Local news reports
A blind Florida man shot an intruder who broke into his home, who turned out to be his teenage nephew. Police detailed the incident Monday, now clarifying if either or both men would face any charges.
Melchisedec Williams was woken up on Sunday night when he heard a crash and stomping. The 50-year-old man grabbed his gun, Tampa police said. The intruder, armed with only a knife, had cut the power to the man’s house and broken in through a bedroom window, police added.
Tampa police spokeswoman Laura McElroy told press that Williams, who is legally blind, called the name of his nephew, Isaiah Moses Carter, 15, asking if that was who had entered the house, McElroy said. Hearing no response, Williams fired his weapon.
The teen groaned loud enough after being shot, that Williams recognized him as Isaiah.
“That’s what made me stop shooting,” he said. “I was in the dark, and I was ready to unload that gun until I heard his voice.”
This reminds me of the 12-year-old Texas girl who shot an intruder through the closet door where she was hiding. The gun nuts used that one the to justify kids having guns and shooting through doors. Would I rather that she'd been raped, tortured and killed, they asked.
Guns for blind people--Brilliant idea!
ReplyDeleteSeriously, how dumb can you be to allow this?
Pretty dumb when SS pats the guy on the back while admitting he was a felon with a weapon.
DeleteWell Anon, I didn't see anyone mention his status as a felon and it seemed germane to the discussion. His status as a felon while in itself a crime shouldn't bear on whether it was justified self defense. I do believe that as a felon he doesn't have a right to a stand your ground hearing.
DeleteHere is something else I found to help flesh out some of the details,
"Melchisedec Williams has owned a handgun since 1989. He bought the weapon for protection, but the years went by and he never used it. When he began losing his eyesight in 2005 - he’s now mostly blind - he thought he might never fire the weapon.
On Sunday night, he fired the handgun once. He shot his nephew, who he says broke into his house, armed with a knife.
The incident happened at about 10:30 p.m., shortly after he lost power in his Tampa home. Williams said he heard numerous rocks being thrown on his front porch, then the the sound of a window breaking in an unoccupied bedroom in his home.
He grabbed the handgun and listened to the footsteps in his home. He could make out the beam of a flashlight that the intruder carried with him.
Williams didn’t know it at the time, but it was his 15-year-old nephew, Isaiah Moses Carter, who had broken in.
Police said Carter walked into the kitchen, where he got a knife and walked toward the living room where Williams was waiting, gun in hand."
"Williams said his nephew had lived with him for a month until two weeks ago. That’s when Williams asked Carter to leave; he said the teen was disrespectful and wouldn’t obey the rules of the house.
Williams said the family, including Carter’s mother, have had difficulty raising him. He said he decided to give the teenager a chance, but it didn’t work out."
So, it wasn't someone who just stayed out past curfew. He was thrown out and no longer welcome.
Asked to leave because he wouldn't obey the rules of the house doesn't sound like he was no longer welcome.
DeleteI'm not convinced it was a necessary shooting but the point is even if it was it's an anomaly that a blind guy might have used a gun properly and defensively. Being blind makes it impossible to adhere to the Four Rules of Gun Safety. That means blind people don't qualify.
He could obviously identify his target because he hit. In fact, the nephew had a flashlight and you could make the argument that he knew his uncle was armed. He could have prevented the whole thing by either leaving or saying something like "don't shoot uncle".
DeleteHow would this have worked out in anyone else's home? Homeowner is watching TV and hears someone throwing rocks on his porch. Power to the house is cut. Someone then breaks a bedroom window and climbs in through it. Someone with a flashlight (he knew the power was out) starts approaching.
Shooting this person would even be legal in Minnesota because he's already committed a felony by breaking in.
We still have the pesky fact that he is a felon, yet you seem happy that he was able to have a gun and kill. Again, you secure your gun loon credentials.
DeleteWho was a felon?
DeletePretty good shot for a blind guy. Nephew cuts power to the whole house, breaks in through a bedroom window and was armed with a knife. Not seeing any quote from the nephew saying he was just making a sandwich.
