Challenging read- Special ops soldier won’t face charges after fatally shooting civilian on his property
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
- Status
The protest group claimed that he was shot in the back and in the hand.
The sheriff’s department did a full investigation, and they didn’t mention anything about where the bullets impacted.
The sheriff’s department said he was hit four times. Hard to know where the first bullets hit, and where the threat was, and how he may have fallen while the homeowner continued to engage a threat.
Folks who have never been in an actual shooting, have very “Hollywood“ ideas about number of rounds fired, accuracy, and point of impact that don’t translate well into real life, and performance under pressure.
It’s entirely possible, for example, that the first 2 impacted Center mass, and as he fell, it took a second for the homeowner to realize that the threat was over before he squeezed off two more rounds that didn’t hit very accurately.
A shot in the hand, or even in the back, does not mean it was a bad shoot.
It’s very possible it was a good shoot.
This is a very bizarre story. What do the other utility workers say happened? My electric company sends me emails to alert me that I might see their workers in the area doing this or that. I live in a typical suburban development and get a little antsy whenever strangers come on my property ringing my doorbell. It would be worse if I lived in a rural area where you don't get visitors.
Taking pictures at dusk/night, no ID, no uniform, no branded vehicle, unable to adequately explain what they're doing...still, though, I'd probably take up a defensive position inside the house and continue surveillance of their activities. For sure, that would be the legal expectation in NJ.
Taking pictures at dusk/night, no ID, no uniform, no branded vehicle, unable to adequately explain what they're doing...still, though, I'd probably take up a defensive position inside the house and continue surveillance of their activities. For sure, that would be the legal expectation in NJ.
Did you read the article?
The homeowner went out, ask the guy what he was doing, asked him to leave, the guy didn’t speak English and refused to leave.
the homeowner called 911
The sheriffs office said that they were on another important call and couldn’t get there
The guy continued taking pictures of the homeowners property, where there was a family.
Since the guy was continuing to take pictures of his property, and the sheriff was not able to come, the homeowner armed himself and went back out to confront the guy again.
The wife was on the phone with the sheriffs office via 911 when the homeowner went back out. That was their second call to 911.
Again, the guy refused to leave, then he turned violent toward the homeowner.
Since the police weren’t coming, what would you do?
Would you let a guy who didn’t speak English, couldn’t tell you why he was there, and refused to leave your property continue to take pictures of your house?
Would you view that as not a threat?
Sorry, but some guy in a nondescript car, wearing nondescript clothes, who can’t explain the reason why he’s on my property, and cannot tell me why he’s taking pictures of my house, looks a lot like a threat.
If I call 911 about a threat and they refuse to come, then yes, I might go out and confront them again.
When the police tell you that they can’t come, what options do you have?
Yeah, almost anything could have happened, and we have no information. I think its good a lawyer and some experts representing the dead man gets to review all the evidence and look for tampering of evidence. Keep everyone honest in the Sherriff's dept and for citizens, so its not open season on funny sounding people that don't look like you, even if they are on your property and aren't leaving.
It sounds like the wife was quite paranoid, as she thought there's a group advancing through the woods...
Last edited:
Leave from where is still my question. If your standing on the road, you don't have to leave.
Don't get me wrong - I grew up in an area where standing on the road taking pictures would likely get you shot - from afar - you wouldn't even have the courtesy of an interaction. However its not illegal to take pictures form the road. If you don't want to be filmed you put up a fence. Thats what the law says.
It is NOT 100% where the guy was standing . It is reported that the guy turned violent . At that point it doesn't matter where he was standing .
Read the previous posts .
Getting violent on your own property - if that isn't a trigger to at least show the gun, then I don't know /
If the 'intruder' keeps going with this behavior, what is one supposed to do?
Retreating in the house & hoping the guy calms down?
One has to draw the line somewhere /
If the 'intruder' keeps going with this behavior, what is one supposed to do?
Retreating in the house & hoping the guy calms down?
One has to draw the line somewhere /
Generally speaking castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws are broadly written but vary by state. In any case always remember that the official report is often times based solely on the the individual who survives the encounter.
Last edited:
My first reply was "where the heck is "Fort Liberty?". Then I see the references to Fayetteville and figured out it is the base-formerly-by-a-name-we-dare-not-speak.
It is 100% where he was standing. The article only says he was taking pictures towards the house. It makes no mention of where he actually was at. If he was on the person's property you think it would be mentioned. So if he is on the road , castle doctrine decidedly does not apply. However the sheriff sited castle doctrine. Castle doctrine does not actually apply to your land either - it applies to your residence.
So assuming this happened on the road (and we don't know either way) then its possibly a stand your ground case. However in this case the homeowner came back out with a gun the second time - so the one allowed to stand their ground in that instance is the utility worker. He has no obligation to retreat. Although it seems that might have been advised.
The fact that someone was on the phone with 911 changes absolutely nothing. The police have no obligation to respond, or even to help you if they were standing right there - although I am 100% they all would.
I have no horse in this race. But it does seem very peculiar.
I still say from a civil standpoint the utility is liable because this was 100% predictable.
They said this was turned over to the FBI. My presumption is the local sheriff doesn't have the resources and requires election again. So its in his best interest personally to just hand the whole thing off.
Act like a terrorists and many people these days aren't going to stick around and see if you actually are one.
There's no presumption of innocence in the court of trespass. If you are trespassing and aggressive, you are playing stupid games and might win a stupid prize.
You show up inside my house in the middle of the night, I'm not bothering to ask if you're looking for a cup of sugar.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Burgundy T-shirt, black shorts, flip-flops and can’t speak English - but out taking pictures …
We just had the second run of fiber out where I live. Two guys in uniform and truck with signs pulled up in my driveway - asked if they could move the spool on my grass. I let them in the interest of public safety - and the crews … (get it off the road) …
The uniforms, truck, and quick chat made it simple …
We just had the second run of fiber out where I live. Two guys in uniform and truck with signs pulled up in my driveway - asked if they could move the spool on my grass. I let them in the interest of public safety - and the crews … (get it off the road) …
The uniforms, truck, and quick chat made it simple …
In many states, "Castle Doctrine" applies to house and "curtilege" but it's ambigious where curtilege ends and regular land begins.
What are the odds this gentleman was not in this country by legal process? NO ID except an international driver's license?
- Status
