Man shoots armed intruders

[psi_radar]

Nothing wrong with being a peacenik, Mike. I've been shooting since I was eight, so guns have always been there with me. I know they make some people uncomfortable. I could debate gun ethics with you forever. Let's agree to disagree. Personally, I have a safe for my guns and handle them with extreme respect.

Most animals want to be left alone.

And some are good with ketchup. Sorry, couldn't resist.

With just a bit of awareness as to where you are, there is seldom any danger in the wild.

Agreed, yet I reiterate, if you're in the Bob Marshall wilderness and hear a grizzly crashing around your campsite, a firearm is comforting. I'm talking about the exception, not the rule, but it's naive to think it never happens. Recently I was backcountry canoeing in Yellowstone and a ranger cautioned us to look out for moose--one had torn up a campsite next to ours less than a week before and chased the occupants.

We do know what the report tells us. But we can not infer that the homeowner was threatened because the report doesn't mention it.

Having four unwelcomed strangers in your house IS a threat to your safety. It is an initiation of a criminal act upon you. If I was attacked on the street by four unarmed men, I'd be justified in using a gun to defend myself according to most violence continuums.

Michael, I agree with you on most points, but we simply diverge on this one. I don't find any glee in a man being shot, but I find it justified in this instance, from the evidence we know.

 

[Sharp702]

And it is not appropriate to compare the actions of a homeowner with those of a law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are given rights that citizens are not given in order to carry out their jobs.

I know I am a peace-nik, and out of place in this swimming pool. But I think an honest review of the first 6 or 8 posts in this thread does show enthusiasm for the shooting.

Thanks - Mike

I think we should be able to compare actions of law enforcement to citizens. Citizens have a right to defend both themselves and their property.

We are talking about productive citizens being disrupted by criminals. As for the law, prison is a failure at curbing crime. Over 70% of prisoners get out and turn around and commit crime and end up back in. Productive citizens should not have to suffer criminal behavior.

As for determing if someone is in danger or not, how much more proof do you need of being in danger than when another person invades your very home.

 

[Flatlander]

I think we should be able to compare actions of law enforcement to citizens. Citizens have a right to defend both themselves and their property.

This must be American. Here in Canada, the only justifiable defense is when personal safety is an issue. We value human life over TVs and stereos.

We are talking about productive citizens being disrupted by criminals.

You don't know how productive these particular citizens are. These aren't facts. And "disruption" is not a defensible position either.

As for the law, prison is a failure at curbing crime. Over 70% of prisoners get out and turn around and commit crime and end up back in. Productive citizens should not have to suffer criminal behavior.

With execution? That's pretty hardline... sounds like Islamic Law to me.

As for determing if someone is in danger or not, how much more proof do you need of being in danger than when another person invades your very home.

Intent to commit bodily harm. Threatening gestures or speech. Brandishing a weapon.

 

[Van Kuen]

I believe I've seen a couple of instances in these last few posts that are basically talking about threat assessment during the event. OF course this is a necessity, (all LE officers go through shoot-don't shoot scenarios) and to me that is inherent. But also keep in mind that if you find someone in your home at night and visibility is low and you can't tell if that person has a weapon or not, you can only assume that they do given the nature of the crime. To tell someone to wait till you can confirm that a weapon is "without a doubt" there could also mean the end of your life. That's like telling a soldier in the middle east right now to wait till the suicide bomber blows up next to you before you start firing. I'm not saying shoot at every sound and moving shadow, but there is a limit in addressing this issue. IF someone presents themselves as a threat, your damn right they are going to be treated that way.

There is a saying - "you will never see the knife that kills you." This is something that assassins and criminals all over the world adhere by. So do you want to risk you or your family's lives by taking that extra chance?

 

[Sharp702]

This must be American. Here in Canada, the only justifiable defense is when personal safety is an issue. We value human life over TVs and stereos.

You do realize that some human life is completely worthless, and in some cases hazardous to prosperous human life?

You don't know how productive these particular citizens are. These aren't facts. And "disruption" is not a defensible position either.With execution? That's pretty hardline... sounds like Islamic Law to me.

I know for a fact that criminals are unproductive, and have no place in society. The prison system in its current form is a failure, and the law cannot do anything until a crime is commited. The only way to not become a victim is to take action. You cannot reason with a criminal. A popular saying among inmates is that if they break into a house to steal something, and there is a female there as well then they will "Steal" that to.

