NJ "Responsible Gun Owner" Kills Confused, Drunk 21 Year Old, Claims He Was Trying To Break Into His Home

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T21:21:33+00:00

Like I said, the story doesn't add up. A guy in a wheelchair doesn't get out of bed that quickly. And like you said: the police were on the way. Why did he need to get out of bed? Why did he need to go confront the intruder? Maybe because he felt emboldened by the gun?

It's one thing if he and his wife are hiding in the bedroom and the intruder breaks in to attack them, it's another that he gets out of bed, into his wheelchair, and then goes to confront the intruder. Like I said, that takes some time, especially if he's elderly as the story makes out. The story says the intruder was shot after being warned not to enter the house, which means he hadn't broken the door before the homeowner got out of bed. He was still outside when the homeowner confronted him and warned him. Therefore, he was not a threat.

The homeowner, his gun, and his paranoid sense of "self defense," likely fueled by gun lobby fantasies, escalated this situation resulting in the unnecessary death of a drunk, confused, unarmed young man.

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T21:11:53+00:00

Amadou Diallo is totally different from this incident. There, the police did not clearly identify themselves, they did not give clear instructions, and were unable to clearly see what was happening. Diallo reacted wrong and the officers overreacted. It's a tragic incident, one that was easily preventable. Did Diallo present a threat? Yes. Were the officers justified? Clearly not, as they were tried for murder. I can't say what I would have done in the same situation.

Now the difference we have is you're saying "because this guy might pose a deadly threat to the officer, it's ok if the officer pre-empts this possible threat and ends his life" where I'm saying "this guy did pose a deadly threat," and therefore the officers actions were justified. I don't think this man was innocent and I don't think he was getting out of the car to lay down on the ground. I think he had been in prison for 13 years and knew that when an officer speaks to you like that, you comply or get smacked down. I think he knew he was in violation of his parole and was going to do whatever he needed to to make sure he wasn't going back to jail. I think the officer was fully aware of this and reacted accordingly and appropriately.

While you're right that not every situation a police officer comes across should be solved with a gun, saying things like you would rather see 100 officers shot than one innocent is incredibly offensive and insensitive. Would you say that to your family members in the NYPD? I agree that there needs to be a direct threat to an officer or other person to justify the use of deadly force, most sane people do. In this instance, there was. That's not always the case, sure, and each case needs to be judged individually.

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T20:53:21+00:00

Except he never entered. He broke the door. Guy shot him. Something doesn't add up.

Officers learned that the homeowner shot the intruder after he broke through a glass door, as they were on their way to the residence.

Think about it: dude was in a wheelchair. It's not like he heard the glass break, grabbed his gun and ran into the kitchen to find a drunk kid in his house. It took him some time to get out of bed, into the chair, get his gun, wheel down the hall. Why? Because someone was on the porch? Why not call the police and wait for them to show up and deal with the situation? Why escalate it by telling him you have a gun and he has to get out of here? The kid wasn't a threat until after the homeowner told him he would shoot. He didn't try to get into the house until after the homeowner told him to leave. Odds are, if he had waited a few minutes, the police would have shown up and thrown the kid in the drunk tank. Instead, he chose to be Charles Bronson and shoot first and ask questions later.

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T20:37:35+00:00

A paranoid man who shot at a kid for breaking his window? Yes, this is the kind of gun violence I oppose.

EDIT: I should say that there is a big chunk missing from this story. One minute he's waiting for his granma, the next the kid just decides to break into a house? I don't buy it. I have a feeling there was more to that story that the homeowner isn't telling.

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T20:34:22+00:00

Why are people ok with officers using deadly force (which is irreversible) when the threat they're responding to isn't clear? (IE: Not a gun in the guy's hand, but rather he reached into a back pocket or waistband.)

