NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: H2O_King89 on July 20, 2014, 01:15:14 PM
-
http://www.1011now.com/home/headlines/Man-Shot-During-Robbery-267824451.html?device=phone
*****From 10/11 news*****
Police are investigating a robbery where the suspect was transported to the hospital with gunshot wounds
Just after 2:00 a.m. Sunday, Lincoln Police responded to 13th and High Streets after a reported disturbance. As responding officers came into the area, at 13th and Otoe, they found one man with a gunshot wounds. Police later learned it was related to a robbery.
Captain Don Scheinost said an investigation at the original location revealed that the suspect had asked for a ride and then attempted to get into the driver's seat. The owner of the car sped off rather than give the suspect a ride.
According to Scheinost, a few minutes and a couple of blocks later, the victim had been visiting a friend near 13th and Otoe. When he got to his car, the suspect punched him saying he was going to take the victim's car. The victim ran off then called the man he had been visiting, sharing what was going on outside.
Scheinost said the man the victim was visiting, came outside with a gun and fired it in an attempt to scare off the suspect. Instead, the suspect began coming toward the house. That is when the homeowner shot the suspect several times.
Police arrived moments after the injured suspect returned to the victim's car.
According to Scheinost, the suspect, whose name is not being released, was transported to the hospital with non life-threatening injuries.
The suspect will be arrested for robbery and possibly more charges, once he is released medically.
Police will be working with the Prosecutor to determine what if any charges the homeowner will face.
Police are continuing their investigation.
-
A little grey area with the homeowner coming out with the gun, and in response to someone's aid. Could be said he was then the aggressor. (Don't get me wrong- had it been my friend, I'd might have done the same) Of course once the punk come for him it was Self Defense.
Will be watching how this plays out.
-
I'm pretty impressed on the comments on the FB page.
-
Non-life threatening injuries? He was shot. Multiple times. I don't care who you are, that's life threatening injuries. I imagine they meant not immediately life threatening.
Also, the homeowner better not be charged, if things went down the way they say.
I am not a lawyer (obviously!!) , but I believe there is precedent for warning shots and it has been ruled it is OK.
-
I am not a lawyer (obviously!!) , but I believe there is precedent for warning shots and it has been ruled it is OK.
Meh...I'm not a fan of "warning shots". As they say, you are responsible for every bullet. Joey Biden would have been proud though. As with any of these stories, we likely can't trust that all the facts have been provided, and what "facts" are provided are often skewed if not flat out wrong. One of our members, Dan Myers, was recently in a news story for setting a Nebraska record in skydiving. In the story they said he had 8,000 jumps. He has a LOT of jumps, but he doesn't have anywhere near that many. Amazing how they get SO much wrong.
Of course once the punk come for him it was Self Defense.
Will be watching how this plays out.
Maybe, maybe not. Use of deadly force has those stipulations that have been discussed many times here. In the end, the investigators and prosecutors will have to make a judgment on whether a reasonable person would have been in fear of theirs or their friend's life. Facts like did the perp have the ability, opportunity, etc. will drive their decision. I hope for us (gun owners) and the homeowner, that they decide the actions were justified.
In the end, only a few people will really know what happened, and hopefully that will include the investigators.
Fly
-
I am not a lawyer (obviously!!) , but I believe there is precedent for warning shots and it has been ruled it is OK.
Do you happen to have a source for that? I've always told people that warning shots aren't a good idea, legally. If I'm wrong, then I'd like to know where it comes from.
-
A recent bill in Florida
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/florida-governor-signs-warning-shot-bill.html (http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/florida-governor-signs-warning-shot-bill.html)
-
That homeowner is going to be in a world of trouble. Both criminally and in civil court. He only had to close the door and call the police from the get go. By introducing a firearm, he was the one who escalated the incident. Once the victim went into the house, the suspect was not a threat and his assault had already been stopped. As he was apparently unarmed, the homeowner was not justified.
-
Once the victim went into the house, the suspect was not a threat and his assault had already been stopped.
