"According to Prater, the pastor was out Christmas shopping on Saturday when his alarm company notified him that a motion detector had been activated in his home. He returned home at about 3 p.m. and while checking on the activity in his home he was allegedly attacked by Reese who was hiding in a closet in the back bedroom. Vineyard who is a concealed-carry permit holder then shot the teenager. "The resident, Tom Vineyard, came home and interrupted the burglary while it was still in progress. Mr. Vineyard became involved in a physical altercation with Reese, inside of the residence. While defending himself during the altercation, Mr. Vineyard shot and killed Reese," said a statement from the Oklahoma City police."
"Perhaps, however, Reese did not see them. According to authorities, he entered Vineyard's home through an air conditioning unit space."
I wonder what the late Mr. Reese could have done differently to make things work out better.....
To me, that's blaming the victim. But, I know you insist that the poor trigger-happy gun owner was the victim in all this. The dead kid couldn't possibly be a victim since he was a bad boy.
This victim had committed a felony by breaking into the house, and then instead of waiting for the police to arrive, decided to attack an armed man in the home he just broke into.
I don't find that "decided to attack an armed man" credible. Why are you so willing to take the gun owner's word for what happened? When the only other witness is dead, shouldn't you take the word of the shooter with a grain of salt?
"When the only other witness is dead, shouldn't you take the word of the shooter with a grain of salt?"
My guess is that when the police investigate a crime involving a 14 year old in someone else's house and shot dead, the police will take everything with a grain of salt. There was very likely plenty of physical evidence, signs of forced entry, signs of assault, etc.
So in a battle of "he said/he said", you side with a burglar over a pastor. Not surprising, I suppose. You always side with the criminal unless there is “overwhelming evidence” where there is no chance it could be murder. I guess if the pastor had a nice head injury… oh wait, that evidence would still be underwhelming for you. Maybe if there was a witness that saw the crook beating the pastor’s head into the concrete? Nope- still underwhelmed.
Too many supposed DGUs are nothing of the kind. Often the cops who do the investigation have the same level of disdain for burglars as the homeowner and tend to believe what he says especially if the homeowner is white and the burglar is black or Hispanic. TTAG has dedicated numerous posts to advising "lawful" gun owners to STFU in these situations all the better to get away with murder. But you guys keep pretending it never happens. All gun owners are totally righteous in their defensive shootings, according to you.
TTAG has dedicated numerous posts to advising "lawful" gun owners to STFU in these situations all the better to get away with murder.
Exercising one's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is superb advice for both innocent and guilty, and for "getting away with" legitimate self-defense.
But you guys keep pretending it never happens.
Care to point out who among us "keep[s] pretending it never happens"? I don't remember seeing any of the pro-rights advocates here objecting to Marcus Kaarma's conviction, for example.
All gun owners are totally righteous in their defensive shootings, according to you.
No--all accused deserve the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt.
"TTAG has dedicated numerous posts to advising "lawful" gun owners to STFU in these situations all the better to get away with murder."
Mike, what do attorneys normally tell their clients when dealing with the police? I believe they also tell them to STFU. Its called your right to remain silent.
Thanks Kurt and Sarge. Again I have little to add other that to reiterate that I often call acts of murder as they are rather than calling SYG "get away with murder" law (kaarma, Dunn, Smith, popcorn, etc.)
Killing an unarmed intruder when your life is not in jeopardy, that's murder. Some of you guys are just waiting for the chance to do this, like Marcus Kaarma who tried to get away with murder and failed. Maybe the pastor will have better luck.
Coming home with a gun in hand because the motion detectors went off is pretty close to what Kaarma did.
Because one should assume that the explanation for the motion detectors' alert is that the heretofore inanimate objects in one's home have spontaneously gained the power of locomotion, and are now moving on their own, rather than the possibility that one is the victim of a home invasion?
For all Vineyard knew, the home invader might right then have been taking cutting torch to his gun safe, leaving Vineyard open to the possibility of prosecution, under your idea of "proper gun control.'
Then why else have a security system? I seem to recall someone here touting them as being superior to buying a firearm for protection. In this case, the homeowner had both.
"According to Prater, the pastor was out Christmas shopping on Saturday when his alarm company notified him that a motion detector had been activated in his home. He returned home at about 3 p.m. and while checking on the activity in his home he was allegedly attacked by Reese who was hiding in a closet in the back bedroom. Vineyard who is a concealed-carry permit holder then shot the teenager.