An old friends cousin was a peacefull person until he got robbed and shot in the neck over $20, now he is a dead person. You are not dealing with reasonable people.

Intent to commit bodily harm. Threatening gestures or speech. Brandishing a weapon.

So breaking into someones home is not a threatening gesture?

 

[michaeledward]

One of my points went unaddressed, and I'm curious about what you think. I had said that I am prone to accept the police's decision whether or not to press charges on the homeowner. Here, they don't seem to find it necessary. Do you not trust they would apply the law fairly in this circumstance?

Sorry for leaving something out ... I put 500 miles on my car today, and 4 hours or training ... I got to make a quick post between miles 231 and 232.

I have always had the highest level of trust in Law Enforcement. The only exception is in one of the threads on this board, some of the Law Enforcement Officers made statements that have me worried. I hope those statements are outside the mainstream. I continue to place uniformed officers in the realm of high respect.

This particular incident is quite unique, I think. The police officers and the district attorney have a different set of facts than were available to the homeowner. With the facts they have, it seems completely reasonable to not press charges for the discharge of the weapon, they are escaped convicts, after all. In Georgia, the homeowner could very well be elected Mayor.

On the other hand, does the American Civil Liberties Union have the potential for a suit against the homeowner, or the county officials? Currently, I do not think there are enough facts in evidence. I have said before, I remain open to new information. But, let's look at the article.

"he came home"
"the owner of the residence encountered several people inside when he came up on the porch"
"Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun."
"He said the white Jeep Cherokee was parked around the back of the home."

OK ... Let's assume that we are not talking about escaped convicts, but rather some high school kids crankin' the neighborhood nightshift guy. The guy comes home early, the kids run away and one gets shot.

Would the kid have the right to sue for recklessness?
Would it be OK if the county officials said to the kid, tough luck, stay out of his property?
Would you be upset if the county officials took no action against the homeowner for shooting a prank kid?

Having the hindsight that the intruders were escaped convicts doesn't mediate these questions. In my hypothetical, the kid would certainly have the right to sue, although he might very well lose. If the county officials were so callous, I think some might be upset. Certianly, some action against the home owner would be appropriate, if only a gun safety course, to perhaps review the 'shoot-don't shoot' topic listed above.

None of the articles I have seen on this topic indicate that the homeowner was in any danger. I have listed two links to news reports on this story. They essentially say the same thing as the one starting this thread. I read at least one more that was as comprehensive. But, as they are news paper articles, they have a limited shelf-life on the internet. Most of the stuff I was finding were abbreviated reports, cheering the use of the firearm, with out including the information I listed above in italics.

Again, as I read these stories .... THEY WERE RUNNING AWAY. He was coming up the front door, they were going out the back door. (Yes, I know the shot in the face ... but, could he have been entering the vehicle from the far side ... forcing him to face the shooter?).

So, Flatlander, it really is less about the law and more about the ethics.

Thanks for listening. Mike

Incidently, the three remaining fugatives have been apprehended. This is reported in the first link.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6235940/

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=70321
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/109757252233170.xml

 

[michaeledward]

Having four unwelcomed strangers in your house IS a threat to your safety. It is an initiation of a criminal act upon you.

Even if you are not at home? How can your safety be threatened if you are not present?

If I was attacked on the street by four unarmed men, I'd be justified in using a gun to defend myself according to most violence continuums.

Of course you would be justified in that circumstance. But, there was no attack going on, at least according to the reporting. What was going on was 'Running Away'.

We are talking about productive citizens being disrupted by criminals. . . .

Actually, according to the report, the productive citizen disrupted the criminals. They were in his un-occupied house. Yes, that's bad. He came home. They ran away. He shot them.

It's a bit semantic, I know. But, what might have happened if the homeowner stopped for a cup of coffee at the diner before going home after work ... the criminals might have gotten a hot meal, maybe some spare change and been on their way. Is that good or bad ... who's to say?

As for determing if someone is in danger or not, how much more proof do you need of being in danger than when another person invades your very home.

Again, You kind of have to be there to be in danger. The homeowner wasn't home ... how could he be in danger?
In the words of Homer Simpson "Doh!".

 

[Flatlander]

You do realize that some human life is completely worthless, and in some cases hazardous to prosperous human life?