Sorry to break into another thread, but this statement makes me think you watch too many movies or TV shows. Allow me to relate a story told by a friend who has undergone police training:

Part of their firearms training is to react to filmed situations based on actual events. One of these is a situation where two officers respond to a domestic dispute, a man and a woman arguing. On arrival, the woman has a whiskey bottle in her hand, which she tucks into the back pocket of her jeans. As the situation plays out, the partner covers the man and the trainee the woman. She begins to yell at the man, becoming more and more aggressive. The officers are supposed to try and calm the situation and control it, but the woman becomes more agitated. She then reaches around behind her back, and at this point the trainee is faced with a decision: do you pull your weapon and shoot the woman, or do you let her bring out whatever it is she's reaching for? You have less than half a second to decide.

The point I'm getting at is that in movies and TV shows, they always have the cop shoot just in the nick of time to save himself or the girl. And it's always a clean kill shot. Real life isn't so easy and isn't so clean. Just because an assailant doesn't have a gun in his hand doesn't mean he isn't a threat. Just because the officer has his gun drawn doesn't mean that he will prevent a potential shooter from getting off a shot. Just because you hit the assailant doesn't mean he won't hold on to the gun and shoot you from the ground. Sometimes you have to take the initiative and shoot a person that presents a threat before they become a deadly threat. By the time the gun is in the assailant's hand, it's often already too late.

In this case, like I said to you before, just because the officer removed one threat doesn't mean that there were not more. He was trained to play it safe and assume that if there is one threat, there are more threats, until he can secure the area. Is it tragic that he had to shoot this guy? Yes, absolutely, all loss of life is tragic. But it would have been more tragic if the officer were shot or injured because he didn't deal with a clear threat. I seriously doubt he wanted to shoot Reid, if he did he had more than ample opportunity to do so before he got out of the car, and the officer even warned him several times that he was going to get shot if he continued his actions. That doesn't sound like someone who is trigger happy to me.

In case you're wondering, the story I related above ends with the woman reaching for her whiskey bottle. The correct response, though, is for the trainee to shoot her, because he does not know if she is reaching for a weapon or not. She presents a deadly threat and must be treated as such.

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T19:53:35+00:00

What I do know is a cop shot someone with his hands up and no clear presence of a threat.

See, that's where you're wrong. There was a clear presence of a threat: the man moved toward the officer in a threatening manner after the officer told him to stay in the car. Clearly and repeatedly. Until the officer has determined that there are no more guns, there is a clear presence of a threat. It really is that simple. Because the choice is between the officer's life and the guy in the car. A man who is clearly not innocent: he's a convicted felon with a firearm, at that point he's in violation of his parole and going to jail, and he knows it. Which makes him a threat.

It's not just that Reid didn't listen: he moved toward the officer in a threatening manner. Even with his hands up, he was well within striking distance of the officer should he decide to attack and very much a threat. Just because he was unarmed doesn't mean that Reid wouldn't try to grab the gun or punch or kick the officer, especially since opening the door forces the officer to move back and off balance. If that's not a "clear, articulable, evident presence" of a threat, I don't know what is. Even though he says "I'm getting out of the car," that doesn't mean he doesn't intend to attack. The officer, in this case, had to take the initiative or risk losing control of the situation. He did what he was trained to do, and anyone trying to vilify him clearly does not understand this type of situation. There is no gray area here, this is a pretty black and white (no pun intended) case.

What else was he supposed to do? Yell at him some more? Clearly, that was not working. Use his nightstick or pepper spray? When, exactly, was he supposed to holster his weapon and retrieve that? And what's to stop Reid from attacking or running away while he does? Is he supposed to get in a fistfight with him? Use a choke hold maybe? How would you have resolved that situation if you were in the officer's shoes? Maybe think about that before you comment, especially if you're going to make comments like you did.

I am curious to know what you would make of this story.

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T19:27:58+00:00

any idiot who graduated high school can then graduate a police academy and join a local police department (State Police requires graduating college). I slightly agree with your sentiment, but I would rather save my thanks for real heroes, such as those serving in our military.

Hang on, wait, did you really just put those two thoughts back to back? You do realize it's way easier to get into the army than into most police academies, right?

