Man who shot Maryland firefighters thought he was stopping break-in
Last edited Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: Reuters
The man who fatally shot a Maryland firefighter and critically wounded another said he had thought he was stopping an attempted break-in when he opened fire, authorities said on Sunday.
The shooter, who has not been officially identified, was interviewed by police and released on Saturday evening, about 24 hours after the shooting took place, Prince George's County Fire Department chief spokesman Mark Brady said.
"The way we're looking at it now is it's a terrible, terrible tragedy for everybody involved," Brady said.
The firefighters were responding to a call on Friday to check on the well-being of a man whose brother had been unable to contact him, Brady said.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-fire-idUSKCN0XE145
THEY JUST LET THE KILLER GO??
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JI7
(89,244 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)This entire story is tragic.
cprise
(8,445 posts)So of course, the first thing he thought of when he saw the "break in" was true in his mind.
herding cats
(19,558 posts)The article doesn't make that clear, and I agree shooting at them and not calling the police first was stupid as hell, but the 61 year old man thought they were there to do him harm. Be it by burglary or whatever. He panicked and killed a firefighter, and shot his own brother who had summoned the EMTs to the shooters residence because he couldn't get in touch with his brother, who is a diabetic.
Shoot first, before even calling the police or at the very least warning the "intruders", is very stupid, and I'm surprised it's not illegal. If we're going to arm our citizens we need to make them responsible for when they commit actions of stupidity, even if they were afraid, that harm innocent people.
It seems to me this could have been avoided, but we have way too many people out there armed who think that shooting any potential threat immediately is the right and proper action. Hell, many think it's their constitutional right!
raccoon
(31,107 posts)Wilms
(26,795 posts)From the link.
Two other volunteers with the department sustained less serious injuries while seeking cover in the shootings. They were released from the hospital on Saturday.
I wonder how many shots were fired and how his brother managed to get hit.
herding cats
(19,558 posts)They were trying to get in to the shooters home, thinking he may have suffered a medical issue, when the shooter mistook them for someone breaking into his home.
The brother was the one who had called the fire dept to help him check on his brother (the shooter) who is a diabetic.
LiberalFighter
(50,856 posts)
drm604
(16,230 posts)Stupid, stupid, stupid.
UpInArms
(51,280 posts)n/t
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I mean I have guns and am a shooter but I wouldn't start shooting at somebody breaking in. Nobodies life was immediately in danger.
branford
(4,462 posts)If you only believed a warning was necessary, there could be doubt that you sufficiently feared for your life, the standard generally needed for justified self-defense.
Also, warning shots are still potentially very dangerous, e.g., bullets fired up must come down, ricochets, etc. They still could hit innocents, and as a legal matter, arguably are inherently negligent.
Of course, that certainly does not mean a firearm owner need to aggressively engage every perceived threat. A verbal warning is also usually far more legally (and often tactically) sound than a warning shot.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)
we can do it
(12,180 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Warning shots are very dangerous, and if your life is actually in danger, tactically stupid.
Most importantly, one of the fundamental rules of firearms safety is that you do not fire a weapon unless you've properly identified your target. Warning shots should never be necessary.
I even suggested that if a potential victim believes a warning is appropriate under the circumstances, they should do so vocally.
However, if you believe firing wildly is more prudent than yelling, don't blame me if you're on the wrong end of the criminal justice system.
we can do it
(12,180 posts)Stick your gun nonsense up your ass if there's enough room there with your head.
branford
(4,462 posts)of firearms, self-defense, and most importantly, the applicable law.
Attempts to insult me, no matter the extent of your self-righteousness, still do not even remotely constitute a substantive refutation of any of my earlier points concerning the legal, tactical and practical issues concerning warning shots.
greymouse
(872 posts)All he knew was that people were breaking into his house. I'd start shooting in those circumstances also. Unless you're some trained martial arts person with a lot of strength and a fantastic reaction time, you can't possibly protect yourself from people breaking into the house. I'm not about to get beaten, raped, or murdered because I stop to say, "Excuse me, are you breaking into my house with ill intent?" while they rush towards me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
nilram
(2,886 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)It's usually considered a home invasion or equivalent violent crime.
This incident is undoubtedly a tragedy, but if the firefighters were burglars and other criminals, situations which are sadly a routine occurrence across the nation, are you honestly suggesting that a homeowner shouldn't be able to defend themselves?
