West Salem man defends family, shoots bad guy

imported post

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709200347

There are a lot of problems with this story, like shooting through the door without knowing the target and beyond, etc. But still, it ended well--Good Guy 1, Bad Guy shot in the leg and now in jail.

imported post

I personally know this guy. He is very responsible and though he may not have a through knowledge of guns, he does have the common sense not to just shoot at anything. He shot down at the ground from right behind the door. He knew that the worst that could happen was a ricochet might go across the street but the chances are pretty slim of anyone getting hurt. That is whole lot better odds than letting the guy come into thehouse and then trying to shoot him! He looked out the top of thedoor though a little window and saw the guy charging again seconds before he shot. He knew the target and what was beyond it.

From the way he tells it, everything was done perfectly. I don't know how he could have improved the way he did it other than the fact that his gun wasn't loaded at the time. Thankfully the door held long enough for him to get his gun and load it.

If you have any other questions I would be glad to help out if I can!

imported post

blk wrote:

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709200347

There are a lot of problems with this story, like shooting through the door without knowing the target and beyond, etc. But still, it ended well--Good Guy 1, Bad Guy shot in the leg and now in jail.

Click to expand...

This was a trainwreck. It did not "end well."

When the gun was loaded, Gerasimenko said he gave one final warning -- he whacked the butt of the gun into his front door about 10 times, putting a dent in the door. He looked through the peephole and saw the man preparing to take another running charge into the door.

"At that point, I realized I can't take any chances with this guy," he said. "I decided to give two warning shots."

He stood back from the door and pointed his gun at a downward trajectory, toward the sidewalk, then fired twice.

The pounding stopped. Gerasimenko said he stepped outside, locked the door behind him and pointed the gun in the man's face. He asked why the intruder was trying to break in, but the man wouldn't answer him.

"I asked, 'Are you shot?' He looked down at his leg and said, 'Yes, I'm shot.' I don't think he knew it before then," Gerasimenko said.

He's quite lucky he didn't kill the drunken SOB.

I had a very similar incident happen to me about 25 years ago. Some guy trying to get into my apartment on a Sunday evening. Banging on the door and trying to push it in. I pulled my revolver and ordered him to get away from my front door. Guy refused to respond. Hejust spoke in a grunting and incomprehensible manner. If he came through the door, a rather flimsyone--easily kicked in--I was prepared to shoothim. Had time, means, fearand justification. Mywife called 911.

Thank God, I didn't have to shoot the intruder. Turned out he was just a drunken fool who didn't speak english. Lived two or three blocks away in an apartment building heowned--justlike mine. He was just too blotto to know the difference. Cops came and got him.

I seeno particularly good reason for Gerasimenko to have shot the drunk in thiscase. He had great reason to be concerned about the safety of him and his family--for sure. But that doesn't necessarily mean he can just start shooting. I think he panicked a bit. But the drunk did do enough (plenty enough) to warrant being treated as a threat--including the use of deadly force.

It didn't turn out "well" as far as I can tell.Just lucky Gerasimenko didn't keep shooting. It's a bad strategy to kill an unarmed person.

imported post

HankT you say that he was lucky he didn't kill the idiot but I was going to say that the idiot was lucky he didn't get killed. In Oregon he had every right and perfect cause to kill the guy.Yev showed a lot more control than some people would have. I think in this case that guy should be thanking Yev for not opening the door and shooting him in the chest.

This guy smashed his body against the door at least 7 times. The frame was falling in and the door was totally bent in. If this guy wasn't intent on harming this family then why did he continue? Unarmed you say? I teach my students to understand that anyone with the ability to do you harm is armed. This guy had a 2 day old baby and a wife to think about, the last thing he needed was an out of control drunkguy coming into the house. That guy was not only a threat but a deadly threat. Did he need to prove that in order for you to justify shooting?

I think the moral of the story is, don't body slam ANY door, especially if you don't know English

imported post

Deovin1 wrote:

HankT you say that he was lucky he didn't kill the idiot but I was going to say that the idiot was lucky he didn't get killed. In Oregon he had every right and perfect cause to kill the guy.Yev showed a lot more control than some people would have. I think in this case that guy should be thanking Yev for not opening the door and shooting him in the chest.

This guy smashed his body against the door at least 7 times. The frame was falling in and the door was totally bent in. If this guy wasn't intent on harming this family then why did he continue? Unarmed you say? I teach my students to understand that anyone with the ability to do you harm is armed. This guy had a 2 day old baby and a wife to think about, the last thing he needed was an out of control drunkguy coming into the house. That guy was not only a threat but a deadly threat. Did he need to prove that in order for you to justify shooting?