ReplyDelete"Williams said he had taken in his great-nephew about a month ago, when the boy's mother was in jail and no other relatives volunteered to care for him. Williams said he thought he would be able to relate to the young man because he had been rebellious in his youth. But it didn't work out that way.
"The more I tried to help him, the more he had this hatred towards me," Williams said. "This boy has got a real demon inside of him. But I never imagined he would try to come in and kill me."
Unfortunately, this is likely going to get ugly for Mr. Williams because it appears he's a felon,
"By law, Williams should not have been in possession of a gun. He has been convicted of grand theft and forgery and, in 1993, was sentenced to four and a half years in prison, state records show. Florida law bars felons from possessing guns unless their rights have been restored by the state's Clemency Board, which Williams' haven't, according to a Department of Corrections official."
So, while he may be justified in defending himself, he could be charged with possession. On the bright side, he's still alive.
It seems likely to me that a juvenile delinquent like that always carries a knife and was just coming home after a week-long binge or whatever. Homeowners who unnecessarily shoot people always claim they felt threatened and justify what they've done afterwards.
DeleteThe fact that the blind guy called out to his nephew before shooting indicates that if he'd been able to see he wouldn't have fired. Would he have ended up dead? I seriously doubt it.
And why would a juvenile delinquent would cut the power to the house before sneaking in? Why whould he feel the need to sneak back in after being gone a week? Because he was supposed to be home by midnight a week ago, but thoguht he could just sneak in and his uncle wouldn't notice? This case is wierd, but it is not what you're making it out to be. You want it to be a case of- blind guy shoots a family member sneaking in because he didn't want to wake him, but it's not.
DeleteWell, the fact is he did shoot a relative who lived there. The rest is typical after-the-shooting justifications. A week earlier he'd asked the kid to leave if he couldn't obey the house rules, which is a pretty mild form of doesn't-live-there-anymore for one thing and for another also this comes from the shooter who is invested in justifying what he'd done.
DeleteHe didn't live there, that's why he broke glass to get in. And he didn't just happen to have a knife on him, he picked up a kitchen knife and approached the home owner. Domestic violence is a real thing. Just because he was a relative doesn't mean it wasn't justified self-defense.
DeleteIt could never have been justified because a blind guy should never have a gun in the first place. Shooting at noises in the dark is not a responsible way of operating firearms.
Delete"Shooting at noises in the dark is not a responsible way of operating firearms."
DeleteHe isn't completely blind Mike, he shot at someone who broke into his home and could see him because he had a flashlight. One shot, one hit equals aimed fire.
"He grabbed the handgun and listened to the footsteps in his home. He could make out the beam of a flashlight that the intruder carried with him. "
He couldn't recognize his own nephew, nor could he be sure of what was behind his target.
DeleteDo you support severely visually impaired people owning and using guns?
Look at you, Mike. You even want to punish good results because you say he got lucky. This guy has a much better hit record than the NYPD.
DeleteMost people even with good vision cant see the person standing a flashlight. Sort of like seeing who is driving an oncoming car at night when its headlights are on.
DeleteThere is no mention of anyone else living with him, so if you're living alone, and you know that no guests are behind someone who broke into your house, then you can be sure of what is behind the target. The only people behind the nephew who broke in and was approaching with a knife, would be an accomplice.
Technology is being developed to aid the visually impaired in participating in the shooting sports.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/northwestwales/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_8533000/8533923.stm
Gun loons defending guns for the blind in the face of a story where some blind person shot their relative. Laughable.
DeleteIt seems fairly likely that the relative intended to harm him. Cutting the power to the house and breaking in through a bedroom window isn't the mark of a friendly visit.
Deletess, you didn't answer the question.
DeleteTS, I didn't say I wanted to punish the guy.
"Do you support severely visually impaired people owning and using guns?"
DeleteAre there any states in the union that prohibit ownership based on not passing a vision test? No? Ownership of firearms is a personal right and cant be taken away without due process.
Are there any states in the union that prohibit use of a firearm by the visually impaired? No? He didn't misuse his firearm, notwithstanding his potential charges for felon in possession.