Where do you get he went in the house from;
The victim ran off then called the man he had been visiting, sharing what was going on outside.
-
I've always been under the impression that warning shots constitute assault with a deadly weapon.
You never give warning shots, you just "miss"
I'm pretty sure a lady in florida got jail time for warning shots last year as well
-
Where do you get he went in the house from;
Whatever...he still left the scene and was apparently not being assaulted any longer.
-
From Lincoln Journal Star, below. it's all speculation and various degrees of media (mis)interpretation at this point, but the part I put in bold font sounds like it certainly could have been a very short time frame. It could have been that the Good Guy heard a commotion, looked outside and saw punches being thrown by Bad Guy, grabbed his 10/22 and sprinted outside in a matter of fifteen seconds or less. The 16-y.o. Victim "leaving the area" could mean anything, such as 16-y.o. Victim had just got out of the car three seconds beforehand, and was running across the yard or driveway when Good Guy popped out of the house, guns a-blazin.
It may be a while before this is all known and public record via court documents, etc. Yes, this is going to be an interesting one to watch, especially the whole "warning shot" issue and how the criminal justice system responds (if at all) to Good Guy's statements that he fired said warning shot.
According to Lincoln police, the suspect approached a 16-year-old sitting in a car near 13th and Otoe streets around 2 a.m. and demanded his keys.
When the 16-year-old said no, Police Capt. Michon Morrow said the suspect punched him in the face and forced himself inside the car.
The 16-year-old left the area, but a friend of the 16-year-old inside the house heard the commotion outside, grabbed a gun, and fired a warning shot, demanding that the suspect leave, police said.
The suspect got out of the car and approached the house. The friend then shot the suspect multiple times.
-
What's that they say? Nothing good happens after 10 PM?
Should 16 year olds be out on the streets at 2am?
No doubt the advance of the assaulter on him made the 2nd 16 y/o fear for bodily injury but perhaps it may have been better to go back inside the house?
I know I shouldn't MMQB this as I wasn't there and certainly don't have all the facts.
-
Journal Star as of ~18 minutes ago....
The man who got shot seven times trying to take a car over the weekend remained in critical condition Monday, Lincoln police said.
Police said the man got shot in the legs and torso early Sunday morning while trying to take a 16-year-old’s car, Officer Katie Flood said.
Investigators will meet with prosecutors from the Lancaster County Attorney’s Office to decide whom to charge and with what, Flood said.
Edit: and as of a couple minutes on the 10/11 evening news, the first kid "left the area" then "called his friend" so it is indeed looking like there was no imminent threat to the initial victim.
-
A recent bill in Florida
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/florida-governor-signs-warning-shot-bill.html (http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/florida-governor-signs-warning-shot-bill.html)
Reading the story, what if you shot a warning shot from your pop tart?
As the vice president went on national TV and told people to fire warning shots, it would seem that item of wisdom should be one or the other, retracted, or adopted.
-
As the vice president went on national TV and told people to fire warning shots, it would seem that item of wisdom should be one or the other, retracted, or adopted.
I think it would be a defense in any situation. Whether a good defense or not is arguable.
-
I think it would be a defense in any situation. Whether a good defense or not is arguable.
What comes up, must come down. It is the down part that is of interest to casual observers and innocent small children.
I did some experiments with blanks, wondering if they would operate the action of handguns. Fail. Not enough chamber pressure.
-
Interesting statement of law in a recent court of appeals ruling:
(a) Defense of Another
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1410(1) (Reissue 2008) authorizes an individual to use force against a person to protect a third person in instances where:
(a) The actor would be justified under section 28-1409 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
(b) Under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
(c) The actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.
-
According to WOWT's web site, the guy tried to force his way into the kid's car. The kid was able to drive off leaving him behind. The kid proceeded to his friend's house two blocks away. When the kid left the friend's house, he found that the would-be carjacker had followed him. This time, the carjacker punched him out. The friend retrieved a gun from the house and fired a warning shot to scare off the carjacker. Instead of running, the carjacker advanced on the friend who then shot him several times.
