Fuck the Dispatch and this moronic CPD Officer (James Day).

[SpaceGhost]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7202

 

Man shoots sex offender attempting home invasion; Columbus Dispatch describes aggressor as "victim"

 

Submitted by cbaus on Fri, 04/02/2010 - 15:00. Guns in the News

By Gerard Valentino

 

Yet another potential home invasion ended with an honest law-abiding citizen using a gun for self-defense. According to The Columbus Dispatch, a convicted sex offender was shot while trying to break into an apartment and died from his injuries.

 

From the story:

 

Columbus police yesterday identified the victim in a Friday night shooting on the Northeast Side as Charles R. Sprague, 35, of Columbus.

 

Sprague was shot while trying to break into an apartment at 5764 Cooper Rd., said detective James Day of the homicide squad. A man inside the apartment fired shots because he felt threatened by Sprague, Day said.

 

"It appeared that the victim in this incident was the aggressor and that the shooter was acting in self-defense," Day said. "He'd actually tried to force his way into the apartment at the back door when this occurred."

 

Clearly, nobody wins when a criminal forces an honest person to use deadly force. However, considering the alternatives if the home invasion had been successful, this was a far better outcome.

 

It is never acceptable to describe a home invader as the "victim." The shooter in this case is the victim. His home was the target of a criminal invasion and he was the one attacked. He was forced into a situation where he needed to defend his life from a criminal, a predator.

 

The fact remains that when an honest person is forced to shoot someone in self-defense there are consequences. Some end up with post-traumatic stress disorder and some are even ostracized by their own friends and family if they've killed another human being. Often, the stigma of having killed affects all aspects of the law-abiding citizen's life.

 

There is also the uncertainty of being run through the criminal justice system even though it would seem to be a formality in clear-cut cases of self-defense. Still, this shooter has to live under the cloud of having his actions put before a grand jury.

 

Anyone not familiar with how the process works is likely going to be apprehensive and is likely going to have to retain an attorney which adds financial burden to an emotionally taxing situation. Even if the shooter is cleared completely by the police and grand jury the fact remains that a law-abiding citizen had his life turned upside down through no fault of his own.

 

Clearly, that makes the shooter in this case a victim in the truest sense of the word. He didn't ask for a convicted sex offender to invade his home and he did what any honest person would do when in fear for their own life.

 

Describing the person who put the entire series of unfortunate events in motion as the victim is also unjust. Instead, the criminal should be described as the aggressor or perpetrator because, despite the fact that he lost his life, he is anything but a victim.

 

So a man shoots a CONVICTED Sexual predator illegally entering his home while he and his pregnant wife are there and gets this news coverage associated with his name? This is not right. I'm gonna become a criminal, it's so much easier.

[Scotty2Hotty]

Honest citizens have to protect themselves because our judicial system lets people like Charles R. Sprague walk the streets and continue to commit crimes. When response time for CPD is probably over 5 minutes, it puts average people in situations like this. The owner of the apartment acted just. It's also a load of bullshit that when a citizen does defend his/her self in accordance with the Castle Law, they are then prosecuted through the same BS judicial system.

[AWW$HEEET]

Wow man fuck this shit. If I were the homeowner/tenant, I would be pissed.

[AWW$HEEET]

Honest citizens have to protect themselves because our judicial system lets people like Charles R. Sprague walk the streets and continue to commit crimes. When response time for CPD is probably over 5 minutes, it puts average people in situations like this. The owner of the apartment acted just. It's also a load of bullshit that when a citizen does defend his/her self in accordance with the Castle Law, they are then prosecuted through the same BS judicial system.

 

Idk how he could even get in trouble based on the Castle Law. As the tenant/owner he has no duty to retreat.

[Scotty2Hotty]

As the tenant/owner he has no duty to retreat.

That was part of my ROE card when I was sent down to Louisiana for Hurricane Gustav. I had a JAG Major repeat "you have no duty to retreat." The funny fact was, even being a civilian lawyer aswell, he couldn't give a good definition of what that meant. Either way, my house, my rules. CPD should applaud this man for doing their job.

[LS_Sonoma]

I wonder if the owner warned the criminal that he had a weapon and was prepared to use it though? just a thought.