I have no problem with people owning and/or using items within the limits of their disabilities. Misuse is another issue. Then they're on the hook for it.
"I have no problem with people owning and/or using items within the limits of their disabilities."
DeleteShooting is about marksmanship and sighting, but you still defend blind people having guns so I guess you judge that shooting a gun is within a blind persons ability even with their sighting disability. Still laughable.
"Shooting is about marksmanship and sighting, but you still defend blind people having guns so I guess you judge that shooting a gun is within a blind persons ability even with their sighting disability."
DeleteAnon, as the article detailed and as shown by the outcome of events, Mr. Williams isn't totally blind. He successfully defended himself against an armed intruder who broke into his home. The fact that that the intruder was a family member, while unfortunate, doesn't diminish the fact that it appears to be justified.
You made a blanket statement, you were not talking about this article. Even so, to claim he was not totally blind, but could not ID the person he was shooting at and only saw a light, is a stupid basis to claim he was not disabled enough to be shooting.
Delete"Even so, to claim he was not totally blind, but could not ID the person he was shooting at and only saw a light, is a stupid basis to claim he was not disabled enough to be shooting."
DeleteYou don't have to know WHO the person is Anon, you just have to identify the threat. In this case, even if he had been able to identify the person as his nephew, he would still be justified in shooting. Again, would it have been justified if it had been a normally sighted person? We have yet to hear that decision officially, but you normally are. Keep in mind that the nephew was approaching an armed man after cutting power to the house and breaking in through a window.
How can a threat be identified if all they could see was a light? The person knew nothing about that information. The person only shot at a light. Of course for you gun loon cowards, that's enough to use deady force.
Delete"How can a threat be identified if all they could see was a light?"
DeleteWe don't have access to all of the information Anon, and to honest, most of this story seems to be coming from Mr. Williams himself. Its hard to say what's been verified by the police.
Its very likely that the only way we'll know for sure is if he is actually charged with something. Otherwise, we'll just hear nothing.
ss, since you want to talk about this case specifically, even though it may be a rare anomaly, I'd like to point out this. The partially blind guy was calling out asking if it was his nephew, presumably so as NOT to shoot him. That kinda destroys the whole theory of this being a necessary and good shoot. Because he was so visually impaired, he shot the one person HE DIDN'T WANT TO SHOOT.
Delete"The partially blind guy was calling out asking if it was his nephew, presumably so as NOT to shoot him."
DeleteA good point Mike. This is one area where looking at different articles, you come across different versions. If the article is correct, he was actually thinking worst case and was trying to make sure it wasn't him. Not many people would really want to shoot a relative.
So if he did call out the nephew's name to insure he wasn't going to harm a person not meaning him harm, what does that tell you about the nephew's intent. He cut the power to the house, broke in through a window, and was approaching the uncle with a knife and flashlight. So he was approaching a man he knew (most likely) to be armed who was calling out to see if it was his relative.
The nephew could have easily deescalated the situation by stopping his approach and saying "its me uncle". This would have actually been a smart move even if he did mean to harm his uncle because it would have possibly allowed him to get closer. This is just like approaching a police officer who has his gun out and telling you to stop. A very dumb move.
He could have also turned around and left, but he didn't. The nephew is lucky to be alive.
So as usual you make definite statements about something you cannot prove then fall back on we don't have the evidence, which is what I pointed out all along. Keep up the diversion of the discussion no matter how dishonest you sound, like a good little gun loon.
Deletess, it's not about the nephew's intent. It's about the blind gun owner's.
Delete"So as usual you make definite statements about something you cannot prove then fall back on we don't have the evidence, which is what I pointed out all along."
DeleteYou've made a definite statement here and there during this discussion also. We comment based on the information available.
Thanks for confirming I was correct.
DeleteMike, this might very well be a legitimate DGU. Why did you cut off all those details to make it look like a blind guy blowing away a family member by accident?
ReplyDeleteOops, my attempt to deceive everybody didn't work because I included the link.
Delete