I think the moral of the story is, don't body slam ANY door, especially if you don't know English

Click to expand...

No reason why we cannot both be right, D1. The drunk certainly put himself into a situation where he could get hisself killed. But the guy was not only unarmed, he was blotto drunk. Hey, that's an interesting point, come to think of it. Gerasimenko had to know the guy was drunk. So, that's a clue that the guy might have been, well, might have been a drunken lout looking for his own place or something. Could he be a danger? Sure. And, certainly if the drunk had some intent to do harm to the guy, the wife, or the 2-day old baby, then fine--You can have him...give us Barabas.

But the odds are, far more likely, that he's just a goof with a drunk on. Gerasimenkowould likely have legal justification for killing thebastard. Butthat doesn't conclusively make it a good idea.Killing a man who is really presenting a threat to you and yours is a good idea. Killing a man who is drunk and presents no real threat (is just making interpreted sounds like he is) is not that great of an idea. How do you tell the difference? Good question, that.

Killing unarmed and blotto drunkgoofs is simply not a great idea. It should be avoided if at all possible. Shooting them is not all that great either but at least it's not that bad. Shooting people is a serious thing. Very serious. It should be done only when absolutely necessary. The converse is true, too. It should be done every time it is necessary. I don't see that Gerasimenko did very well at all in his incident.


BTW, D1, do you teach your students to fire multiple warning shots through doors into apartment hallways at thigh height level?

Just wonderin'.

imported post

Maybe if I ask aquestion it might clear it up for me. At what point wouldyou have shot the guy? When he was in your house and charging you? When hewas actuallybeating you or your loved one? I amreally curious as to what you consider a good time to press that trigger. I don't have much experience withdrunks but I am guessing that one that is beating down a door (even if he thinks it is his) isn't really in control and has a very high chance of hurting someone.
Gerasimenko wasn't looking to shoot someone. That guy came after them.



No, I don't teach my students to fire warning shots. I teachmy students to stop a threat. If that means without presenting a gun then great, but if they have to shoot they need to stop the threat. There are times for warning shots...they may be few and far between but there is a time for them. I don't necessarily think that this was a good time for it but it did stop the threat.

imported post

A zillion dollars for a twit filter in the forum software!

Hank, your latest obsession is hopelessly tiresome and a complete distraction to the topics at hand. Nobody here, not a single soul, is eager to shoot somebody just for the thrill of it. Grow up, and get a life. Better yet, get a new hobby that takes you far, far away from these parts.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Deovin1 wrote:

Click to expand...

HankT you say that he was lucky he didn't kill the idiot but I was going to say that the idiot was lucky he didn't get killed. In Oregon he had every right and perfect cause to kill the guy.Yev showed a lot more control than some people would have. I think in this case that guy should be thanking Yev for not opening the door and shooting him in the chest.

This guy smashed his body against the door at least 7 times. The frame was falling in and the door was totally bent in. If this guy wasn't intent on harming this family then why did he continue? Unarmed you say? I teach my students to understand that anyone with the ability to do you harm is armed. This guy had a 2 day old baby and a wife to think about, the last thing he needed was an out of control drunkguy coming into the house. That guy was not only a threat but a deadly threat. Did he need to prove that in order for you to justify shooting?

I think the moral of the story is, don't body slam ANY door, especially if you don't know English

Click to expand...

No reason why we cannot both be right, D1. The drunk certainly put himself into a situation where he could get hisself killed. But the guy was not only unarmed, he was blotto drunk. Hey, that's an interesting point, come to think of it. Gerasimenko had to know the guy was drunk. So, that's a clue that the guy might have been, well, might have been a drunken lout looking for his own place or something. Could he be a danger? Sure. And, certainly if the drunk had some intent to do harm to the guy, the wife, or the 2-day old baby, then fine--You can have him...give us Barabas.

But the odds are, far more likely, that he's just a goof with a drunk on. Gerasimenkowould likely have legal justification for killing thebastard. Butthat doesn't conclusively make it a good idea.Killing a man who is really presenting a threat to you and yours is a good idea. Killing a man who is drunk and presents no real threat (is just making interpreted sounds like he is) is not that great of an idea. How do you tell the difference? Good question, that.

