Life and death
Back in the 90's, I lived on Maui. One morning around 4:00 AM my wife woke me up and was concerned that someone was trying to break into our house. I got up and sure enough, there was someone scratching on the sliding glass door in our living room. My view of the door was obstructed by the drawn curtain in front of the door. At that point I had my S&W mod.19 in hand. When I pulled back the curtain to get a good view (it was still pretty dark outside), I saw a rather large intimidating man with only underwear on standing there. He reached for the outside door handle and tried to slide the door open, but it was locked. He then proceded to the front door and began trying to open it (also locked). I went to the door and confronted him and found him to be what appeared to be drunk and insistant that he be let in. I might add, that at this point, my wife had called the police.
Well, you can imagine that your heart is pounding and all the options are running through your mind at this point. Should I have shot him at the sliding door he was trying to force open or should I shoot now (he could have broken the door easily and got in)?
I had to make an instant decision. Something inside me said "don't shoot". About that time he seemed to come to his senses and backed off. I went outside and after talking to him for a few minutes and found that he thought he was at his home down the street. He had just been released from the hospital the day before. He had had a very serious operation and was still messed up from the antethesia and had woken up in the middle of the night and ended up over at my house by mistake.
Gary and I became friends and are to this day. He is a really nice guy and would give you the shirt off his back.
The point is this; one can justify a shooting (what if he had harmed my family or me?) or take another road and don't shoot. Here is a case where if I had shot, I would have to live with that the rest of my life (especially after learning the facts). These decisions don't come easy some of the time. I sincerely hope you never have to make a decision like this.
Thanks for listening, PP
Well, you can imagine that your heart is pounding and all the options are running through your mind at this point. Should I have shot him at the sliding door he was trying to force open or should I shoot now (he could have broken the door easily and got in)?
I had to make an instant decision. Something inside me said "don't shoot". About that time he seemed to come to his senses and backed off. I went outside and after talking to him for a few minutes and found that he thought he was at his home down the street. He had just been released from the hospital the day before. He had had a very serious operation and was still messed up from the antethesia and had woken up in the middle of the night and ended up over at my house by mistake.
Gary and I became friends and are to this day. He is a really nice guy and would give you the shirt off his back.
The point is this; one can justify a shooting (what if he had harmed my family or me?) or take another road and don't shoot. Here is a case where if I had shot, I would have to live with that the rest of my life (especially after learning the facts). These decisions don't come easy some of the time. I sincerely hope you never have to make a decision like this.
Thanks for listening, PP
0
-
Who you calling a PP??[:0][:D] Thanks for sharing your story. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by watrulookinat
Who you calling a PP??[:0][:D] Thanks for sharing your story.
PP is me.[:D]0 -
Interesting story Paulie. 0 -
CAN BANG ON MY DOOR ALL THEY WANT WHILE THE COPS ARE ON THERE WAY BUT IF HE COMES THROUGH THAT DOOR THAN ALL HELLS GOING TO BREAK LOOSE. 0 -
It seems to me you have a good head on your shoulders and made the right decisions. Heck of a way to make a new friend though. 0 -
Twice in the states, I've had to draw a weapon on someone...the first instance was when I caught a peeping tom that had been terrorizing several wives in the appt complex I lived in. I came very close to killing him. He was the newspaper delivery guy and he had been spying on our wives when my fellow soldiers were not home. I made it absolutely clear that I had better never see his face again. He dropped that route and I never did see him again. I'm glad I did not shoot him, but he could have posed a serious threat to any one of our wives.
I'm not going to go into the second incident, but I probably should not have pulled my gun in this situation...it was just a situation of someone stealing from me...on more than one occassion. If I had it to do again, I would have taken it out of his hide...and not drawn a weapon.