Hazardous? Yes. All criminals? No, that would be a hasty generalization. There are some for whom rehabilitation works, unless of course they're dead.
Worthless? No. I am neither sufficiently poisoned by cynicism nor biased enough to agree with this.

I know for a fact that criminals are unproductive, and have no place in society.

What is the source for this "fact"? Define unproductive in your context, please. I am certain that there are people out there who commit crimes to feed their families. In a way, this is productive, though unlawful.

The prison system in its current form is a failure, and the law cannot do anything until a crime is commited.

If the prison system is a failure, perhaps reforming it may be a more humane way of dealing with the problem, as opposed to gunning down the people it was established to rehabilitate. What would you have the law do as opposed to respond to crime?

The only way to not become a victim is to take action. You cannot reason with a criminal.

This reads a lot like "You can only shoot and kill criminals. There is no alternative." Please tell me you don't really believe this stuff. That would make YOU criminal. At the very least a human rights violator, were you ever to "take action" based on this premise.

A popular saying among inmates is that if they break into a house to steal something, and there is a female there as well then they will "Steal" that to.

Really? How popular is this "saying"? Because you heard it somewhere it instantly applies to all criminals? Once again, this is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

An old friends cousin was a peacefull person until he got robbed and shot in the neck over $20, now he is a dead person. You are not dealing with reasonable people.

I'm sorry for your friend's loss. However this is one incident, and it would be fallacious to assume that no person who has committed a crime is either a) unable to reason, or b) unable to be rehabilitated.

So breaking into someones home is not a threatening gesture.

Threatening toward property, yes. Toward someone's personal safety? That would depend upon a) whether someone was there to be a victim, and b) what type of threatening behaviour was exhibited.

Anyone who is carrying a sidearm who is unable to assess the situation that they are in ought not be carrying that sidearm. If they are not able to deploy the sidearm in an extremely quick fashion, in all likelyhood that sidearm will never save them.

People who do not know how, when, and why to use their sidearms ought ot disarm. They are both a danger to the public, and by being the "bad statistic", a detriment to the people who legitimately fight to protect their right to carry.

 

[Tgace]

Had a guy here in my area disarm an armed robber. The robber ran away and the victim chased him down the street firing away. Hit the robber in the arm. Robber arrested. Victim was arrested too.

 

[Mark Weiser]

Flatlander I have to agree with you that those whom take upon the responsiblity of carrying a firearm should have the reasoning capcity to evale and assess the danger he or she is in and take the action neccessary.

I have said to my family and friends that for those wishing to carry a firearm such as a pistol the following should be considered.

• Military and or LEO experience
• Training course on shooting, cleaning and care of a weapon of choice
• Course on Shoot or Dont Shoot
• Videos and Pictures of shooting victims incorporated into the program or even watching a autospy of a shooting victim. This way the person knows what will happen when the bullet hits a human target.

 

[Sharp702]

Actually, according to the report, the productive citizen disrupted the criminals. They were in his un-occupied house. Yes, that's bad. He came home. They ran away. He shot them.

It's a bit semantic, I know. But, what might have happened if the homeowner stopped for a cup of coffee at the diner before going home after work ... the criminals might have gotten a hot meal, maybe some spare change and been on their way. Is that good or bad ... who's to say?

I am going to guess that most of this was a joke?

If not I will still reply.

I don't think you can disrupt someone in your own home. If it doesn't belong to them they shouldn't be there, and they should be ready to face whatever consequences come from invading another persons living space.

What do you mean "Whos to say?" How is a criminal getting a hot meal, and spare change good? To what right did the criminals have getting a hot meal and spare change out of someones property?

 

[michaeledward]

I am going to guess that most of this was a joke?

If not I will still reply.

I don't think you can disrupt someone in your own home. If it doesn't belong to them they shouldn't be there, and they should be ready to face whatever consequences come from invading another persons living space.

What do you mean "Whos to say?" How is a criminal getting a hot meal, and spare change good? To what right did the criminals have getting a hot meal and spare change out of someones property?

It is in no way whatsoever a joke.

I am making the argument that not all 'wrongs' are equal. Your posts concerning criminals indicates that you believe this is not a valid argument. Please feel free to hold that opinion. I believe you are wrong.

Throughout this thread, I have been attempting to address the actions of the homeowner. I am not trying to discuss what the local sherriff or district attorney have done. Nor am I trying to discuss the actions of the intruders.

