Saturday, September 29, 2012

Connecticut Gun Owner Kills His Own Son

ABC News reports

A Connecticut teacher shot a masked and knife-wielding person during a late-night confronation outside his sister's home when she believed she was being robbed. But Jeffrey Giuliano, 44, didn't realize that he had gunned down and killed his teenage son until the boy was identified by authorities. 

Police responding to a possible burglary attempt pulled up to a house in New Fairfield at 1 a.m. Thursday to find the local 5th grade teacher, dressed in a T-shirt and shorts, sitting on the lawn outside his sister's home (the two lived next door). Dead in the driveway was his 15-year-old son, Tyler. 

Lieutenant J. Paul Vance said that Tyler was found with obvious gunshot wounds and was holding a weapon. Police later specified that the "weapon in possession of the deceased at the time of this incident was determined by troopers to be a knife." 

"We received a call reporting possible burglary and shots fired," Vance told ABC News. "He was shot multiple times, but we still don't know the number of times or the location."
On the great blog TTAG, they strongly advise people who shoot others to STFU. But if you're going to say something, the key word is always "lunged" if a knife is involved. This, they think, justifies shooting someone several times in the chest.

The nightmare irony in this case is the vigilante gun owner killed his own son. Sad, pathetic, sick and predictable.  The chances of a homeowner in a low-crime area like this one ever needing to use the gun to save the day is lower by far than the chance that someday the gun will be misused.

This is an extreme example of that.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

31 comments:

  1. I called this incident to the attention of japete this morning when I first saw it pop up on the news.

    It seems like a perfectly legitimate shooting to me, using the criteria that the gun nuts like - he was an intruder, he was masked, he was armed - so what's the problem?

    Oh yeah, he was someone's son. So apparently it's NOT a problem shooting someone ELSE's SON? Or is the problem that burglary, a property crime, just isn't worth killing some one over?

    If this attempted burglary was a concern, the question that crossed my mind is why not call the cops? Why wait until AFTER shooting someone to call 9/11? Why not oh, say call 9/11, turn on lots of lights, make noise.......levels of response OTHER than lethal force that could have prevented this tragedy.

    Yes, this kid appears to have been up to no good, and intending to victimize a family member rather than a stranger.

    But this highlights the problems with vigilante justice. The kid would have had a better chance of surviving an encounter with the local LEOs, getting hauled off to court, and maybe going forward more productively after this attempted crime. I couldn't find any indication that this kid had a record, and I don't expect to, given he's a juvenile, so there is no way to know if this was his first time behaving in a criminal manner or if he was a bad kid. But the key word is KID.

    This is a terrible event, bad for all concerned, especially the teenager. It underlines precisely why it is not a desirable thing for people to take the law into their own hands or to shoot people too quickly, whether their own family member or someone else's family 'goblin'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or is the problem that burglary, a property crime...

      Home Invasion is not a property crime, it's a violent crime.

      If this attempted burglary was a concern, the question that crossed my mind is why not call the cops?

      maybe because the cops are minutes away and the neighbor only seconds away. Perhaps the boy intended on killing his aunt. What then, stand around and wait for the coroner to pick up an innocent victim instead of the violent criminal?

      Committing a violent act upon an innocent person SHOULD be the most dangerous thing a person ever does.

      Delete
    2. Jeez, Bill, I hope that your loved ones and children are in the front row of the next gun owner.

      Delete
    3. Bill, you can't presume to know the kid's intentions any more than we can. Maybe he was joking around, maybe he was acting out some scene in a film, maybe he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing.

      You gun owners defend each other no matter what. The father was acting peremptorily in a situation that did not call for it.

      Delete
    4. Mikeb, you're free to wait until the knife is plunged into your chest to determine the intention of the thug, but the rest of us will be more rational about things. Deal?

      Delete
    5. Greg, they usually shoot long before the guy is in reach. You remember those cops a couple weeks ago in the video? You defended them too as I remember.

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, you don't have a good assessment of how dangerous a person with a knife is. An average person can close the distance of seven yards in under two seconds. But as we've discussed before, in your view, a criminal has to cause actual harm before you'll agree that self-defense would be justified. Of course, at that point, it's too late.

      Delete
  2. None of the reports I've seen said anything about the kid lunging or doing anything more threatening than standing there.

    One has to wonder what would have happened if the aunt had called the police rather than her over-reacting brother. Rushing over, loaded gun in hand, do you think the man was in the right frame of mind to ask questions of his target? Did he have the same sort of conflict training that a policeman has? Would it have been enough for the man just to shout at the "intruder" to scare him away? Did he even try? These are the problems with vigilante justice.