I've learned from both experiences...0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Twice in the states, I've had to draw a weapon on someone...the first instance was when I caught a peeping tom that had been terrorizing several wives in the appt complex I lived in. I came very close to killing him. He was the newspaper delivery guy and he had been spying on our wives when my fellow soldiers were not home. I made it absolutely clear that I had better never see his face again. He dropped that route and I never did see him again. I'm glad I did not shoot him, but he could have posed a serious threat to any one of our wives.
I'm not going to go into the second incident, but I probably should not have pulled my gun in this situation...it was just a situation of someone stealing from me...on more than one occassion. If I had it to do again, I would have taken it out of his hide...and not drawn a weapon.
I've learned from both experiences...
Thanks for your input ECC.[:)]0 -
a good reason to know your neighborhood. you kept a cool head and kept him form entering at the same time as helping him[^] 0 -
Paulie,
I go by the unwritten rule cops used to go by. Never shoot unless you must stop someone immediately from doing what they are doing. Examples would be some knothead trying to kill someone, getting ready to throw a firebomb at an occupied dwelling, or someone coming at me with a knife. Scratching at the door probably would not cross the threshhold of any court as justification, therefore, as you two made friends, you obviously did the right thing.
A few years ago in New Orleans on Halloween night, some Einstein answered his door to a Japanese exchange student wearing a mask and waving his arms. Mr. dumbass homeowner proceeded to blow him away with a .44 mag. The poor kid was just trying to be scary and trick or treat.
When the case went to court, the jury ignored common sense in that it was Halloween, the kid wasn't armed and made no attempt to attack, and they gave the moron a pass. What's the moral of that story? That maybe there are a lot of people that are incapable of rational thought I guess. Glad you thought before you pulled the trigger.[:)]0 -
I don't think I'd shoot him through a glass door. That would be a hell of a mess. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
I don't think I'd shoot him through a glass door. That would be a hell of a mess.
YEa, and insurance would probably refuse to pay for it, since you intentionaly busted your own window [;)]0 -
yes/no....to shoot and unarmed man in his underwear.....boy, that takes a lotta thought.[:o)] 0 -
The decision to shoot involves a lot of thought. That thought process should go through the legal ramifications (which you should know, not just have an idea of what someone told them on the internet), and should include the the thought "is this person really a threat to me".
An unarmed man on the outside of the house doesn't reach that threshold of threat.
Good decision.0 -
reminds me of the DWI guy that got beat down... later they find out he was having a diabetic seizure and was not drunk at all. 0 -
Originally posted by p3skyking
Paulie,
I go by the unwritten rule cops used to go by. Never shoot unless you must stop someone immediately from doing what they are doing. Examples would be some knothead trying to kill someone, getting ready to throw a firebomb at an occupied dwelling, or someone coming at me with a knife. Scratching at the door probably would not cross the threshhold of any court as justification, therefore, as you two made friends, you obviously did the right thing.
A few years ago in New Orleans on Halloween night, some Einstein answered his door to a Japanese exchange student wearing a mask and waving his arms. Mr. dumbass homeowner proceeded to blow him away with a .44 mag. The poor kid was just trying to be scary and trick or treat.
When the case went to court, the jury ignored common sense in that it was Halloween, the kid wasn't armed and made no attempt to attack, and they gave the moron a pass. What's the moral of that story? That maybe there are a lot of people that are incapable of rational thought I guess. Glad you thought before you pulled the trigger.[:)]
HELLO P3
i was working over there when this happen i do have a brain far t every now and then.
i thought it was the day before Halloween and the home owner came out the garage door and ask what the kid wanted but the kid not speaking English and the home owner told him to stop 2-3 times, but not understanding English the kid kept coming and the home owner shot him. also the bigger stink was they asked why he chose a 44mag to do the deed. If IM wrong it wont be the last time IM sure. this did happen some years back and im trying to forget them days in the oil patch (13 years of days)0 -
I had a similar situation about 25 years ago. My wife were living in a duplex while I was in school. One night about midnight someone started pawing at the front door. I turned on the light and it was a fellow obviously drunk but not listening to me telling him to leave. He then came around to the back door. I went and pulled out a rifle as I did not own a handgun at the time. Wife called the cops and we just waited. He tried to get in, but only by turning the knob (which was locked). If he would have came through the door, he would have died. Fortunately he sat down (passed out) and the police carted him off. They said he was local but not from our group of duplexes so I never saw him again.