Clearly, the kid was the victim of assault and attempted strong arm robbery. Whether the friend is charged will depend on whether the prosecutor thinks shooting the carjacker was disproportionate to the threat.
Given the carjacker's behavior, I suspect he was high on something. A criminal in his right mind would not approach someone who has already fired a shot. There have been two similar incidents in Omaha recently. One guy was definitely high and paranoid when he invaded a home and assaulted the homeowner. He was lucky. Douglas County sheriff's deputies arrested him. In the other incident, the homeowner shot the invader to death.
-
Clearly, the kid was the victim of assault and attempted strong arm robbery. Whether the friend is charged will depend on whether the prosecutor thinks shooting the carjacker was disproportionate to the threat.
And in neither case is deadly force justified.
-
And in neither case is deadly force justified.
Since I mentioned three separate incidents, please indicate which two you believe did not justify defense using deadly force.
I should point out three things:
- In the 40 years I have lived in Omaha, I can cite six incidents in which people died from head injuries inflicted by unarmed assailants. Two more recovered after extended periods in a coma. Those incidents give the lie to the notion that hitting someone in the head is anything less than an assault using deadly force.
- A few years ago, a kid out of his mind on wet (marijuana laced with PCP) broke into an occupied home. Omaha police responded quickly but, before they could move the homeowners to safety, the kid lunged at them with a knife. The officers shot him to death.
- As far as I know, the Douglas County prosecutor has not filed charges against the homeowner who shot the home invader who, I suspect, was high on drugs.
-
I'm referring to the incident in the original post.
-
Three people have been beat to death in Lincoln over the last year.
-
But we're not discussing those cases. We are talking about one case...the one in the original post. I understand people have been beaten to death before, but that isn't the case here and since the victim wasn't being beaten to death, had left the immediate area, and was no longer being attacked, deadly force was not warranted. That's all I'm getting at...just this case with the information presented. Not what has happened elsewhere, what could have happened, or any other irrelevant BS not about this, and only this incident.
-
Not what has happened elsewhere, what could have happened, or any other irrelevant BS not about this, and only this incident.
What could have happened does matter, in that Nebraska's use of force law says that the use of force is justifiable if:
(a) The actor would be justified under section 28-1409 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
(b) Under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
(c) The actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.
Note the wording "the injury he believes to be threatened." So, it matters what the actor believes could have happened or what he believes was going to happen. Or, at least a reasonable person under the circumstances as they existed at that time; not what the media has reported the circumstances to be.
-
The victim was no longer threatened as he had already left the area therefore intervention was not needed and the suspect did not make a move towards the house until after the initial shots were fired.
-
.... I understand people have been beaten to death before, but that isn't the case here and since the victim wasn't being beaten to death, had left the immediate area, and was no longer being attacked, deadly force was not warranted. ...
The point is that any one of those blows to the head of the guy in the car could have done permanent or lethal damage. When the perp charged the fellow who fired a "warning" shot, could you havepersonally guaranteed that the potential assault on the front steps would not lead to lethal injuries and be held accountable if it did?
Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, especially when the quarterback isn't responsible for their calls.
-
"Could have" doesn't cut it. No reporting I've seen says anything about the victim being punched more than once. And regardless, the victim was not even in the area when the shots, including the initial warning shot, was fired. Deadly force to stop the theft of a car is NOT justified, no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it. Since the victim was not in the area, not being assaulted anymore, take him out of the equation. The shooter was no longer intervening to protect his life, he was no longer in danger. Sure, if he was still getting beaten by the suspect, then an intervention would be appropriate, but HE WASN'T EVEN IN THE AREA. That is exactly the same as me coming to your house saying the guy in the front yard just punched me and you going outside and shooting him. Not justified in that scenario, right?
-
You are assuming that the news stories associated with this event are complete and 100% accurate. Sure they interview an authorized spokesperson but what are the new agencies leaving out because they have an anti-gun bias? What information is being held back by the police agency because this is still an open investigation?
You are basing all of your assumptions on what may or not be honest reporting by biased news companies that are in the business to make money.