    And if she had locked everything up, would the boy have even been able to get in the house?

    "Sad, pathetic, sick and predictable" is right. Now this man has to live with the heartache and guilt of what he did. I wonder if he will keep his gun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would it have been enough for the man just to shout at the "intruder" to scare him away?

      Are you a fool? The man pointed a firearm at the boy and THAT didn't scare him away.

      Delete
    2. Because the police never shoot a knife wielding perp? Apparently you don’t read Mike’s blog, you just comment.

      Delete
    3. Bill, you fucking ignorant moron, you have no idea who pointed what at who. I just hope that some righteous gun owner takes out your kid

      Delete
    4. @Anon: Whoa there, Anon! Dial it back a notch.

      @TS and Bill: I haven't read anything that suggested the father gave any kind of warning at all, even pointing for a moment without shooting. He may have simply reacted without pause. Police are required to give a audible warning, if given the opportunity, for the perp to drop their weapon. IF the perp fails to follow directions, then they are allowed to fire if they feel he poses a threat.

      Delete
    5. Ask Mike if he believes that's how it goes down.

      Delete
    6. Bill, I don't wish harm on you or your family. I do think Anonymous is right that you're reading too much into it in order to justify the shooting.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous September 30, 2012 3:38 AM
      Bill, you fucking ignorant moron, you have no idea who pointed what at who. I just hope that some righteous gun owner takes out your kid

      And the gun rights activists are called violent. Classy.

      Thanks mikeb.

      Delete
    8. Bill why are you thanking me? I said this: "Bill, I don't wish harm on you or your family."




      Delete
    9. mikeb, that's what I was thanking you for. I wasn't being sarcastic or blaming you for the anon comment. I should have clear. My apologies for any confusion.

      Delete
  3. Sure it is always nice to avoid deaths in cases like this ... including the deaths of the homeowners.

    Was the man's actions appropriate in this instance? We don't have enough facts to judge this case.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's been established that a person within seven yards can close the distance in under two seconds. If that person has a knife, he's a threat. Dog Gone and Oregonian and Mikeb all whine about how the father here should have waited, but they always ignore the real danger that an armed and violent thug poses.

    Look at the situation. Someone wearing dark clothing and a mask and carrying a knife comes at you. What do you imagine the person is there to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg: I pray the prayer of St Gunsel for you: May your loved ones be at the scene of the next DGU where some fucking moron decides he is smart.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. From this article: http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2781996.shtml

    "He confronted someone in a ski mask and opened fire when the person came at him with something shiny in his hand, police said."

    Hmm. Sure sounds to me like the kid started to rush him when he saw the gun. Don't really know what else he could have done at that moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I sure hope it's your kid next time goofing around near some heavily armed paranoid fuckhead, which is another word for a NRA member. Darwin acts to eliminate NRA members, and we all pray it happens ASAP

      Delete
    2. If it's true that the boy attacked the father, then the father was within his rights to shoot the boy.

      Delete
    3. Again, Anon, no need for nastiness.

      Delete
    4. FL, first of all I don't believe in the "lunging" justification. Anybody who shoots a guy with a knife is going to say that to the cops. Secondly, there ore often other options than a couple shots in the chest.

      Your problem is you have too high a regard for gun owners and too low a regard for law breakers.

      Delete
    5. We have too low a regard for law breakers? This is your problem, Mikeb. You're trying to create empathy for thugs. That's one of the main reasons that your side is losing.

      Delete
    6. They're human beings who are acting badly. By calling them thugs and goblins you remove their humanity, all the easier to blow them away and justify it.

      Delete
    7. I've said this before, but I'll repeat it here. Goblins, in Tolkien's books, were elves how chose evil. The point is that when a person chooses to harm innocents, he's given up a part of his humanity. I'm just recognizing that. Thugs, in India of several hundred years ago, were a violent cult that killed and robbed people travelling on the roads. The same thing applies to them that I said about goblins.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous, keep talking. You're just illustrating how violent and depraved gun control advocates are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Expenses, you can not suppose to understand the particular children's motives any longer as compared to we could. Perhaps this individual has been joshing about, possibly he or she had been performing away several picture in the movie, possibly this individual has been inebriated as well as failed to understand what this individual has been performing.

    An individual firearm masters protect one another regardless of what. The daddy had been performing imperatively in times in which failed to necessitate that.

    ReplyDelete