The homeowner in this instance appears to have failed to properly identify his target before firing, and thus if of sound mind, failed to satisfy one of the most basic tenets of firearm safety. Depending on the specific facts, he might face criminal and/or civil liability.
This incident, however, in no raises question on the fundamental right to protect yourself and your home from those who might do you harm.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"raises question on the fundamental right to protect yourself and your home from those who might do you harm..."
Who specifically is arguing otherwise? Or is that irrelevance simply needed to preempt anything that may counter a deeply held bias?
branford
(4,462 posts)The prior poster (who has subsequently acknowledged his error) was referring to the incident in the OP as a potential "property crime" situation. It was not.
The firefighters in this story were breaking into the shooters home. The comparable crime under these circumstances in the far more common circumstance with miscreants rather than legitimate empowered government agents would be a home invasion or burglary of an occupied dwelling, and thus an actual, direct violent crime, and not just a property crime. While the right to self-defense to defend property is usually more limited in scope and by jurisdiction, the right to protect yourself in your own home is far more expansive and universally accepted almost everywhere. This is the reason why, at least at the current time, the homeowner has not been charged with any crime.
If we're going to discuss this incident in legal and practical terms, honesty and accuracy are paramount.
The poster to whom I originally responded noted he misunderstood the facts and politely responded to my post, yet you're indignant that I would correctly characterize the incident for analysis and not just blithely join the other knee-jerk anti-gun, anti-self defense commentary.
If you really want to question who may have a deeply held bias, I suggest some serious self-reflection.
nilram
(2,886 posts)the shooter was a neighbor, not the homeowner. The firefighters got no answer when they raised a ruckus at the door--the article doesn't exactly confirm, but leads me to believe no one was at home. Thus, a property crime.
progree
(10,901 posts)When knocks on the door went unanswered and there was no response as rescuers announced that they were outside, the emergency workers decided to break through the door, officials said. As they did, gunshots erupted from inside, mortally wounding Ulmschneider and injuring another firefighter and the man’s brother.
Authorities said Saturday that they are still working to determine why the 61-year-old man allegedly opened fire. But a county fire spokesman said it may have been a tragic mistake — the man possibly thought that the rescuers were intruders seeking to break into his house.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/prince-georges-mourns-firefighter-as-police-continue-shooting-investigation/2016/04/16/c66d4db2-03d6-11e6-b823-707c79ce3504_story.html
nilram
(2,886 posts)I sit corrected.
Blackjackdavey
(178 posts)Seriously? Which nation are you referring to? I've never heard of a home invasion or known of a home invasion occurring in any kind of regionally defined radius in this corner of the nation EXCEPT for drug related invasions. I.E. drug dealer invaded by drug users. Unless you're a drug dealer, the notion that home invasions are a "routine occurrence" is hyperbole of the most dangerous sort. This kind of exaggeration certainly contributes to the shoot first mentality.
branford
(4,462 posts)https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2014-crime-statistics
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/property-crime/burglarymain
http://www.safewise.com/blog/8-surprising-home-burglary-statistics/
Blackjackdavey
(178 posts)Thank you for the links, they contain interesting statistics.
There are about 100 deaths by home invasions per year. For comparison's sake, there are about 600 accidental deaths by firearm and another 20,000 by suicide.
There are other unfortunate incidents that occur much more "routinely" than others. Gun ownership for home protection is driven by fear and much more often, routinely even, harms those that were seeking protection. The language we use contributes to how we perceive problems, which of course influences behavior. I am calling out your use of the word "routine" as contributing to the problem.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/gun-violence-and-the-irrational-fear-of-home-invasion/266613/
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
branford
(4,462 posts)Occupants can be injured, but not killed, and even if they suffer no injuries, home invasion is still undoubtedly considered a violent crime, and virtually always justifying lethal self-defense measures.
Further, burglary is a fairly common crime compared to other crimes (although words like "common" or "routine" are admittedly subjective and abused by both gun control and gun rights advocates). For purposes of this discussion, however, if someone is breaking down your door at night, absent other unusual circumstance, it's far more likely to be people with malevolent intent that well-meaning firefighters.