[SpaceGhost]

I wonder if the owner warned the criminal that he had a weapon and was prepared to use it though? just a thought.

 

Why should one? So the criminal if they are armed can have the drop and fire first? Seriously?

 

Castle law is the WARNING.

[Scotty2Hotty]

I wonder if the owner warned the criminal that he had a weapon and was prepared to use it though? just a thought.

 

Shout, show, shove, and shoot are what I was always taught when escalating the use of deadly force. There are plenty of instances where these steps are skipped, and it jumps straight to deadly force. Hind sight is 20/20 so there's plenty of folks that will dissect this case left and right, but it comes down to the man that was in the moment. He acted within his RIGHTS personally.

[stangsn95gt]

Why should one? So the criminal if they are armed can have the drop and fire first? Seriously?

 

Castle law is the WARNING.

 

+1 Two to the chest is the warning, and one to the head is the solution

[RC K9]

Saw this on Buckeye Firearms today. CPD in my area is cool and they know I carry a gun and they have told me if the person is in my house, shoot. Pretty much implying if I give them something to work with, I don't need to worry about anything. They are sick of the crap that goes on in my neighborhood and I think they would appreciate the help. God forbid I ever have to take someones life for any reason, but if you put me or my family in that situation and it comes down to you or me, I will ALWAYS choose me. It does aggravate me when they refer to the criminal as the victim.

[sol740]

Columbus police yesterday identified the victim in a Friday night shooting on the Northeast Side as Charles R. Sprague, 35, of Columbus.

 

Sprague was shot while trying to break into an apartment at 5764 Cooper Rd., said detective James Day of the homicide squad. A man inside the apartment fired shots because he felt threatened by Sprague, Day said.

 

"It appeared that the victim in this incident was the aggressor and that the shooter was acting in self-defense," Day said. "He'd actually tried to force his way into the apartment at the back door when this occurred."

So the above was from the actual ran story correct ?

 

And we're all pissed because of semantics ? I don't see anyone condemning the homeowner for what he did in the above, as a matter of fact I see the opposite. The officer/paper just used a less than desirable term for the offender, yet their actual statements are absolving the homeowner of wrongdoing. Maybe run an apology about the term "victim", but I wouldn't get all pissy about it. Or maybe they just forgot the "" around the word "victim".

[iwishiwascool]

So the above was from the actual ran story correct ?

 

And we're all pissed because of semantics ? I don't see anyone condemning the homeowner for what he did in the above, as a matter of fact I see the opposite. The officer/paper just used a less than desirable term for the offender, yet their actual statements are absolving the homeowner of wrongdoing. Maybe run an apology about the term "victim", but I wouldn't get all pissy about it. Or maybe they just forgot the "" around the word "victim".

 

This.

 

Victim, by definition does not imply innocence. The simplest definition is "one who is harmed by another".

 

It is silly to get this worked up over syntax. I'm a victim for having read this.

[twistedfocus1647545489]

So the above was from the actual ran story correct ?

 

And we're all pissed because of semantics ? I don't see anyone condemning the homeowner for what he did in the above, as a matter of fact I see the opposite. The officer/paper just used a less than desirable term for the offender, yet their actual statements are absolving the homeowner of wrongdoing. Maybe run an apology about the term "victim", but I wouldn't get all pissy about it.

 

I read it the same way. I agree it sounds more like just a poor choice of words than condemning the shooter.

[SpaceGhost]

It paints actual victim in a bad light. If it were your name in print you might feel different.

 

This is about getting people and news agencies to use "correct" language.

[paktinat]

you're getting worked up over a legal term. In our legal system the guy who got shot was the victim. Just like the girl who got raped on campus recently was allegedly sexually assaulted. these are the terms that are used, get over it.

[LS_Sonoma]

Shout, show, shove, and shoot are what I was always taught when escalating the use of deadly force. There are plenty of instances where these steps are skipped, and it jumps straight to deadly force. Hind sight is 20/20 so there's plenty of folks that will dissect this case left and right, but it comes down to the man that was in the moment. He acted within his RIGHTS personally.

