REALLY, the person breaks into someone’s house – I am sure with intent to do wrong or harm. And the homeowner is charged because he is protecting himself. While it is sad the criminal has a child that no longer has a Dad – the “DAD” made that choice with the break-in…… Since when does the criminal have more rights than the law abiding citizen?????
Whether or not the shooter was justified in the death of the deceased, the perp wasn’t contributing much of anything to the quality of life of his daughter.
Other than what he ‘allegedly’ was stealing from the homes he saw while working as a door-to-door vacuum salesman, which allowed him to scope out potential targets.
And unfortunately, he became one.
And where’s the baby mama?
The lawyer filing the suit embodies the personal injury bar’s view in cases like this; namely that there is no right or wrong, only the question of how large a fee they can extract from the situation their plaintiff created and then suffered from.
Reasonable people understand there are legitimate legal actions for wrongful injury and death. This case is not one.
We The People should act to stop this brand of legalized extortion.
Totally with you on this one, Jack. Once you break in, I believe that your rights are gone. No sympathy as this is easy to avoid. Don’t break and enter into other people’s property. The case should be dismissed.
And the plaintiff attorney should pay all court costs as well. The key is that you want the perp inside when you shoot them, not out in the yard or garden. Totally justified if you do the right thing.
Breaking into someone’s house in the middle of the night? Let me understand this… you are supposed to wake up and decide if they are going to harm you and know if they are running away or just going to get a weapon. You are in the dark, half asleep right? I get it now…
This is the type of situation that needs to be addresed NOW. If we are to develope a more secure society then we must be allowed our 2nd amendment rights and we must be allowed to stop an uninvited intruder. Common since tells us if you are not supposed to be there then the property owner has the right to defent or protect their property. KISS, if it is mine then it is mine, keep your hands off my stuff and out of my house.
Ron, How would you feel about a lady who goes out and has 5 vodka drinks, then comes to your house and enters through your front door (someone forgot to lock) and approaches you while you are sitting on your couch. She doesn’t speak, she just is coming at you. She doesn’t respond to any of your questions or orders to stop or get out, and you don’t know she is drunk. She just wants to pass out on your couch, but you don’t know that. Do you use force to remove her? Do you have a dog that maybe would protect you by attacking her?
I cannot answer your question because I have never been in that situation. There are many other variables that would go into my decision. I may call 911 and just make sure she is not a threat to my family or me. However, if I feel I need to remove her immediately, because I have determined it is in the best interest of my family, then I will remove her using whatever means are necessary. If she gets harmed in the process, she cannot sue me. That is my point.
We have 2 dogs, neither are trained to attack anyone. I don’t live in fear.
I said that I only would, “if I feel I need to remove her immediately, because I have determined it is in the best interest of my family”. If I know she is an immediate threat, then I will take the necessary steps to protect my family. If she is just drunk and looking for somewhere to “sleep it off”, I will call 911, not release an attack dog, shoot her or beat her over the head with a baseball bat. It is call using reasonable force.
Absolutely they can, once they have thoroughly evaluated the entire situation. I know you are referring to the other article.
Can we agree that, if the officers KNEW the entire situation, they would have determined that releasing the dog on an innocent person was unnecessary? I understand that they will not KNOW the entire situation all of the time. However, they are suppose to be trained to handle situations while protecting the innocent. They failed this time.
April 11, 2016 at 11:00 am
Jack Kanauph says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron,
We most certainly can agree that if the officers knew she was drunk and not a threat, that releasing the dogs would have been a mistake.
Remember that the other story said the cops yelled out to her but there was no response. They had to clear the room to move on, and they did. While the outcome of the event was a failure, I don’t think it is fair to label the police as the failure.
Ron, thanks for the banter.
April 11, 2016 at 11:08 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Jack,
I agree that the officers did as they were trained and did not fail. That is why I phrased it the way I did. This not about the officers, it is about the training. Until dogs are trained to differentiate between a real threat (bad guy) and an innocent person, this policy needs to be changed.
I enjoyed it also. Maybe Agent, Bob, UW and some others can learn what a civil debate, without insults, between people who may not agree looks like.
April 8, 2016 at 3:28 pm
Not know she was drunk? says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
An 8 year old would know something was wrong. These are very different circumstances, Jack.
Normally, I would agree that the suit is ridiculous and should be dismissed. But the bit about shooting the thief in the back when he was running away gives me pause. Especially the part where the homeowner was originally charged with deliberate homicide for it.
If someone is actively breaking into your house and threatening you, then I agree that you have every right to to defend yourself. But if the person turns tail and starts to run away, you should lock your doors and call the police, not start shooting. Because if the person is running away and you still shoot him, it’s no longer self defense, but punitive.
And to make the situation worse, the homeowner tried to argue he shot the intruder as he was running towards him. Clearly the bullet’s entry wound in the thief’s back proved that statement to be false.
All that said, I completely agree if someone breaks into your house, you have the right to defend yourself.