From the articles, the intruders were running away. Because of this fact, I do not believe the homeowner was justified in his use of a firearm.

I am not trying to justify the actions of the intruders. They were wrong to be in the house. They did not have the 'right' to be in the house. Bad Criminals. But are you arguing that because they were in the house, the use of deadly force was ethical?

Let's suppose, Homeowner came home to find escaped convict sleeping peacefully on his couch. Would the homeowner be justified in shooting the escaped convict in the head while he slept? (Bad Criminal - In house without permission)

 

[Sharp702]

Hazardous? Yes. All criminals? No, that would be a hasty generalization. There are some for whom rehabilitation works, unless of course they're dead.
Worthless? No. I am neither sufficiently poisoned by cynicism nor biased enough to agree with this.
What is the source for this "fact"? Define unproductive in your context, please. I am certain that there are people out there who commit crimes to feed their families. In a way, this is productive, though unlawful.

By productive, I define as a contributing(pays taxes, owns property..ect) to society in positive ways. Upholding laws are vital to this or society is pointless. Criminal behavior is both unlawfull and unproductive.

If the prison system is a failure, perhaps reforming it may be a more humane way of dealing with the problem, as opposed to gunning down the people it was established to rehabilitate.

Right now the prison system is based apon rehabillitation, not punishment. Rehabillitation does not work in the vast majority of cases. I think it is time to give a system of punishment a try to test results.

This reads a lot like "You can only shoot and kill criminals. There is no alternative." Please tell me you don't really believe this stuff. That would make YOU criminal. At the very least a human rights violator, were you ever to "take action" based on this premise.

I don't think people should blast away at everything. If someone runs, or gives up then thats the end of using force. If someone becomes combative or does not comply then force should be used.

Really? How popular is this "saying"? Because you heard it somewhere it instantly applies to all criminals? Once again, this is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

I did not simply hear it somewhere. I have experience with criminals. A friend is also a criminal psychologist. Thinking that criminals are reasonable people, or that because they broke into steal dosn't mean that they won't harm you or your family is a dangerous hasty generalization.

I'm sorry for your friend's loss. However this is one incident, and it would be fallacious to assume that no person who has committed a crime is either a) unable to reason, or b) unable to be rehabilitated.
Threatening toward property, yes. Toward someone's personal safety? That would depend upon a) whether someone was there to be a victim, and b) what type of threatening behaviour was exhibited.

By the time you find out if they can be reasoned with it will very likely be too late if you are incorrect. Also, not everyone deserves the chance of rehabilitation.

Anyone who is carrying a sidearm who is unable to assess the situation that they are in ought not be carrying that sidearm. If they are not able to deploy the sidearm in an extremely quick fashion, in all likelyhood that sidearm will never save them.

I agree.

People who do not know how, when, and why to use their sidearms ought ot disarm. They are both a danger to the public, and by being the "bad statistic", a detriment to the people who legitimately fight to protect their right to carry.

I very much agree.

 

[Sharp702]

It is in no way whatsoever a joke.

I am making the argument that not all 'wrongs' are equal. Your posts concerning criminals indicates that you believe this is not a valid argument. Please feel free to hold that opinion. I believe you are wrong.

Throughout this thread, I have been attempting to address the actions of the homeowner. I am not trying to discuss what the local sherriff or district attorney have done. Nor am I trying to discuss the actions of the intruders.

From the articles, the intruders were running away. Because of this fact, I do not believe the homeowner was justified in his use of a firearm.

I am not trying to justify the actions of the intruders. They were wrong to be in the house. They did not have the 'right' to be in the house. Bad Criminals. But are you arguing that because they were in the house, the use of deadly force was ethical?

Let's suppose, Homeowner came home to find escaped convict sleeping peacefully on his couch. Would the homeowner be justified in shooting the escaped convict in the head while he slept? (Bad Criminal - In house without permission)

I am afraid I did not fully understand the point you were attempting to make at first.

I agree with you that if the criminals were leaving the home(and not regrouping or going to the truck for a weapon) then deadly force(a shot to a lethal area) should not have been used.

Situations are not black and white. A criminal asleep in my house would not be shot, but would be restrained until police came to take the situation.

 

[Sharp702]

Flatlander I have to agree with you that those whom take upon the responsiblity of carrying a firearm should have the reasoning capcity to evale and assess the danger he or she is in and take the action neccessary.

I have said to my family and friends that for those wishing to carry a firearm such as a pistol the following should be considered.