 

I agree 100%...could have been a pivotal point in the aggressors life had he been warned though. And Im not saying that he wasn't, because I dont know.

[Mallard]

This.

 

Victim, by definition does not imply innocence. The simplest definition is "one who is harmed by another".

 

It is silly to get this worked up over syntax. I'm a victim for having read this.

I agree.

 

You guys are getting worked up over nothing. It's just the terminology that's used for the dead guy in a shooting.

[SpaceGhost]

Victim implies "innocence" in my mind. I must be crazy.

[TTQ B4U]

Ben you had one too many cups of coffee. I see your point about the irony of a reporter using poor language / terminology though. What lets me dismiss the whole thing is the bad guy is dead and that makes me happy.

 

I say I've thankfully never been in any situation where I've had to take a life and I know there's weight that comes with it. Many hear I'm sure have had to do so in battle over seas. However, I'm 110% prepared and will absolutely kill someone beyond dead if they enter my home in a threatening manner like that.

 

Neighbors and I were just talking about that as we discussed the recent capture of the home burglary suspect here in Dublin. He's lucky the cops caught him as if it was me, he's be a stain and a memory on my floor.

[TTQ B4U]

Victim implies "innocence" in my mind. I must be crazy.

 

Not crazy...just a little without your faculties due to iPadism.

 

Now put the iEverthing down and walk slowly to the couch and take a nap

[cptn janks]

you COULD infer innocence from victim, depending on how you use it

 

vic·tim  http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif /ˈvɪkhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtɪm/ [vik-tim]

 

–noun

 

1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.

 

 

2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.

 

 

 

the second one does sort of imply innocence however someone who got shot was not deceived or cheated. they DID suffer from a destructive or injurious action though.

 

 

gb2 english class

[Moe7]

And just for reference, from the Ohio Revised Code:

 

"(B)(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force." ORC 2901.05

 

Also, the prosecution has to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, while the accused only has to prove their affirmative defense (of self-defense) by a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not). Obviously the facts and Ohio case law interpreting the statute will be the deciding factors, but this is a starting point for anyone curious.

 

 

As for the definition of "victim," obviously a public official has to be true to the law. Here is the definition provided by ORC:

 

"(H) “Victim” means either of the following:

 

(1) A person who is identified as the victim of a crime or specified delinquent act in a police report or in a complaint, indictment, or information that charges the commission of a crime and that provides the basis for the criminal prosecution or delinquency proceeding and subsequent proceedings to which this chapter makes reference." ORC 2930.01

Edited April 6, 2010 by Morgan
Add info

[V8 Beast]

Shout, show, shove, and shoot are what I was always taught when escalating the use of deadly force. There are plenty of instances where these steps are skipped, and it jumps straight to deadly force. Hind sight is 20/20 so there's plenty of folks that will dissect this case left and right, but it comes down to the man that was in the moment. He acted within his RIGHTS personally.

 

I need moar guns... bring me some of that government issue shiattt!!

[Drewhop]

And just for reference, from the Ohio Revised Code:

 

"(B)(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force." ORC 2901.05

 

Also, the prosecution has to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, while the accused only has to prove their affirmative defense (of self-defense) by a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not). Obviously the facts and Ohio case law interpreting the statute will be the deciding factors, but this is a starting point for anyone curious.

 

 

As for the definition of "victim," obviously a public official has to be true to the law. Here is the definition provided by ORC:

 

"(H) “Victim” means either of the following:

 

(1) A person who is identified as the victim of a crime or specified delinquent act in a police report or in a complaint, indictment, or information that charges the commission of a crime and that provides the basis for the criminal prosecution or delinquency proceeding and subsequent proceedings to which this chapter makes reference." ORC 2930.01

 

 

 

Seems pretty clear cut there.

[Avenger1647545502]

I read it the same way. I agree it sounds more like just a poor choice of words than condemning the shooter.

 

Same here. There just doesn't seem to be a short English word for the concept best described as "Scumbag asshole getting what they deserve." Yes, "justice" fits, but is not actually a VERB, so...

 

C'mon, we are dealing with the Dispatch here. I'm just surprised they managed to spell "victim" correctly. Or "the". Or the letter "r".