distinct feeling if I'd responded in kind he would've attacked me.

Some in the roofing business can be very demanding.

Perhaps this Frisco incident is one of those where we're not hearing "the rest of the story"!

[b4aftr]

I've heard plenty of stories of unqualified guys with a nail gun and a ladder become instant roofers during hail season. I've also heard it can be a pretty cutthroat business so I'm betting there's more to this than a simple compliant solicitor.

[Pariah3j]

Her neighbor then came out with a torn shirt and told her the solicitor had attacked him so he defended himself.

What caught my attention about the story was the homeowner walked out with a torn shirt - so unless he tore is own shirt, I think that indicates some sort of attack or force by the solicitor - given he was already trespassing and ignoring no soliciting signs, I say that gives the home owner at least reasonable doubt.

[goose]

I wonder if the shirt was taken as evidence. Would be curious how much skin DNA would be left behind if it was grabbed. May be very little for all I know.

[bblhd672]

There was a "no soliciting sign" near the walkway that said, "We are not interested in discussing politics, religions, surveys or anything you are selling."
“This gentleman does have signs all over the place,” said neighbor Jonathan Schwartz. “He doesn't want to be bothered.”

Apparently the homeowner needed a bigger sign than the one clearly visible beside his sidewalk.
People who ignore "No Soliciting" signs are annoying and rude. Why is it that people who are soliciting for whatever reason choose to ignore the homeowners stated desire to be left alone? Then act offended if they are treated harshly.

We have a "No Soliciting" sign on our front storm door. Doesn't stop people from ringing our bell. I've been tempted to create a flyer in multiple languages that explains what the two words mean when used together for those whose lack of ability to comprehend results in their disturbing us anyway.

[Pariah3j]

I wonder if the shirt was taken as evidence. Would be curious how much skin DNA would be left behind if it was grabbed. May be very little for all I know.

I believe there would be trace/contact DNA - but that's possible just for having been at his front door talking to him, since that isn't in dispute, not sure there would be much more that it could prove. Unless there was something specific like his sweat found on the shirt.

[Jusme]

There is way too much missing information to make an informed opinion, in my opinion. A torn shirt is not direct, or conclusive evidence of an attack. The solicitor may have grabbed it after being shot as an involuntary reaction. All we have to go on are the statements of a woman, who did not see the interaction, or hear anything besides the gun shots and the homeowners statements.

I'm sure, as evidence is gathered, and the testimony is presented in court, the whole story, or at least much more of it, will be revealed.

[Soccerdad1995]

There is way too much missing information to make an informed opinion, in my opinion. A torn shirt is not direct, or conclusive evidence of an attack. The solicitor may have grabbed it after being shot as an involuntary reaction. All we have to go on are the statements of a woman, who did not see the interaction, or hear anything besides the gun shots and the homeowners statements.

I'm sure, as evidence is gathered, and the testimony is presented in court, the whole story, or at least much more of it, will be revealed.

As far as evidence, isn't the burden on the prosecution to show that the shooter was in the wrong. I would think they would need to show conclusive evidence that there was not an attack by the solicitor.

I know that I have answered the door with a gun in hand before when I get an unexpected visitor and am not wearing a holster for some reason. The gun is usually not visible to whoever is at my door, though. I could see a situation where the homeowner was irritated that someone was bothering them and also trespassing, so he had some choice words for a solicitor who might have his own anger issues, followed by some type of threat or actual physical contact, and then bad things happening from there. Like you say, hopefully we will get more evidence of what actually happened.