• Military and or LEO experience
• Training course on shooting, cleaning and care of a weapon of choice
• Course on Shoot or Dont Shoot
• Videos and Pictures of shooting victims incorporated into the program or even watching a autospy of a shooting victim. This way the person knows what will happen when the bullet hits a human target.

Military or LEO experience is not really a good requirement. If you attend any firearm competitions you will find a large majority of your best shots are not wearing badges or camo.

I think that to carry a weapon into public we need more requirements. I would like to see the person have to qualify with the specific weapon they intend to carry into public. It scares me that some people will carry a gun that have only fire a handfull of times before into a public area.

As for the video and picture idea, I don't think it is necessary. There usually is nothing to see from a bullet wound.
This idea could be better applied to showing car accident victims to novice drivers, because now those can be quite the sight.

 

[Tgace]

Military or LEO experience is not really a good requirement. If you attend any firearm competitions you will find a large majority of your best shots are not wearing badges or camo.

In a situation where nobody is shooting back at them. They dont have to worry about killing innocent bystanders. They arent getting ambushed as they drive up to the competition etc....put your best competition shooter into a situation where he gets jumped by an armed assailent at 7 feet while hes still in the holster and I believe you will see the same hit stats as you do LEO's in the same situation.

 

[michaeledward]

Right now the prison system is based apon rehabillitation, not punishment. Rehabillitation does not work in the vast majority of cases. I think it is time to give a system of punishment a try to test results.

This is perhaps a topic for a different thread. But I disagree with the premise you put forth, as do conservative commentators, such as George Will.

Society can inflict 'punishment' on criminals in one of two ways: Loss of Property. Loss of Freedom. By restraining the activities of a convicted person, i.e. placing them in jail, society is punishing the offender with Loss of Freedom. In combination with this punishment, society has decided that it might be a good idea to transfer some skills to the convicted, so that when they are no longer subject to restricted freedom, they have the opportunity to participate in society.

Also, punishment as 'Loss of Property' ... have you ever paid a fine for a traffic violation? The society takes some of your money. That is not rehabilitation.

Mike

 

[Mark Weiser]

Honestly I have worked inside the wall in a both Female and Male Correctional Institutes and I found that many inmates actually like being inside for the following reasons.

• Networking with like minded people
• No Rent or bills to pay
• Three Hots and a Cot
• Door to Door services for meals, books
• Free Cable TV
• Free Education
• Computer Access for Free
• No worries about Knowing who the Criminals are they are all around you.
• Friends for Life good social network.
• Free Laundry service
• No Phone Bills Call Collect

Once an Inmate is acculmated to the enviroment he or she adapts and actually is comfortable and the other key to Human Survivual is Sex. Yes Virginia sex occurs in Prison everyday. Free and Purchased.

 

[psi_radar]

Even if you are not at home? How can your safety be threatened if you are not present?

Actually, according to the report, the productive citizen disrupted the criminals. They were in his un-occupied house. Yes, that's bad. He came home. They ran away. He shot them.

He came home. People were in his house. He didn't know how many or what they were doing.

I think we've got a fundamental disconnect here. I read the story "he shot at them, and they ran away" (firearm saving homeowner from harm) and you're reading it as "they ran away, and homeowner shot at them" (homeowner using excessive force.) Truth is, we don't know, though your hypothetical for why the guy was shot in the face instead of the back is reaching a bit. I trust the police got the whole story, and they were satisfied.

I agree that every use of deadly force has to be tempered with compassion for your fellow man and a dollop of logic for the situation. These weren't kids with toilet paper. They were a bunch of salty dudes rifling through his house, organized enough to have an escape vehicle out back of the house.

It's a bit semantic, I know. But, what might have happened if the homeowner stopped for a cup of coffee at the diner before going home after work ... the criminals might have gotten a hot meal, maybe some spare change and been on their way. Is that good or bad ... who's to say?

If, say he was clairvoyant and knew what was happening and allowed it continue without notifying the authorities, that's called aiding and abetting. "And then been on their way"...to where? Rob someone else? Personally, I only like to provide to the charities of my choice, not the charities that pick me. Hey! Gimme a donation, now!

Again, You kind of have to be there to be in danger. The homeowner wasn't home ... how could he be in danger?
In the words of Homer Simpson "Doh!".