Anyway, glad I was armed and glad I didn't have to shoot him.0 -
Back in the early 80's I was living up in Anchorage, Alsaka. There was an event where somebody was trying to come throught the front door of a home. The home owner shot throught the door killing a drunk native that (it was guess at) trying to enter his friends place a couple of doors down. The shooter was tried and found guilty of murder and sentenced to prison.
My point here is IF you pull a weapon for defence, KNOW what you are doing! Don't start thinking about once when your IN the situation. Normally the police or other groups offer classes for CW permits and go over this situation. Would be hard for most people to live with this if they "guessed" wrong.0 -
To kill, or not to kill, that is the question.
as macho as we all try to be, I cannot imagine that taking someones life would be a pleasant expierence. I think that it should be , no, it must be the last course of action.95% of situation do not require the use of a gun, I know that I'm going to get a hundred what if senarios, and I'm not going to question a man with or without a knife or gun threatning someone, but like in this case there was a reason not to shoot. the story about the peeper well thats a tossup.
If you are threatend, you have a excuse to draw a weapon, if you are accosted then and only then you have a right, and maybe duty, to use a gun.
I think flyin-paulie learned or figured out, (maybe even afterward) that he made the right decision. some times those decisons have to be made in an instant, I hope if called on that I am as lucky as flyin-paulie to make the proper one. God bless you, and thanks for sharing what was and possibly could have been a very grusome story.0 -
Thank all you folks who submitted thoughtful replies.
It is not always easy to say "what would I do in this situation" until you've been there.
I think it is fairly common for even an LEO to suffer after a "rightous" shooting.
I am just thankful I haven't had to experience that.0 -
nytimes.com
After Gunman's Acquittal, Japan Struggles to Understand America
By DAVID E. SANGER,
Published: May 25, 1993
From the moment a Japanese exchange student was shot to death near Baton Rouge, La., last October, the stereotype of the United States that streams across Japan's airwaves seemed amplified night after night: America the nation of gun-wielding paranoids, an out-of-control society where .44 Magnum revolvers are as common as toaster ovens.
Today, with the acquittal of Rodney Peairs, a homeowner who shot the 16-year-old Japanese high school student, Yoshihiro Hattori, just outside his door, Japan's anger shifted from America's gun culture to its justice system. Under what logic, television commentators and newspaper editorialists demanded, could the courts turn free a man who, under the Japanese legal system, would almost certainly be facing years in prison?
On Sunday a jury acquitted Mr. Peairs of manslaughter, finding that he acted reasonably as a frightened homeowner in firing his pistol at Mr. Hattori when the young man rushed toward him after knocking on his door while trying to find a Halloween party. Under Louisiana law, a person may use deadly force to protect himself from an intruder. Mr. Hattori had entered Mr. Peairs's carport when he was shot.
Mr. Peairs (pronounced peers) testified that he mistook Mr. Hattori for a burglar and that he fired at the teen-ager after Mr. Hattori failed to heed his warning to "freeze."
"I think for Japanese the most remarkable thing is that you could get a jury of Americans together, and they could conclude that shooting someone before you even talked to him was reasonable behavior," Masako Notoji, an associate professor of American cultural studies at the University of Tokyo, said this afternoon, echoing an opinion heard in various forms throughout the country today.
The answer, Professor Notoji concluded after searching for several more forgiving explanations, seemed simple. "We are more civilized," she said. "We rely on words."
Indeed, as the case moved through Louisiana's courts, the images from the Baton Rouge trial beamed across the Pacific Ocean seemed to crystallize a gulf between the two countries that goes far beyond language barriers, one that seems impervious to the yearly migration of millions of Japanese tourists to American shores. The case became the focus of intense interest in Japan because it seemed to confirm the Japanese view of America as a place rife with guns.