And regardless, the victim was not even in the area when the shots, including the initial warning shot, was fired.
Where was he in relation to his motor car? Define area. Yards? Feet? Miles?
Why are you ignoring the fact that the suspect exited the vehicle he forcibly car jacked and (depending on what story you read) approached or charged the homeowner?
You are carrying on as if this is the whole complete story.
Nothing I have read states that the suspect was verbally threatening the homeowner. Nothing states he wasn't either.
Nothing I have read states that the suspect was unarmed. Of course nothing says he was armed either.
To implicitly state that this was NOT a justifiable instance of self-defense based solely on all of the information you DO NOT have is doing your fellow gun owners a severe disservice and playing right into the hands of the grabbers.
-
Wrong. I'm basing MY OPINION on just the information reported, right or wrong. Almost everyone else is adding stuff to the story. I'm not saying what has been reported is gospel, but using ONLY the information provided to base it on. I'm not basing it on some other incident or that he was beaten within an inch of his life or anything else because that is not the information which has been provided. There may well be information which has not been reported which may make everything justified, but it HAS NOT been reported. So, quit reading into it, assigning some other attributes, or adding to the story and base it strictly on the information given and there's no way to justify what happened. Oh yeah...every single story says the suspect approached AFTER the warning shot was fired. And as far as me basing my entire opinion on the belief that what is being reported is complete and accurate, you're guilty of the same thing...you base yours on what may or may not be honest reporting. And you said it yourself...the suspect had to exit the vehicle to approach the house and the 16 year old was already out of the vehicle and no longer being assaulted, hence no more violent act against him.
-
"Could have" doesn't cut it. No reporting I've seen says anything about the victim being punched more than once.
Once is enough. Besides a single punch, even if it wasn't lethal, the person hit may fall to the ground and experience a lethal concussion to the brain when his head hits the floor or pavement.
And regardless, the victim was not even in the area when the shots, including the initial warning shot, was fired. Deadly force to stop the theft of a car is NOT justified, no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it. Since the victim was not in the area, not being assaulted anymore, take him out of the equation. The shooter was no longer intervening to protect his life, he was no longer in danger. Sure, if he was still getting beaten by the suspect, then an intervention would be appropriate, but HE WASN'T EVEN IN THE AREA. That is exactly the same as me coming to your house saying the guy in the front yard just punched me and you going outside and shooting him. Not justified in that scenario, right?
It doesn't matter where the original victim was, the perp directed his hostilities toward the one who gave a warning shot. When the perp charged the person with the gun that person was now at risk of possible lethal injuries, directly from a punch or indirectly from a fall resulting from a punch. That the perp was charging a man with a gun is evidence that he had no regard for life, even his own, or that he was drugged out.
I was taught years ago that one does NOT pull a gun unless he intends to use it. I was also taught that if you feel the need to shoot, then shoot to kill. Even the police are taught that, and many YouTube videos show that they put it into practice, sending a full magazine of bullets into the perp as quickly as they can.
While hindsight is always 20-20. As the Zimmerman case established, twisting events with 20-20 hindsight can create an illusion of guilt that isn't real.
-
Once is enough. Besides a single punch, even if it wasn't lethal, the person hit may fall to the ground and experience a lethal concussion to the brain when his head hits the floor or pavement. BUT HE DIDN'T...quit with the what ifs and could haves and stick to what DID happen as reported (whether the report is accurate or not)
It doesn't matter where the original victim was, the perp directed his hostilities toward the one who gave a warning shot. By firing the warning shot, he became the aggressor.
While hindsight is always 20-20. As the Zimmerman case established, twisting events with 20-20 hindsight can create an illusion of guilt that isn't real. The rest of you guys defending the shooters actions are the ones twisting the events...I'm simply going off just the information reported.
-
If this is an open and shut case of wrongful death, I wonder why LPD has not made an arrest or the City attorney has not filed any charges?
-
No one died. The suspect, to my knowledge, will be arrested when medically cleared, and it's still up in the air as to what charges, if any, the shooter will face.