ReplyDelete"The resident, Tom Vineyard, came home and interrupted the burglary while it was still in progress. Mr. Vineyard became involved in a physical altercation with Reese, inside of the residence. While defending himself during the altercation, Mr. Vineyard shot and killed Reese," said a statement from the Oklahoma City police."
"Perhaps, however, Reese did not see them. According to authorities, he entered Vineyard's home through an air conditioning unit space."
I wonder what the late Mr. Reese could have done differently to make things work out better.....
To me, that's blaming the victim. But, I know you insist that the poor trigger-happy gun owner was the victim in all this. The dead kid couldn't possibly be a victim since he was a bad boy.
DeleteTo me, that's blaming the victim.
DeleteSure--if it's possible to be "the victim" of one's own terminally poor decision to commit home invasion and assault.
"To me, that's blaming the victim."
DeleteThis victim had committed a felony by breaking into the house, and then instead of waiting for the police to arrive, decided to attack an armed man in the home he just broke into.
I don't find that "decided to attack an armed man" credible. Why are you so willing to take the gun owner's word for what happened? When the only other witness is dead, shouldn't you take the word of the shooter with a grain of salt?
Delete"When the only other witness is dead, shouldn't you take the word of the shooter with a grain of salt?"
DeleteMy guess is that when the police investigate a crime involving a 14 year old in someone else's house and shot dead, the police will take everything with a grain of salt.
There was very likely plenty of physical evidence, signs of forced entry, signs of assault, etc.
So in a battle of "he said/he said", you side with a burglar over a pastor. Not surprising, I suppose. You always side with the criminal unless there is “overwhelming evidence” where there is no chance it could be murder. I guess if the pastor had a nice head injury… oh wait, that evidence would still be underwhelming for you. Maybe if there was a witness that saw the crook beating the pastor’s head into the concrete? Nope- still underwhelmed.
DeleteToo many supposed DGUs are nothing of the kind. Often the cops who do the investigation have the same level of disdain for burglars as the homeowner and tend to believe what he says especially if the homeowner is white and the burglar is black or Hispanic. TTAG has dedicated numerous posts to advising "lawful" gun owners to STFU in these situations all the better to get away with murder. But you guys keep pretending it never happens. All gun owners are totally righteous in their defensive shootings, according to you.
DeleteTTAG has dedicated numerous posts to advising "lawful" gun owners to STFU in these situations all the better to get away with murder.
DeleteExercising one's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is superb advice for both innocent and guilty, and for "getting away with" legitimate self-defense.
But you guys keep pretending it never happens.
Care to point out who among us "keep[s] pretending it never happens"? I don't remember seeing any of the pro-rights advocates here objecting to Marcus Kaarma's conviction, for example.
All gun owners are totally righteous in their defensive shootings, according to you.
No--all accused deserve the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt.
"TTAG has dedicated numerous posts to advising "lawful" gun owners to STFU in these situations all the better to get away with murder."
DeleteMike, what do attorneys normally tell their clients when dealing with the police? I believe they also tell them to STFU. Its called your right to remain silent.
Thanks Kurt and Sarge. Again I have little to add other that to reiterate that I often call acts of murder as they are rather than calling SYG "get away with murder" law (kaarma, Dunn, Smith, popcorn, etc.)
DeleteWhat makes this murder, Mike? The sign on his door? His view that homosexuality is a sin? How about facts of the incident? Does that come into play?
ReplyDeleteKilling an unarmed intruder when your life is not in jeopardy, that's murder. Some of you guys are just waiting for the chance to do this, like Marcus Kaarma who tried to get away with murder and failed. Maybe the pastor will have better luck.
DeleteKaarma planned and baited the burglary with intent to kill him. I have not seen any indication that there was anything along those lines in this case.
DeleteComing home with a gun in hand because the motion detectors went off is pretty close to what Kaarma did.
DeleteComing home with a gun in hand because the motion detectors went off is pretty close to what Kaarma did.
DeleteBecause one should assume that the explanation for the motion detectors' alert is that the heretofore inanimate objects in one's home have spontaneously gained the power of locomotion, and are now moving on their own, rather than the possibility that one is the victim of a home invasion?
For all Vineyard knew, the home invader might right then have been taking cutting torch to his gun safe, leaving Vineyard open to the possibility of prosecution, under your idea of "proper gun control.'
Then why else have a security system? I seem to recall someone here touting them as being superior to buying a firearm for protection. In this case, the homeowner had both.
DeleteSounds as if the gene pool has been cleansed of a terminally poor decision maker.
ReplyDeleteGood shooting, Pastor.