Retired Green Beret Gets Court Martial After Shooting Intruder

[VulcanRider]

Originally Posted by Balintherlas What're you nuts? Deadly force isn't used often enough, look at our population growth. Haha that being said, how the heck did the shot not pierce that intruder's head? Even a .22 caliber round shoulda gone through that guy's head at 4 feet, does he have like a 5 inch thick skull?

Well, the article mentioned Smokey was using old ammo, which means the powder probably didn't burn as strongly as it should've. Also if the intruder had his head down it might have struck at an angle & ricocheted (sp?) My brother-in-law played in a band in his younger days and told me a story about a bar fight where, when the police arrived, there was one B-I-G guy sitting in the middle of the room in pretty much the only chair not broken, with a trickle of blood running down his face. Turns out he was shot in the forehead with a .25 and the bullet skipped up and lodged on the top of his head, just under the skin. That forehead bone is tough to crack...

[dplax]

Originally Posted by Felix The Assassin Deadly force is the *LAST* resort. However, these guys are like minded, *IF* you must revert to deadly force, then it should very well be just that. The Police have no idea why he was granted bail. Only the presiding judge can answer that. Now he is loose, back on the streets, and thinks that hmf, what's the law gonna do. Maybe somebody not like minded as "Smokey" will be his next target. Then what? He had "ripped the security door out of it's frame", that to me says two things: One; he is rather large and violent. Two; he's on some serious mind and body enhancing drugs. Either of which is not going to allow for a reasonable ending. The decision to squeeze the trigger on another human being is one that will be relived forever, irregardless of the outcome, so you might as well make the nightmare one in which society as a whole is the beneficiary!

"Smokey" was absolutely right to shoot the guy, I totally agree with that. Defense of own property and life and all that. I'm just saying that the outcome of the guy getting caught and only being injured is better than him being dead. The fact that he was let out on bail is a completely different mess-up.

As a soldier you must know that there are ways of shooting at someone with the aim of disabling only. Whether it is shooting out a weapon from an assailant's hand (probably not an option at 80, if your hands are shaky you'll want to aim for a bigger target), or shooting someone who doesn't have a firearm in the stomach maybe.

Unfortunately the article doesn't say whether the intruder was armed or not.

However the point of my original post was about the court martial...it is ridiculous for these guys to be angry, even if it is done out of jest, at someone *not* being killed.

[Balintherlas]

Hey dplax, I didn't wanna upset anyone, I should hav added the word sarcastic in parentheses.
Totally agree with ya Felix, but maybe he's learned his lesson from a near death experience.

[dplax]

I should have too. :p

[Attalus]

In Texas it would have no-billed by the Grand Jury, even if the DA had decided to prosecute, which they wouldn't. We have laws that allow deadly force on intruders like that. A lady shot one of them in Dallas last week. She wasn't even charged, but commended by police.

[Bumbus]

Originally Posted by Attalus In Texas it would have no-billed by the Grand Jury, even if the DA had decided to prosecute, which they wouldn't. We have laws that allow deadly force on intruders like that. A lady shot one of them in Dallas last week. She wasn't even charged, but commended by police.

I do not think the shooter was charged by the police for anything. I assume Tennessee has a similar law regarding deadly force in defense of ones property or person.

Someone mentioned a similar situation in which the intruder sued the person who had shot him and was compensated for his injury; I guess that a personal injury law suit has nothing to due with the law regarding deadly force. Given that situation I would have to agree with the organization about using a bigger gun and killing the intruder instead of just injuring him.

I also do not think the charge should have been dismissed on the argument a more powerful gun may have injured an innocent person. It appears the shooter has had plenty of experience handling guns and is a decent shot; it even states others think he should be given an award for his accuracy. I do not know what other testimony or evidence was presented or what else went into the decision to dismiss the charge so maybe there were other reasons.