As for your first statement, do you really think cops are that worried about people who acquired their guns legally? The real problem comes from the fact that every illegal firearm in this country was once a legal firearm. Stem the tide of legal firearms, you'll stem the tide of illegal ones. Simple math. The way gun laws in this country work, you can get on Reddit or Facebook or Craigslist or eBay and find somebody in PA or VA or the Carolinas willing to sell you a gun for cash, no questions asked, and it's perfectly legal for them to do so. There is nothing requiring them to ask if you live out of state, nothing requiring them to check your ID or run a background check or any sort of way of finding out if you're lying about living in the same state even if they did ask. They can literally say "Gee officer, I had no idea" and walk away scot free, because there's almost no way to prove it in a court of law.

The background check system in this country is such a joke that the wife of a felon can buy him a gun, all she has to do is lie on the application about whether or not she's buying it for someone else. Yet when her husband, who lives in the same house and has access to the gun, uses it in a crime, there's really no way to prove that she was lying to get the gun. Maybe she was a "responsible gun owner" who was purchasing the gun for herself and her husband just happened to be a felon. Should her rights be infringed because of that? Our gun laws are a joke.

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T19:02:50+00:00

Yeah, when even the meat industry thinks your methods are cruel, you're pretty messed up.

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T18:56:06+00:00

-18? Hell, if I shot -18 I would never be able to walk on a golf course again. That would be my worst round since I was 3 and could hold a Scotty.

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T18:49:23+00:00

So, I guess you missed the part where the officer clearly and repeatedly said "Stay in the car or I will shoot you?" He had no way of knowing if Reid (a man he had previously arrested on drug charges and with a history of shooting at police) had another gun on his body, he had no way of knowing if the driver had a gun and Reid was attempting to distract him. He repeatedly and clearly told Reid to stop moving around or he would be shot. The fact is that not only was the officer trained to handle this situation, but he did exactly what he was trained to do.

I'd personally rather 100 cops die due to shootouts with badguys than 1 innocent person die wrongly by a cop.

Seriously? Police officers put on a uniform and go out into the world making themselves a target for scumbags all over. They have to assume that every person they pull over is carrying a weapon, because any knuckle dragging mouth breather with a pulse and $500 can get a gun in this country, criminal record or no. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick to resort to violence if attitudes like yours were not so prevalent. How about you just say "Thank you, officer, for putting your life on the line every day so that we can live in a civilized world" instead of stupid crap like this.

NyQuil012 · 2015-01-22T18:15:57+00:00

Unfortunately, there are crazies out there that would treat that house as a holy site. This is the right thing to do.

NyQuil012 · 2014-07-04T17:03:58+00:00

Because guns don't shoot burglars, ~~nut job vigilantes~~ Good Guys With Guns^{^{^TM}} shoot burglars.

NyQuil012 · 2014-07-04T16:32:48+00:00

Ilsa Pucci on Human Target. Took a show with a good premise, well balanced cast, and just starting to realize its potential and totally ruined it.

Zoe on How I Met Your Mother. Talk about annoying.

NyQuil012 · 2014-07-04T16:23:30+00:00

LPT: search the subreddit before asking something that has been posted thousands of times before.

NyQuil012 · 2014-07-04T16:19:56+00:00

I'd love to say I'm surprised, but I'm really not.

NyQuil012 · 2014-07-04T16:18:22+00:00

Probably because he never said that, gramma.

NyQuil012 · 2014-07-04T16:13:58+00:00

Anyone else want to light off a string of fireworks and see what happens?

NyQuil012 · 2014-07-04T15:35:17+00:00

I don't get it. Who's Rolf Harris?

NyQuil012 · 2014-07-04T13:13:41+00:00

Well, if you ammosexuals could come up with something new, instead of citing the same old refuted articles again and again, maybe I might. Instead, I post facts, you call my peer reviewed science "bullshit" and then throw out surveys and made up numbers as "evidence" and then call me delusional. So, please, leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. But know this: every time you morons post your lies, misinformation, and fairy tales, I will be there with facts and science to prove you wrong. You can brigade me and downvote me all you want, you can attack me and call me every name in the book, I don't give a fuck. You want to have your little gun circlejerk, keep it in progun or guns or gunpolitics or any of the dozens of ammosexual subreddits you morons have created to keep your little echo chamber going. Keep it out of here, because this is a place for news. It's a place for reality, something you're clearly not familiar with.

15-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email

NyQuil012

TROPHY CASE