BS, please see Insurancegirl’s comment. She nails it perfectly. I will be the first one to say the homeowner should have initially said he shot the perp as the guy was moving away. But none of us, if in the homeowner’s shoes, could know if the perp was going for a weapon or a more strategic point from which to shoot the homeowner.
As for punitive, it is a two-way street. The perp’s intended actions were strictly punitive to the homeowner, and with possibly fatal impact on the owner and any other resident of the home. The homeowner’s actions are completely justifiable against the criminal intruder, if within the confines of the owner’s own house.
I’ve read Insurancegirl’s comment and would agree with her completely if things had happened the way she guessed they did. I can’t say I wouldn’t do the exact same thing in that situation. But I did a quick Google search, and it doesn’t look like that’s what happened.
Wieder said that when he came home, he saw a strange car outside his house. But instead of calling the police right then, he armed himself and went inside. He claimed that once inside, he was confronted by the intruder, who he shot but escaped through a window.
But according to the police, that’s not how it happened:
“That scenario is not supported by the forensic evidence,” wrote state-hired William Schneck, of Microvision Northwest Forensic Consulting of Spokane, Washington, in his Feb. 15 report, the affidavit read. “…Henry Johnson was shot in the back as he was exiting the sewing room window…”
“As Henry Johnson approached the window he cranked it open and tore the window covering as he exited the window. The crank arm mechanism was found on the floor in the front of the window. The shot entered Mr. Johnson’s back at an angle left to right and slightly upward the moment he exited through the open window,” Schneck wrote. “There was no blood or any evidence of a bullet impacting the window, window covering or screen, therefore the window covering was already out of the bullet path before the shot was fired. If Henry Johnson was in the room away from the window when the shot was fired there would likely have been bloodstains with in the room.”
If the guy was escaping out of the window, the Wieder didn’t need to shoot him. He should have let him go and called the police – something he should have done before going into the house in the first place.
And please don’t think that I’m saying that Johnson is blameless in this whole thing. This never would have happened if he hadn’t been in Wieder’s house in the first place. But I think Wieder’s actions were unnecessary. Johnson didn’t need to die when he was running away and no longer a threat.
REALLY, the person breaks into someone’s house – I am sure with intent to do wrong or harm. And the homeowner is charged because he is protecting himself. While it is sad the criminal has a child that no longer has a Dad – the “DAD” made that choice with the break-in…… Since when does the criminal have more rights than the law abiding citizen?????
Whether or not the shooter was justified in the death of the deceased, the perp wasn’t contributing much of anything to the quality of life of his daughter.
Other than what he ‘allegedly’ was stealing from the homes he saw while working as a door-to-door vacuum salesman, which allowed him to scope out potential targets.
And unfortunately, he became one.
And where’s the baby mama?
Only in America can someone break into your home, threaten your life to the point of your having to defend yourself, and then you get sued!
The lawyer filing the suit embodies the personal injury bar’s view in cases like this; namely that there is no right or wrong, only the question of how large a fee they can extract from the situation their plaintiff created and then suffered from.
Reasonable people understand there are legitimate legal actions for wrongful injury and death. This case is not one.
We The People should act to stop this brand of legalized extortion.
Totally with you on this one, Jack. Once you break in, I believe that your rights are gone. No sympathy as this is easy to avoid. Don’t break and enter into other people’s property. The case should be dismissed.
And the plaintiff attorney should pay all court costs as well. The key is that you want the perp inside when you shoot them, not out in the yard or garden. Totally justified if you do the right thing.
If someone is stupid enough to break into someone’s home, he deserves whatever happens to him.
Breaking into someone’s house in the middle of the night? Let me understand this… you are supposed to wake up and decide if they are going to harm you and know if they are running away or just going to get a weapon. You are in the dark, half asleep right? I get it now…
This is the type of situation that needs to be addresed NOW. If we are to develope a more secure society then we must be allowed our 2nd amendment rights and we must be allowed to stop an uninvited intruder. Common since tells us if you are not supposed to be there then the property owner has the right to defent or protect their property. KISS, if it is mine then it is mine, keep your hands off my stuff and out of my house.
Here is my idea for tort reform:
If you are injured while breaking the law, including traffic laws, you must prove that you would have still been injured if were not breaking the law.
That is a GREAT idea!! Totally reasonable!
Ron, How would you feel about a lady who goes out and has 5 vodka drinks, then comes to your house and enters through your front door (someone forgot to lock) and approaches you while you are sitting on your couch. She doesn’t speak, she just is coming at you. She doesn’t respond to any of your questions or orders to stop or get out, and you don’t know she is drunk. She just wants to pass out on your couch, but you don’t know that. Do you use force to remove her? Do you have a dog that maybe would protect you by attacking her?