Crime rates are also not uniform across the country. Some people are unquestionably at greater risk than others. When discussing if someone's fear of victimization is "reasonable," specific facts matter. For instance, the criminal risks are far different in Detroit than Chappaqua. Nevertheless, all Americans have a right to self-defense and the tools to do so successfully.
In any event, if you've read most of my comments here, you'll note that I believe additional facts or investigation are still warranted to determine if the homeowner was criminally or civilly negligent. People generally have the right to defend themselves from people breaking down their door at night, but they should still properly identify their targets before opening fire.
SusanLarson
(284 posts)It's not a Tragedy, it's a murder! It needs to be treated as such!
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)First and Second degree murder requires proving intent and malice. Negligent homicide will require proving negligence, which is also extremely difficult in a case like this.
The laws are written such that a person who truly believes they are in mortal danger can defend themselves in court. Normally people have a duty to retreat when out in public, but that is never required in the home.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)folks in the exact same situation shooting cops serving a warrant get prosecuted and convicted, even when hiding behind the same defense??
FWIW, the shooter was helped by living in P.G., where the state's attorney's office has been corrupt and incompetent for years... They've had a history of screwing up surefire, open-and-shut prosecutions, so I'm not that shocked they didn't even try to charge the shooter in this case....
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The usual difference is that it was argued that the homeowner knew it was police when he fired because police were clearly identifying themselves during the raid. Officers getting shot by a surprised occupant is a key hazard with the use of "No Knock" warrants and several deaths have occurred around the country.
People also tend to have an emotional response to police killings, even if the officers acted stupidly. In some places this alone will cause a jury to convict.
There are two cases I know of where a homeowner was not prosecuted:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/murder-charge-dropped-man-killed-cop-no-knock-raid/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/homeowner-not-charged-shooting-okla-police-chief-article-1.2082717
And one where he was prosecuted and found not guilty:
http://wavy.com/2014/07/15/man-charged-for-shooting-when-cops-went-to-wrong-house/ & http://pilotonline.com/news/local/crime/portsmouth-couple-sues-police-over-shooting/article_e740f4ac-dca3-5544-aa42-e91900b2ea7a.html
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)since this is the one I was thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Frederick
Of course Frederick was white, so he *only* got 10 years in a state notorious for heavy-handed sentencing... He also gets his own wiki page -- Go figure
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)There was also a lot of outrage over such a raid for simple possession. The problem Frederick faced was he shot through the door and the police claimed they were yelling police the entire time and that he should have known.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)because of the testimony of a shady, unreliable informant...
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Its become a joke in the civil libertarian community to note that confidential informants and the paranoid delusions of schizophrenia are the same type of guy. Imaginary.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)about these kinds of stories until white victims started showing up in the news...
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The ACLU has been on this for years.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)which is all I have to go on
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)One cares about justice and equality for all, the other just cares about themselves and is an inherently selfish ideology. Usually civil libertarian people identify as politically liberal.
phylny
(8,378 posts)One is the best friend of my sister-in-law, the other two are the best friend's sister and brother-in-law. They're on a trip to find an area of Virginia to move to. Everything was fine until they started talking about guns.
OH how many guns they all have, and how the best friend has to have them because she lives in a rural area, blah blah, and she had to get a powerful one because SHE'S NOT THAT GOOD OF A SHOT so she needs to be sure she hits or scares someone with something that'll blow a hole in them no matter how badly she aims.
Cannot make this shit up.
I sat rather passively, and finally said, "I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I don't like guns. People around here need guns to hunt so they can eat. I don't need a gun."
Oh, but it's FUN, it really is, to shoot.
"I know. I've shot a .22 before. I don't like guns."
Then the kicker:
Did you know that more people actually save lives with their guns, but the media doesn't let anyone know because it's agenda is that all guns are bad?
SMH
I answered, "Hmm, the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbying forces in the history of the world, sure needs to get its act together and lobby the networks so the truth can be told."
Guns - it's what's for dinner.
Judi Lynn
(160,515 posts)It's bound to be nice and safe around there.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Don't people listen to what they're saying?
"I'm a surgeon, but I need really BIG scalpels because my hands shake and I might miss the spot otherwise."
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)If we had waited, for a warrant, for a key, for a friend, there were cases where they would have died. There were also those we found dead. It is as near a medical certainty as there can be that more would have died had there been much, if any, delay.