-
I cant find the online LJS link now, but Im pretty sure I read yesterday that the DA said that no charges would be filed against the individual that fired the rifle.
66bigblock
-
The last update I see to this story is Monday. This is now Thursday.
http://www.1011now.com/home/headlines/Man-Shot-During-Robbery-267824451.html?device=phone (http://www.1011now.com/home/headlines/Man-Shot-During-Robbery-267824451.html?device=phone)
In contrast, and in fairness to the media, they have kept us up to date on the soap in the 27th street fountain story.
http://www.klkntv.com/story/26087467/city-fountain-vandalized (http://www.klkntv.com/story/26087467/city-fountain-vandalized)
-
No one died.
You're right, I forgot that that the perp lived.
-
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/25/zemubyve.jpg)
Interesting update!
Police: Man shot in attempted robbery arrested http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/article_2c907729-7969-5b96-a81d-0d9d7d8b1139.html (http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/article_2c907729-7969-5b96-a81d-0d9d7d8b1139.html)
Seems this is the same gentelman that was walking around nude on I-80 a few days ago, kicking cars that stopped to help him.
http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/naked-man-arrested-on-i/article_37ff3101-a5b4-5caa-8b43-299af3dc441e.html (http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/naked-man-arrested-on-i/article_37ff3101-a5b4-5caa-8b43-299af3dc441e.html)
Still no word on the good samaritan homeowner with a rifle. Given this guys rap sheet, guessing the homeowner is off the hook with some advice to flick the deadbolt next time.
This bad guy is a real piece of work.
How did he get from nude on the interstate attacking cars, to where he was shot a couple days later?
Was he out on bond? Seems like a 30 day look over at a mental hospital would have kept him from getting into more trouble.
-
Germain to this discussion about self-defense shooting of an unarmed assailant is a story today in the LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-good-samaritan-killed-child-attack-20140725-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-good-samaritan-killed-child-attack-20140725-story.html)
Ortega shielded the child from what appeared to be an "imminent" attack and told the man to leave the child alone. The man punched Ortega in the face and fled the restaurant, said Los Angeles Police Department West Bureau homicide Det. Steven Katz.
Ortega filed a battery report and told police officers he would seek his own medical care, Katz said. Two days later, Ortega checked himself into Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and complained of a headache and vomiting, Katz said.
He died from his injuries July 14. The coronor's office determined Wednesday that Ortega died of blunt force trauma and listed his death as a homicide, Katz said.
All it takes is a single punch. The vic didn't even feel injured enough to take himself to the hospital following the incident, but unknown to him the blow obviously created a small bleeder in his brain. As the area affected grew and the blood clotted, it cut off circulation to additional areas of his brain. Eventually, enough of his brain was damaged that he died.
Even if the blow to the head isn't sufficient to cause a bleeder, if the blow is enough to knock the vic down and in the fall he strikes his head on the pavement, THAT is sufficient to cause a lethal bleeder. Neeson Iam's wife was standing on ski's and slipped. Her head hit snow and that was all it took. While the brain case was stopped by the snow, the brain inside was not, and it continued down, striking the inside back of the brain case with enough force to create the bleeding which eventually killed her.
Never be so stupid as to give a perp a free punch before you feel justified in defending yourself. After all, the "peace maker" was the weapon that made the 90 pound weakling equal to the 200 lb bully.
-
It's been almost a month now. A google search is revealing no updates on the person who shot in self-defense and whether he was charged, exonerated, or kept in limbo.
Anyone know what ever became of this?
The comments on local social media and traditional media web pages were relatively supportive of the guy, so I was wondering if they were going to wait for the story to fade in everyone's memory before they charged him. ::)
-
I have looked almost daily for some news on this, nothing. A prosecutor may want to wait to see how the bad guy heals up, before making any decisions?
-
A prosecutor may want to wait to see how the bad guy heals up, before making any decisions?
That shouldn't play into a prosecutor's decision to charge the shooter or not, if he's doing his job correctly.