Wearing only underwear, Ryan battled the robber to the front porch ...

[fusion]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2010/crimesite/article.aspx?subjectid=450&articleid=20101002_298_0_ATlahm58182

[wrillo]

kick ass.

[chevysoldier]

That's awesome to hear! This is exactly why I wear a .45 on my hip even when I am home. You just never know what could happen.

[SWing'R]

Ryan said he then took the gun, placed it behind the man’s head and pulled the trigger. “It didn’t discharge,” Ryan said. “I was going to kill him.”

Nice.

[OsuMj]

nobody thinks its a little dumb/wreckless to be shooting aimlessly enough that bullet holes get put into some neighbor's homes??

[Warlock]

nobody thinks its a little dumb/wreckless to be shooting aimlessly enough that bullet holes get put into some neighbor's homes??

Ummmm, lets see....lemme weigh this... The effers kill me or I perhaps put a few holes in a neighbors house and yet survive...nah, sorry.

[Disclaimer]

Better my neighbors than me.

[OsuMj]

i guess, to me it sounds like the guy was either close enough that 5 shots aimlessly was just to scare him - so at least don't risk anyone else's life and fire towards the ground. Or, the guy was far enough away that he couldn't tell if he was hitting him or not - so he's far enough away, get to safety and stop putting other people's life in danger.... maybe i read it wrong?

[MidgetTodd]

He just shoots like a girl.

[FZRMatt]

nobody thinks its a little dumb/wreckless to be shooting aimlessly enough that bullet holes get put into some neighbor's homes??

Hell no!!!! He was shooting at a 3rd suspect attempting to enter a gunfight in which 2 people were already attempting to kill him. It is very understandable that his aim was not accurate. However, had he not done it, it could have very easily gone from a home invasion robbery to a murder. You always have the right to defend yourself, even in what is rapidly becoming a "liberal-ass" country like we live in today.

Edited October 6, 2010 by FZRMatt

[fusion]

Hell no!!!! He was shooting at a 3rd suspect attempting to enter a gunfight in which 2 people were already attempting to kill him. It is very understandable that his aim was not accurate. However, had he not done it, it could have very easily gone from a home invasion robbery to a murder. You always have the right to defend yourself, even in what is rapidly becoming a "liberal-ass" country like we live in today.

Except the person he was shooting at was retreating before he begin firing.

"A third man, who was driving the apparent getaway vehicle, ran toward the struggle with his gun drawn but retreated when Ryan brandished the weapon he had taken. Ryan said he then fired five shots and believes he may have hit that man, too"

Amount of stupid in that last sentence of yours is outstanding.

[ReconRat]

Oops, shot a neighbor's house?

Well, he had one guy on the ground fighting over a pistol, another one on his back beating him with a pistol, and one running toward him probably armed. Not the best situation in the world. He needed to kill, disable, or disarm them all as quickly as possible, as long as any of them were armed and continued to fight.

I don't think I would have missed a shot, even under pressure. Nor shoot a neighbor's house. But most people would. Simulators I've gone through, I've always managed to hit the target, even under surprise and duress. Not good shots sometimes, but good enough. But real world encounters are entirely different. Either way, practice makes for a better and quicker reaction.

And no, if there is something at risk behind your target, you should not shoot.

Houses are flimsy, most of them, and a round can go clean through several.

I'm going to guess he missed two or three, hit one or two, and maybe they never even found one of the shots.

He never even dealt with the number one threat. The guy with the gun beating him. Sort of odd that he ignored him. It all happens too quick under duress. Must practice.

[SWing'R]

...You always have the right to defend yourself, even in what is rapidly becoming a "liberal-ass" country like we live in today.

I don't think anyone is questioning the guys right to defend himself, only the fact that he could have killed an innocent person in the process.

[alab32]

No matter what, good on him!

[yotaman88210]

Too bad he didnt have a law rocket

[jblosser]

...so at least don't risk anyone else's life and fire towards the ground...

No. Only fire with the intent of hitting someone. Ever.

Except the person he was shooting at was retreating before he begin firing.

"A third man, who was driving the apparent getaway vehicle, ran toward the struggle with his gun drawn but retreated when Ryan brandished the weapon he had taken. Ryan said he then fired five shots and believes he may have hit that man, too"...:

Had that occurred in Ohio, he <could> have been charged. You are not allowed to "prolong" an altercation if the other person is retreating. If I were the D.A. he wouldn't get charged, but an actual D.A. might see it differently.

Edited October 6, 2010 by jblosser
forgot "I"

[ReconRat]

...Had that occurred in Ohio, he <could> have been charged. You are not allowed to "prolong" an altercation if the other person is retreating. If I were the D.A. he wouldn't get charged, but an actual D.A. might see it differently.

