• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

No charges against Moorhead man who shot teenaged intruder

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

Police have been criticized for taking a long time with this case.

No kidding! Six months? That's not thorough, particularly when other LEO departments make that decision in a couple of days, some even on the same day.

Six months is just ridiculous!
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

since9 wrote:
Police have been criticized for taking a long time with this case.
No kidding! Six months? That's not thorough, particularly when other LEO departments make that decision in a couple of days, some even on the same day.

Six months is just ridiculous!
Better late than never - at least they cannot be accused of making a hasty decision.

Yata hey
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

since9 wrote:
Police have been criticized for taking a long time with this case.

No kidding! Six months? That's not thorough, particularly when other LEO departments make that decision in a couple of days, some even on the same day.

Six months is just ridiculous!

True.

But that's why HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[suP]©[/suP] :

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



is so clearly a powerful concept.

I wish everyone would read and understand HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] before they do something like Vernon Allen did....
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
I wish everyone would read and understand HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] before they do something like Vernon Allen did....
Would that be before or after the drunken young man [in his physical prime] punched the [physically out of shape] late middleaged man?

Just how much physical abuse is enough for someone to endure before they should attempt to defend themselves?

Your postulate may look good on paper ... I don't see that it survives real world situations for very long for a majority of victims. A lot of things look good on paper. Not as many work in the real world.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

SFCRetired wrote:
okboomer wrote:
HankT wrote:
I wish everyone would read and understand HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] before they do something like Vernon Allen did....
Would that be before or after the drunken young man [in his physical prime] punched the [physically out of shape] late middleaged man?

Just how much physical abuse is enough for someone to endure before they should attempt to defend themselves?

Your postulate may look good on paper ... I don't see that it survives real world situations for very long for a majority of victims. A lot of things look good on paper. Not as many work in the real world.

The postulate is good on paper and in real life. It is bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person. However, the tactical situation may cause it to be necessary.
Exactly. The tactical realities may cause you to have to do something you really, really would be better off NOT doing. This usually (not always) due to a failure to implement, resourceand maintain a strategy that would avoid the tactical situation that forces one to shoot an unarmed person.

In other words, shooting an unarmed person--even in those cases that may be fully justified under the law--are failures in strategy.



This particular case is a very good example of exactly that. The disparity of age and physical condition made the use of deadly force necessary.

There are many different scenarios where the tactical necessity outweighs the strategic goals.

Obviously right on both counts. And there are many, many cases where the tactical "necessity" could have been obviated with even just a moderate amount of strategic emphasis/awareness.

Thank you for your comments and analysis.
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

How do you 'shoot to wound' with a shotgun and the target is holding it pointing
at their chest?

Hey pops, if having a gun pulled on you doesn't make you leave, then pulling the
trigger is going to rectify the problem not cause it.
If he leaves the home where he encountered a women, but not this one.....
Hmmm, could he be a casket homo? Leaves women alone, but attacks men.
Either that or he was there to steel a gun to use against someone else.

Maybe if he hadn't skipped school that day they told all the 'children' about
EVIL guns, he would have known not to touch the gun.:banghead:

I do agree though, the law should be changed to stop this 6 months of waiting
to clear a home shooting. You have fingerprints on the barrel, blood splatter
in the premises, blood tests to prove an illegal drunk. Should be a week at most.

Vince Foster DID commit a crime, and they cleared him before they even inspected
the scene, body or gun.
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
Exactly. The tactical realities may cause you to have to do something you really, really would be better off NOT doing. This usually (not always) due to a failure to implement, resourceand maintain a strategy that would avoid the tactical situation that forces one to shoot an unarmed person.

In other words, shooting an unarmed person--even in those cases that may be fully justified under the law--are failures in strategy.



This particular case is a very good example of exactly that. The disparity of age and physical condition made the use of deadly force necessary.

There are many different scenarios where the tactical necessity outweighs the strategic goals.

Obviously right on both counts. And there are many, many cases where the tactical "necessity" could have been obviated with even just a moderate amount of strategic emphasis/awareness.

Thank you for your comments and analysis.
Pray tell, troll, how did the victim (Allen) fail strategically? The intruder walked into Allen's house uninvited and assaulted Allen! How was shooting the armed (he had fists and used them to assault Allen) intruder a "bad decision"?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

4angrybadgers wrote:
Pray tell, troll, how did the victim (Allen) fail strategically? The intruder walked into Allen's house uninvited and assaulted Allen! How was shooting the armed (he had fists and used them to assault Allen) intruder a "bad decision"?
Anger management problem?

We do not casually bandy the term "troll" here - particularly with regard to sincere and dedicated posters.

Yata hey
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
4angrybadgers wrote:
Pray tell, troll, how did the victim (Allen) fail strategically? The intruder walked into Allen's house uninvited and assaulted Allen! How was shooting the armed (he had fists and used them to assault Allen) intruder a "bad decision"?
Anger management problem?

We do not casually bandy the term "troll" here - particularly with regard to sincere and dedicated posters.

Thanks, GS. I appreciate it.