This fella killed more than just this guy going forward. It is a certainty.
It is one thing to go into unknown danger. To go into state certified homicide is clearly another. You can't order that, nor expect it. It won't make everyone pause, but there will be a few who have to think their life isn't worth wasting to prove someone else's point.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)If I were a firefighter I would think twice before trying to get into someone's home. Because apparently it's perfectly legal to kill a firefighter who is trying to save someone.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Nobody is suggesting neighbors did anything. The guy inside the house is the one who had a gun and shot the firefighters.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Freedom, Jesus and 'Murica.
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)they could have stopped this tragedy by killing the shooter. If he'd had two guns then he could have prevented that tragedy by killing two firefighters. If they had 3 guns they could have prevented that tragedy by killing him and his next of kin to stem the revenge killings that are all but mandatory in this sort of situation.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,324 posts).... wellness checks. It's the only way.
I've fallen and I can't get up! Well here is a flash-bang for you, Granny!
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)What can one even say? Evidence has no meaning to the gun nutters. It's all about penis extension for aging impotent men.
RKBA lol. Right to keep being assholes.
maxsolomon
(33,284 posts)But he has the wherewithal to snap to in time to shoot his gun?
Why do people think someone would be home invading their house? Because they have a really nice Gun Collection?
America, home of shoot first, think later.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Don't make much sense. FD usually is hard to mistake as anybody else. And just how many rounds did this guy fire without verifying what the heck he was firing at? Sounds like atleast negligent homicide IMO. Or maybe firefighters should stop making house calls? (atleast in Paranoid neighborhoods)
raccoon
(31,107 posts)
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)There was a case a month ago where another person CALLED 911 FOR MEDICAL and shot the first responder.
I AM SICK OF THIS SHIT!!!!!
nonpareil
(71 posts)...and the firefighters yelling,"Fire department!" at the door would have been a tip off that this wasn't burglars breaking in.
we can do it
(12,180 posts)we can do it
(12,180 posts)And how many burglars carry bags full of medical equipment?
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)It's possible he awoke from the bedroom and went towards the door in a windowless hallway.
we can do it
(12,180 posts)Not buying it.
branford
(4,462 posts)The issue is what you can prove, and whether it makes much of a difference as a matter of law.
I would also not that it would be unlikely for the fire department to bring a large ladder truck running lights and sirens to a wellness check. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a simple ambulance or small EMT truck, and based on the article, this incident appears to have occurred at night when visibility was diminished. It also increases the likelihood that the shooter was suddenly awakened and startled by people actually trying to break into his home, albeit not for criminal purposes.
The incident will continue to be investigated, and if warranted, charges will be filed. However, be careful selectively choosing what assumptions you want to make or agree with based solely on your view of firearms.
we can do it
(12,180 posts)You make a lot of noise knocking and yelling prior to even thinking about forced entry. Not just a quick knock. Loud knocking, yelling Fire Dept. and waiting to hear if anyone responds. I think most departments require a call to supervisor before attempting forced entry. Burglars don't do that.
People who are terrified of their own shadow and shoot without making sure of what they are shooting at are too immature to own firearms.
branford
(4,462 posts)Nevertheless, I imagine that the firefighters / paramedics did indeed knock and/or yell prior to entering the home. That's one of the reasons why I believe an investigation is necessary and currently incomplete. However, as I earlier indicated, the homeowner might have been legitimately startled by such a scene at night, and he still has no obligation to actually permit anyone entry to his home.
I don't know how a call to a supervisor, if there was indeed a call, provides any notice to the homeowner, or legally changes the incident for him.
we can do it
(12,180 posts)Unless, of course the house is on fire. They are there making noise and announcing who they are. If no answer after a bit they may have to call for permission to enter unless they see someone down who is not responding.
branford
(4,462 posts)who called the fire department or police, apparently did not want or expect them, and was under no legal obligation to allow them entry into his home, no matter their benevolent intentions.
This incident was no doubt a tragedy, and as the investigation proceeds, more information may be discovered indicating the homeowner engaged in criminal negligence, but based on the current reporting, the legal issues are not only complicated, but seem to heavily favor the homeowner.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Get a fucking conscience and pick up a book on the law.
branford
(4,462 posts)and more importantly, believes a full investigation and evaluation of the actual facts and circumstances is more important and mature than the inevitable, knee-jerk anti-gun screeds.
