A guy called the fire department because he believed his unresponsive brother had a medical issue. The fire department was breaking the door down to check on the guy when the guy felt threatened and started shooting. Apparently, he didn't do anything illegal. No charges will be filed. I'm not sure my local fire department will do any welfare check-ins any time soon.


http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...efighter-Released-From-Custody-375965141.html

 

Tragic accident, the guy who called in the firemen is primary to blame IMO. He knew the firemen were on the way and could have opened the house for easy access while maintaining control of the unresponsive brother who had no clue to who was kicking down the door when he regained control of his mind.

 

This story is fishy and has components of both ambush and cover-up. All of the victims were adults. Why were only two of the three shooting victims identified? Why has the shooter not been identified? Can anyone recall shootings in which an adult shooter or victim was not identified? Did the shooter intentionally not answer the door? If he was non-responsive, how did he recover so quickly and with such good aim?

The Castle Doctrine requires that the force be both reasonable and justified. The shooter supposedly shot blindly from behind a closed door. Shooting blindly from behind a locked door has problems in both respects. Just as booby traps that fire blindly are not justified under the Castle Doctrine, even when the occupant is home. Was it reasonable for the shooter to to think his brother was trying to kill him? Can a non-responsive be considered to have acted reasonably? What if the person were intoxicated? The shooter fled and presented himself later to the police station. Sounds a little too much like what some other famous politician did after a friend's drowning.

Here is another case where shooting an intruder in Maryland led to a murder charge: http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/11/08/...-man-shoots-intruder-2am-gets-charged-murder/

Then there are the ripple effects. If this matter stays as it is now, will firefighters continue to make welfare checks? How will the state be able to ensure their reasonable safety?

John

 

Classic case of overkill. If you have a gun you make yourself known and announce it so that it is clear that you are prepared to use deadly force. This guy literally waited for them to get through so that he could surprise attack. And it should be shoot to disarm/disable not shoot to kill. Another reason why not having guns is so much better.

 

Not related to the story...
I want to disagree with the directive of shoot to disarm.

If a person breaks in your home AND he is armed with a deadly weapon of any kind. I will try my best to place a well grouped Salvo of shots into your "center of mass". Your chest.

I will not waste time or risk the lives of my family trying to shoot at a peripheral aspect of your body. I will not take aim at your gun in hand or shoot you in the leg. That is Hollywood marksmanship.

I will put the threat down and reload. In case you get back up like they do in those Hollywood movies.

 

@Kermit2

Or if you are like Arnold and constantly fire from the hip without reloading:

 

I don't have any magic Hollywood guns with ammo clips that never run out of bullets. Just years and years of firing range practice and weapon handling training.
If you don't like the idea of someone perforating your bag of bones, then do not enter their home while armed with a deadly weapon.
Your need to continue living will be met with success if you follow that suggestion

 

This story is fishy and has components of both ambush and cover-up. All of the victims were adults. Why were only two of the three shooting victims identified? Why has the shooter not been identified? Can anyone recall shootings in which an adult shooter or victim was not identified? Did the shooter intentionally not answer the door? If he was non-responsive, how did he recover so quickly and with such good aim?

The Castle Doctrine requires that the force be both reasonable and justified. The shooter supposedly shot blindly from behind a closed door. Shooting blindly from behind a locked door has problems in both respects. Just as booby traps that fire blindly are not justified under the Castle Doctrine, even when the occupant is home. Was it reasonable for the shooter to to think his brother was trying to kill him? Can a non-responsive be considered to have acted reasonably? What if the person were intoxicated? The shooter fled and presented himself later to the police station. Sounds a little too much like what some other famous politician did after a friend's drowning.

Here is another case where shooting an intruder in Maryland led to a murder charge: http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/11/08/...-man-shoots-intruder-2am-gets-charged-murder/

Then there are the ripple effects. If this matter stays as it is now, will firefighters continue to make welfare checks? How will the state be able to ensure their reasonable safety?

John

You hit all of my important objections to the turn of events.

 

A slightly different telling of the story.

http://www.ktvb.com/news/nation-now/police-man-who-shot-firefighter-released-from-custody/137849742

Neighbors said Sunday they opposed forced entries.

“To break down the door ... not knowing what’s going on, I think that needs to stop,” said Dylan Taylor, who also said he was not upset to hear police released his neighbor without filing any charges.

“I know he’s not that type of person, and I know he had some medical issues,” Taylor said.

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, the Washington Post reported.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...table-main_firefighters-1106am:homepage/story

The incident began about 7:30 p.m. Friday when firefighters and medics arrived at the home, said Mark Brady, a spokesman for the county department. The occupant’s brother was outside with them, he said, and the rescuers announced themselves loudly three times and knocked repeatedly.

Brady said the rescuers made the decision not to wait for police to arrive because they “felt compelled that there could be a medical emergency going on” and “had to enter the house as soon as possible.”

There is no set protocol governing when responders will enter a residence by force, he said. Rather, the decision is based on individual circumstances.