The verdict seemed to bolster Japan's growing conviction that, despite government proclamations to the contrary, its own values are very different from America's. How else, many here asked, could one excuse the shooting of a teen-ager dressed in a Halloween costume without first determining whether he even knew the meaning of the word "freeze."
The Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yohei Kono, seemed to be edging around that point when he told Japanese reporters today that the jury's decision made sense "in the context of America." Other Japanese commentators, a bit more direct and nationalistic, brusquely dismissed the verdict as more evidence that America is still a "developing nation," one still too young to break from its state-of-nature past.
The differences start, of course, with guns themselves. In the Japanese Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms does not exist. The few Japanese allowed to own guns must keep their firearms at nearby police stations.
The National Police Agency says that in 1991, the last year for which there are complete records, only 74 people died from gunshots in Japan, which has a population of about 120 million, about half that of the United States. And 67 of the deaths involved Japan's organized crime figures.
More than 24,000 Americans are killed by firearms each year, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In New York City, 73 percent of the 2,154 homicides in 1991 involved the use of handguns, Deputy Police Chief Michael A. Markman said.
For many Japanese, the contrasts seem particularly stark not only in the gun closet but also in the courtroom.
Japanese journalists reported back home with amazement in their voices that the Louisiana defense lawyer had used his peremptory challenges to insure that everyone on the jury believed in the right to keep a gun at home.
While the trial of Mr. Peairs was under way, there were suggestions that America's other scourge in Japanese eyes, race conflict, was a root cause for the shooting. Tonight the Mainichi Shimbun, a major national daily, said that the neighborhood where Mr. Hattori was killed "is like an old-frontier town of the old wild west."
The newspaper added that the Louisiana law allowing the use of deadly force when a person is threatened by an intruder "is a manifestation of the discrimination that exists in the community where burglary charges are made predominantly against blacks."
Television viewers were also taken on tours of local restaurants where guns are placed in decorative cases like works of art, and of local supermarkets that sell gun magazines. Trying to explain the deep attachment some Americans feel for their guns, one Japanese newspaper compared it to the way Japanese feel about rice.
When the verdict came down early this morning Tokyo time, Japanese still seemed stunned less by the decision, which some had predicted based on the defense assertion that Mr. Peairs acted in self-defense, than by the courtroom scene. By Japanese standards, it lacked both restraint and taste. "Citizens made V-signs" for victory, the Mainichi Shimbun reported, "just like in the Westerns." "My Son Died for Nothing'
Japan's own anger at the verdict seemed reflected in the face of the student's father, Masaichi Hattori, a quiet-spoken engineer whom television here has portrayed as somewhat adrift in a hostile environment in Baton Rouge. Mr. Hattori has become a familiar figure to many Japanese because of his petition campaign to ban guns in American homes. He has already collected 1.6 million signatures, and says he hopes to present two million to President Clinton later this year.
"My son died for nothing," he said on Japanese television today. His wife, Mieko, tried to be more conciliatory, suggesting that Mr. Peairs himself was "a victim of a gun society."
Professor Notoji, who was also an exchange student in the United States in 1967, said: "This case is important because we are starting to learn that Americans are going by different rules. There is no way you are going to convince Japanese that the reasonable action, even if you are terrified, is to shoot someone in the heart as soon as you open the door."
But in the rush of outrage, a few Japanese commentators say they sense both a Japanese naivete and a lack of compassion about the world outside their quiet island; the same sort of emotions fueling the outrage here that two Japanese peacekeepers have been killed in Cambodia.
"There is this sort of selfish shock, because the victim was a Japanese person," said Yoshimi Ishikawa, a social critic with long experience in America. "If the same thing had happened to a student from China, no one here would care. In the Japanese mind, there are Japanese and foreign people. And this country can care only about Japanese."0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
20 comments