Killing unarmed and blotto drunkgoofs is simply not a great idea. It should be avoided if at all possible. Shooting them is not all that great either but at least it's not that bad. Shooting people is a serious thing. Very serious. It should be done only when absolutely necessary. The converse is true, too. It should be done every time it is necessary. I don't see that Gerasimenko did very well at all in his incident.


BTW, D1, do you teach your students to fire multiple warning shots through doors into apartment hallways at thigh height level?

Just wonderin'.

Click to expand...

First off, here and anywhere with an ounce of common sense, of course New Joisey isn't that place so don't try to force your moronic laws and ideas on the rest of us. in response to the major issue for you, drunk and unarmed; NMP or to spell it out "Not My Problem". Anyone, drunk, sober, fat skinny, whatever; you come trying to break down my door and you will, not might but WILL get shot and if you are lucky my wife won't be doing the shooting. When the slide locks back or the revolver goes click click or the shotgun clicks after the slide is jacked is her policy. Try using logic and think about some goon, drunk, high, sober, whateverbanging on your door, breaking it and you won't shoot? Then you are unaware of what your responsibilities are to yourself and you family. Here in Washington the law is "We have no requirement to retreat from the threat and have a clear State Constitutional right to defend ourselves, family and friends. But drunk was his choice and unarmed just doesn't matter. I like guys who come to a gun fight armed with a knife, it shows they really are stupid.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Deovin1 wrote:

Click to expand...

HankT you say that he was lucky he didn't kill the idiot but I was going to say that the idiot was lucky he didn't get killed. In Oregon he had every right and perfect cause to kill the guy.Yev showed a lot more control than some people would have. I think in this case that guy should be thanking Yev for not opening the door and shooting him in the chest.

This guy smashed his body against the door at least 7 times. The frame was falling in and the door was totally bent in. If this guy wasn't intent on harming this family then why did he continue? Unarmed you say? I teach my students to understand that anyone with the ability to do you harm is armed. This guy had a 2 day old baby and a wife to think about, the last thing he needed was an out of control drunkguy coming into the house. That guy was not only a threat but a deadly threat. Did he need to prove that in order for you to justify shooting?

I think the moral of the story is, don't body slam ANY door, especially if you don't know English

Click to expand...

No reason why we cannot both be right, D1. The drunk certainly put himself into a situation where he could get hisself killed. But the guy was not only unarmed, he was blotto drunk. Hey, that's an interesting point, come to think of it. Gerasimenko had to know the guy was drunk. So, that's a clue that the guy might have been, well, might have been a drunken lout looking for his own place or something. Could he be a danger? Sure. And, certainly if the drunk had some intent to do harm to the guy, the wife, or the 2-day old baby, then fine--You can have him...give us Barabas.

But the odds are, far more likely, that he's just a goof with a drunk on. Gerasimenkowould likely have legal justification for killing thebastard. Butthat doesn't conclusively make it a good idea.Killing a man who is really presenting a threat to you and yours is a good idea. Killing a man who is drunk and presents no real threat (is just making interpreted sounds like he is) is not that great of an idea. How do you tell the difference? Good question, that.

Killing unarmed and blotto drunkgoofs is simply not a great idea. It should be avoided if at all possible. Shooting them is not all that great either but at least it's not that bad. Shooting people is a serious thing. Very serious. It should be done only when absolutely necessary. The converse is true, too. It should be done every time it is necessary. I don't see that Gerasimenko did very well at all in his incident.


BTW, D1, do you teach your students to fire multiple warning shots through doors into apartment hallways at thigh height level?

Just wonderin'.

Click to expand...

First off, here and anywhere with an ounce of common sense, of course New Joisey isn't that place so don't try to force your moronic laws and ideas on the rest of us. in response to the major issue for you, drunk and unarmed; NMP or to spell it out "Not My Problem". Anyone, drunk, sober, fat skinny, whatever; you come trying to break down my door and you will, not might but WILL get shot and if you are lucky my wife won't be doing the shooting. When the slide locks back or the revolver goes click click or the shotgun clicks after the slide is jacked is her policy. Try using logic and think about some goon, drunk, high, sober, whateverbanging on your door, breaking it and you won't shoot? Then you are unaware of what your responsibilities are to yourself and you family. Here in Washington the law is "We have no requirement to retreat from the threat and have a clear State Constitutional right to defend ourselves, family and friends. But drunk was his choice and unarmed just doesn't matter. I like guys who come to a gun fight armed with a knife, it shows they really are stupid.