Your quick and predictable NRA accusations and personal insults, all without any substance or persuasiveness, is an example of why the gun control movement finds itself in such a dismal state.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 19, 2016, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't think so, Perry Mason.
No castle doctrine in Maryland, F. Lee Bailey.
branford
(4,462 posts)I was also a researcher at the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, and my work included an array of firearm issues. What are your qualifications to opine on the legal nuances of the shooting in the OP?
More importantly, any lawyer with a modicum of experience understands fundamental aspects of self-defense jurisprudence, including causation, burden of proof, and other pertinent legal issues applicable to a shooting of this nature, regardless of the state where it occurred. That fact that the shooter was not arrested and charged, even in anti-gun Maryland, speaks for itself, no matter your personal objections (no need for Perry Mason). Besides, except for the most extreme, ideological knee-jerk partisans, calling for an actual full investigation and possessing knowledge of all relevant facts precedes firm conclusions, legal or otherwise.
If your responses to any story that includes a firearm are snide references to the NRA and implying those who don't agree with you don't value human life and have no conscience, you're a clear example of why any form of gun control compromise is dead on arrival in Congress and most states and the issue is a big electoral loser in important swing states.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)in Maryland. Sad.
branford
(4,462 posts)First, and most importantly, burglary and similar crimes concerning an occupied dwelling are considered violent crime everywhere in the USA. An occupant defending themselves is not defending just property, but themselves, except in the most unusual circumstances.
Further, Maryland follows the Castle Doctrine. In Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963),a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who was attempting to break into his home, the Maryland Court of Appeals held:
"A man is not bound to retreat from his house. He may stand his ground there and kill an[y] person who attempts to commit a felony therein, or who attempts to enter by force for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm upon an inmate. In such a case the owner or any member of the family, or even a lodger in the house, may meet the intruder at the threshold, and prevent him from entering by any means rendered necessary by the exigency, even to the taking of his life, and the homicide will be justifiable."
Again, this and other facts are precisely the reasons why the homeowner in the OP has NOT been charged with any crime, despite Maryland's firearms animus and your personal frustration, and he will not be charged unless new facts are discovered which change our basic understanding of the events of that evening.
I understand Maryland law (and similar laws in other states), and it is you who just want the law to change to suit your own views of self-defense and firearms.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)He didn't even see who he was shooting at. Try again, counselor.
State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482
I stand corrected on the castle doctrine.
branford
(4,462 posts)almost always constitutes a basis for a reasonable fear of death or serious injury, both as a presumptive matter of law, and more importantly, as a practical matter for virtually any juror. That is one of the underlying facets of the Castle Doctrine.
Further, if you've read my other posts in the thread, you'll note that I remain critical of the shooting because the homeowner seems to have not made any efforts to ascertain the identity of his targets before firing, a basic tenet of firearm safety. Nevertheless, given the circumstances as reported, his belief in the risk to his safety was likely still reasonable (even if incorrect) as a matter of law, and any alleged negligence in his target identification is potentially matter for the civil courts, and not a criminal matter.
All indications thus far are that this incident was a terrible, tragic accident, and at worst, might represent some civil negligence. Given then nature of fundamental self-defense jurisprudence in Maryland and everywhere else in the USA, I don't believe the decision not to charge would be different anywhere else, nor would any simple revisions to the law remedy the perceived problem without upending centuries of established constitutional and criminal law.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Reasonable person fear - not delusional trigger happy fear - that's the law!
ileus
(15,396 posts)Someone knocks down your door, you don't have time to ask around to see if they just intend to steal stuff, kill you, or performing a welfare check.
Under ideal circumstances of course the home owner should have tried to ID the target, firefighters normally have a uniform. I assume this wasn't ideal, the result was tragic. Now the owner who was only trying to save a life (his own) has to live with the mistake he made.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)at the very least, he shouldn't be allowed to handle or possess firearms ever again, he has demonstrated that he lacks the judgment to safely handle them.
Ideally, he would be charged with negligent manslaughter/murder(however its termed in Maryland). He failed in one of the first things you learn when firing a gun, be sure of your target.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)You guys really gotta stick together, no matter what, huh?