Not there...hmmm yet he was close enough to shoot somebody in the face with a pistol. That's quite a trick.

Another point...Property is an extension of the person, and a fundamental principle behind our country's laws...life...liberty...property. When someone steals from you, they are taking some of your life away, in terms of the work you've done to earn that property. If you don't feel that way, I'll be over shortly to help parse out your stuff to me and my friends. Do you have a big screen tv? Doh!

 

[michaeledward]

I think we've got a fundamental disconnect here. I read the story "he shot at them, and they ran away" (firearm saving homeowner from harm) and you're reading it as "they ran away, and homeowner shot at them" (homeowner using excessive force.) Truth is, we don't know, though your hypothetical for why the guy was shot in the face instead of the back is reaching a bit. I trust the police got the whole story, and they were satisfied.

Of course, the hypothetical I posed about the wound to the face and neck is a stretch. But, with the evidence we have from the reports (which is no evidence at all concerning the shooting), it is every bit as likely as any other scenario put forth.

Why is it that you read the article that 'He Shot - They Ran'?

There is no evidence in the articles to show that the intruders posed any harm to the homewner. You are correct that that is the disconnect. In the three articles available (two hyperlinks in my post, and the original article in Post#1) there is no reference to the homeowner being threatened. There are references to the intruders 'Fleeing'. All three stories state that the homeowner came home, which means he was not there when the intrusions began. And while I can offer no evidence to prove my point, I posit it is much more likely that four fugitives would run away when discovered, rather than stick around and pick a fight.

Again, I am not discussing the actions of the police. Although, I think the police would not be very diligent in getting the 'whole story', once the identity of the gunshot victim was known; an escaped convict, who was intruding in a house, with prior weapons convictions, got shot; don't we all think that is poetic justice?

How much 'digging' do you think anyone is going to do concerning the shooting, honestly?


Post Script ..
http://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/articles/2004/10/14/news/news03.txt

...On Higgins Road, the owner of the residence encountered several people inside when he came up on the porch, sheriff's reports stated.
Four men left the home quickly as the homeowner fired several shots from a handgun. One of the shots struck the gunshot victim ...

From the Shelby Country Register Opinion page.
http://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/articles/2004/10/20/opinion/opin01.txt

Post Post Script.

From the web site of the Shelby, Alabama County Sherrif

http://www.shelbyso.com/news.php

[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Burglary / Shooting Incident
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10/11/2004 3:10pm[/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At approximately 7:08 am this morning, Shelby County 911 was notified of a gunshot victim in a convenience store located at the intersection of county highway 47 and 71. This is in the Shelby community south of Columbiana. First on the scene was a Sheriff’s deputy who found a male subject lying on the floor who was shot in the head or neck area. A customer and the store employee were administering aid. Southeast Shelby Rescue arrived quickly, as did RPS ambulance, and continued medical treatment. Lifesaver helicopter arrived and the victim was transported to University Hospital.



“The information we now have is that this young man was brought to the store and let out by three other persons driving a white Jeep Cherokee with a Shelby County license tag. At the almost identical time that this call came in to 911, another call was received reporting a burglary in progress in the 100 block of Higgins Road which is a short distance from this store. The suspects in the burglary left in a white Jeep. As this gunshot victim had no identification on him, and we could not learn his name from him, I am asking anyone who has knowledge of this incident to call our office and tell us who he is so his family can be contacted. His injury is very serious and it is important that contact be made with family as soon as possible,” says Sheriff Chris Curry.



On Higgins Road, the owner of the residence encountered several people inside when he came up on the porch. Four people exited the residence rapidly and shots were fired. At this time, the investigation continues but it appears that one of those shots struck the victim found at the nearby store. The vehicle descriptions match.



“The owner of the property found himself in a dangerous and difficult situation, outnumbered four to one, while trying to protect himself and his property from this group whose intentions were unknown. He fired several shots from a handgun in an attempt to stop the suspects,” adds Sheriff Curry.



In the past two weeks, Shelby County has had a senior citizen awake to find burglars inside her home, and now a dedicated husband and father who works many hours to provide for his family, comes home to find intruders inside and stealing his hard earned property. All of law enforcement needs the help of the community to prevent these very scary and dangerous acts. Call your local law enforcement with any suspicious persons or vehicles seen in your neighborhood.[/QUOTE]

In an attempt to STOP THE SUSPECTS ...Not to protect himself or his property.
[/font]