Jack,
I cannot answer your question because I have never been in that situation. There are many other variables that would go into my decision. I may call 911 and just make sure she is not a threat to my family or me. However, if I feel I need to remove her immediately, because I have determined it is in the best interest of my family, then I will remove her using whatever means are necessary. If she gets harmed in the process, she cannot sue me. That is my point.
We have 2 dogs, neither are trained to attack anyone. I don’t live in fear.
Ron, So you can remove her using whatever means are necessary, but when the cops and police dogs are put in this same position, they can’t?
Jack,
I said that I only would, “if I feel I need to remove her immediately, because I have determined it is in the best interest of my family”. If I know she is an immediate threat, then I will take the necessary steps to protect my family. If she is just drunk and looking for somewhere to “sleep it off”, I will call 911, not release an attack dog, shoot her or beat her over the head with a baseball bat. It is call using reasonable force.
Absolutely they can, once they have thoroughly evaluated the entire situation. I know you are referring to the other article.
Can we agree that, if the officers KNEW the entire situation, they would have determined that releasing the dog on an innocent person was unnecessary? I understand that they will not KNOW the entire situation all of the time. However, they are suppose to be trained to handle situations while protecting the innocent. They failed this time.
Ron,
We most certainly can agree that if the officers knew she was drunk and not a threat, that releasing the dogs would have been a mistake.
Remember that the other story said the cops yelled out to her but there was no response. They had to clear the room to move on, and they did. While the outcome of the event was a failure, I don’t think it is fair to label the police as the failure.
Ron, thanks for the banter.
Jack,
I agree that the officers did as they were trained and did not fail. That is why I phrased it the way I did. This not about the officers, it is about the training. Until dogs are trained to differentiate between a real threat (bad guy) and an innocent person, this policy needs to be changed.
I enjoyed it also. Maybe Agent, Bob, UW and some others can learn what a civil debate, without insults, between people who may not agree looks like.
An 8 year old would know something was wrong. These are very different circumstances, Jack.
Normally, I would agree that the suit is ridiculous and should be dismissed. But the bit about shooting the thief in the back when he was running away gives me pause. Especially the part where the homeowner was originally charged with deliberate homicide for it.
If someone is actively breaking into your house and threatening you, then I agree that you have every right to to defend yourself. But if the person turns tail and starts to run away, you should lock your doors and call the police, not start shooting. Because if the person is running away and you still shoot him, it’s no longer self defense, but punitive.
And to make the situation worse, the homeowner tried to argue he shot the intruder as he was running towards him. Clearly the bullet’s entry wound in the thief’s back proved that statement to be false.
All that said, I completely agree if someone breaks into your house, you have the right to defend yourself.
BS, please see Insurancegirl’s comment. She nails it perfectly. I will be the first one to say the homeowner should have initially said he shot the perp as the guy was moving away. But none of us, if in the homeowner’s shoes, could know if the perp was going for a weapon or a more strategic point from which to shoot the homeowner.
As for punitive, it is a two-way street. The perp’s intended actions were strictly punitive to the homeowner, and with possibly fatal impact on the owner and any other resident of the home. The homeowner’s actions are completely justifiable against the criminal intruder, if within the confines of the owner’s own house.
Hi County Line,
I’ve read Insurancegirl’s comment and would agree with her completely if things had happened the way she guessed they did. I can’t say I wouldn’t do the exact same thing in that situation. But I did a quick Google search, and it doesn’t look like that’s what happened.
Wieder said that when he came home, he saw a strange car outside his house. But instead of calling the police right then, he armed himself and went inside. He claimed that once inside, he was confronted by the intruder, who he shot but escaped through a window.
But according to the police, that’s not how it happened:
“That scenario is not supported by the forensic evidence,” wrote state-hired William Schneck, of Microvision Northwest Forensic Consulting of Spokane, Washington, in his Feb. 15 report, the affidavit read. “…Henry Johnson was shot in the back as he was exiting the sewing room window…”
“As Henry Johnson approached the window he cranked it open and tore the window covering as he exited the window. The crank arm mechanism was found on the floor in the front of the window. The shot entered Mr. Johnson’s back at an angle left to right and slightly upward the moment he exited through the open window,” Schneck wrote. “There was no blood or any evidence of a bullet impacting the window, window covering or screen, therefore the window covering was already out of the bullet path before the shot was fired. If Henry Johnson was in the room away from the window when the shot was fired there would likely have been bloodstains with in the room.”
If the guy was escaping out of the window, the Wieder didn’t need to shoot him. He should have let him go and called the police – something he should have done before going into the house in the first place.
And please don’t think that I’m saying that Johnson is blameless in this whole thing. This never would have happened if he hadn’t been in Wieder’s house in the first place. But I think Wieder’s actions were unnecessary. Johnson didn’t need to die when he was running away and no longer a threat.
(http://helenair.com/news/local/homeowner-who-killed-alleged-intruder-in-charged-with-homicide/article_79fdc3fc-5919-50d1-8a4d-79d2d415ca06.html)
No longer a threat but still a criminal that caused the whole incident
And…..?