True, except in the cases where the fleeing individual is considered a serious threat to society at large. Or perhaps has already committed a capital crime. Still hard to prove and/or justify for a citizen's actions. Particularly for the "get-away driver".

Note that military personnel will shoot at fleeing enemy, if they are still armed...

[FZRMatt]

I don't think anyone is questioning the guys right to defend himself' date=' only the fact that he could have killed an innocent person in the process.[/quote']

You always run the risk of hitting an innocent person when you pull the trigger of a gun in any environment other than a closed range with a range officer and a back stop. It would be a different issue had he been robbed at gun point on a city street at lunch time. That was not the case, and he still had 3people with guns attempting to KILL him. They were not trying to get away, they were actively fighting and beating him. My guess is that when they were on the ground and the gun discharged, it wasn't the victim's finger on the trigger.

[FZRMatt]

Except the person he was shooting at was retreating before he begin firing.

"A third man, who was driving the apparent getaway vehicle, ran toward the struggle with his gun drawn but retreated when Ryan brandished the weapon he had taken. Ryan said he then fired five shots and believes he may have hit that man, too"

Amount of stupid in that last sentence of yours is outstanding.

I don't see any "stupid" in my last sentence. 1. You DO alsways have the right to defend yourself. And 2. We DO live in a liberal-ass country.

[fusion]

I don't see any "stupid" in my last sentence. 1. You DO alsways have the right to defend yourself. And 2. We DO live in a liberal-ass country.

I was going to explain it but I couldn't think of words small enough so you would understand.

[chevysoldier]

And another one moves to R&R....

[FZRMatt]

No. Only fire with the intent of hitting someone. Ever.

Had that occurred in Ohio, he <could> have been charged. You are not allowed to "prolong" an altercation if the other person is retreating. If I were the D.A. he wouldn't get charged, but an actual D.A. might see it differently.

Sorry, I missed this earlier. There is no way in hell that he would not have been charged in Ohio. He went directly from having someone kick in his door and putting a gun in his face to a Life or Death struggle with 2 armed home invaders. He met all 3 prongs of the three prong test to justify deadly force: Method, Threat, and Opportunity. The Method was the gun, the Threat was pointing it at the victim, and the Opportunity was only needing to pull the trigger (mind you, all this happened inside his own home). He then grabbed the gun of the intruder who put a gun in his face (direct threat on his life). When he did that, the 2nd armed intruder began to strike him in the head with his gun (again, method, threat, and opportunity). Had he been able to disarm one of the suspects, he still could have justified killing both of them just by their actions, because the 2nd suspect is still armed and assaulting him. However, he didn't. Instead, he forced both out onto the porch where a 3rd armed suspect attempted to join the fight. It is now 3 to 1 in a LIFE OR DEATH struggle. He did exactly what he needed to do to preserve his life!

This is a very cut and dry case of correctly using deadly force. I say that based only on the printing of the article at the start of the post. I don't know if there was more to this or not, but based on the article, it is cut and dry. The fact that his aim is off in a high pressure and rapidly evolving situation is irrelevant. Maybe more time at the range would have helped, but it is very difficult to train in a real life situation with someone trying to kill you while in the confines of a shooting range.

[Ryan_c_F]

Except the person he was shooting at was retreating before he begin firing.

"A third man, who was driving the apparent getaway vehicle, ran toward the struggle with his gun drawn but retreated when Ryan brandished the weapon he had taken. Ryan said he then fired five shots and believes he may have hit that man, too"

Amount of stupid in that last sentence of yours is outstanding.

"A third man, who was driving the apparent getaway vehicle, ran toward the struggle with his gun drawn but retreated when Ryan brandished the weapon he had taken. Ryan said he then fired five shots and believes he may have hit that man, too."

Fuck that, I would have shot the guy too. I'm not waiting for him to find cover and start taking aimed shots at my happy ass.

Guy is armed, and an accomplice of the two men who've been pistol whipping/fighting/robbing me. He's a dead man.

addendum - I know why you're saying what you're saying, but any competent defense lawyer could easily prove that his life was still in danger. the invading gunman doesn't have to be actively approaching the homeowner to threaten his life. Ohio doesn't have a duty to retreat, so if the gunman could still hit him from where he was standing, reasonably, the homeowner's life was still in danger and was therefore authorized to shoot at the third man.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Ryan_c_F

[CattaniAFJ]

:clap:

Good for that guy. If it were me and my family, I wouldn't have stopped until I killed all three of those mother fuckers. Anyone read the other news story about that asshole and his partner that stormed that house, robbed, raped, and killed 3 of 4 people in it? Yeah, me or you, bich, and it won't be me. "Judged by 12 or carried by 6."

[kawi kid]

in any altercation you are responsible for where ever the bullets go or end up...