9.gif
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
imported post

SFCRetired wrote:
As a guess, the strategic failure would be a failure to adequately secure his premises. I don't know all the details of how the young man gained entry, but, again, that would be my best guess.

No one, least of all me, said Allen made a bad decision. When he was faced with the situation, he did what he had to do to preserve his life and his health.

For the record, I am not a troll. I do try toanalyze situations such as this one and find preventive measures that I can apply to my daily life. In this particular case, it was a reminder to both keep all means of entrance into my home secured and to keep my weaponry where it is instantly available.
My question was directed at HankT, since he's the one talking the most about "strategic mistakes". But thanks for the response - and no, I'm not being sarcastic. :)

It is possible that Allen didn't secure his residence enough. But that leads to the question, just what is "enough"? A dedicated enough intruder can get past any commonly available doors/locks/alarms/etc., and after a certain point it becomes prohibitively expensive to fortify your residence any further. (Not to mention, if you rent you may not be allowed to do much at all in the way of security.)

And in some occasions, victims just could not avoid being confronted by an assailant. So to say that a victim made a "strategic mistake" when assaulted

Grapeshot wrote:
Anger management problem?

We do not casually bandy the term "troll" here - particularly with regard to sincere and dedicated posters.

Yata hey
And neither do I. He's throwing around bad ideas like his faulty "postulate" and refuses to directly answer questions people ask about the holes in his "postulate" (see above for a prime example). Have you seen how he likes to bandy his "postulate" in situations where the assailant's lack of a gun ("unarmed" in HankT's mind) was made completely irrelevant by much larger issues? The "troll" accusation is because he apparently just likes stirring the pot and causing misinformation. Call a spade, a spade.

If HankT really is sincere and dedicated in his attempts to confuse people with his "postulate", then that is truly a scary thought.
 

REX681959

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
142
Location
Wentworth, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Here's my postulate for home defense. THIS IS MY HOME, I don't give a d*** if I leave all the windows open & the doors unlocked, if you come in uninvited you will get what you deserve.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

REX681959 wrote:
Here's my postulate for home defense. THIS IS MY HOME, I don't give a d*** if I leave all the windows open & the doors unlocked, if you come in uninvited you will get what you deserve.
+several million....while it may be tactically unsound to leave your home unsecured, even while inside, it does NOT give someone the right to enter uninvited, and certainly not to attack you while they are there. The punk got what he deserved. Anyone who thinks the victim here was wrong in any way is a real piece of work.....
 

jofrdo

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
14
Location
, ,
imported post

I carry OC spray to deal with unarmed assailants, so as not to have to shoot shomeone who is unarmed.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
imported post

jofrdo wrote:
I carry OC spray to deal with unarmed assailants, so as not to have to shoot shomeone who is unarmed.

I would agree to that if I only had myself to worry about. However, I have my wife, my daughter, and my granddaughter to be concerned about. I do not want to take a chance that the OC would not incapacitate the assailant if he were in my home.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
REX681959 wrote:
Here's my postulate for home defense. THIS IS MY HOME, I don't give a d*** if I leave all the windows open & the doors unlocked, if you come in uninvited you will get what you deserve.
+several million....while it may be tactically unsound to leave your home unsecured, even while inside, it does NOT give someone the right to enter uninvited, and certainly not to attack you while they are there. The punk got what he deserved. Anyone who thinks the victim here was wrong in any way is a real piece of work.....


What about a guy like Luke Groves? In 1990, at 18, he broke into a school (and copped a felony for it). If he broke into your your home, would you give him what he deserved (Shoot him)? What say you, Rex and C365?

Don't forget, though, that after he broke in and served his time, he became a model citizen. So, some would say he deserves a break



1245A Defender wrote:
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jan/29/bremerton-man-convicted-firearms-case-be-sentenced/

Groves was convicted of a felony — he broke into a Shelton-area school — in 1990, when he was 18 years old.
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/37366.html
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
REX681959 wrote:
Here's my postulate for home defense. THIS IS MY HOME, I don't give a d*** if I leave all the windows open & the doors unlocked, if you come in uninvited you will get what you deserve.
+several million....while it may be tactically unsound to leave your home unsecured, even while inside, it does NOT give someone the right to enter uninvited, and certainly not to attack you while they are there. The punk got what he deserved. Anyone who thinks the victim here was wrong in any way is a real piece of work.....


What about a guy like Luke Groves? In 1990, at 18, he broke into a school (and copped a felony for it). If he broke into your your home, would you give him what he deserved (Shoot him)? What say you, Rex and C365?

Don't forget, though, that after he broke in and served his time, he became a model citizen. So, some would say he deserves a break



1245A Defender wrote:
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jan/29/bremerton-man-convicted-firearms-case-be-sentenced/

Groves was convicted of a felony — he broke into a Shelton-area school — in 1990, when he was 18 years old.
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/37366.html
I'll be sure to stop any intruder for a chat over tea and scones about his morals and future plans... you know, just in case he's that one Luke Grove in a sea of millions of criminals. :quirky

I can't speak for the other two posters, but yes, if someone broke into my home, I'd defend myself and my family with all necessary force. If the intruder wanted to lead a respectable life, he shouldn't have violated the safety of my home.
 
Top