Tn man shoots Ga man with Alzheimer's

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

Have not seen a thread on this so.

 

Man from that I am told is from Tn was at his GF house when at 4 AM someone tried to make entry. He went outside to investigate an found someone still out there. He shouted some kind of commands to the person but the man came in his direction. Shots were then fired killing him.

 

The person shot turns out to be a elderly man with Alzheimer's who had slipped off from his home.

 

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/top-stories/stories/unarmed-man-killed-outside-walker-co-home-8072.shtml

 

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/nov/27/homeowner-allegedly-shoots-and-kills-prowler-outsi/?breakingnews

 

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/24093336/will-stand-your-ground-play-a-role-in-shooting-death-case-of-walker-co-man-with-alzheimers

 

[Oh Shoot]

Dunno the nuances of GA deadly force laws, but that could likely be a life changing "oops" for the shooter.

 

Guy wasn't inside the abode, unarmed, and old. Even without the Alzheimer's, initially sounds like situation involving a person not presenting any threat that simply going back in the home and calling the cops would have remedied.

 

- OS

Edited November 29, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Fourtyfive]

... Edited November 29, 2013 by Threeeighty

[Luke E.]

 Know your target. Who knows what was going through the mind of the homeowner or if there had been problems in the area leading up to this time that caused him to be a bit quick. Maybe none of this was the case but i'd sure like to hear everything 1st. No matter what happens legally, justified or not, this guy will likely be haunted from now on knowing that he pulled the trigger on an elderly man that meant no harm. I feel for all involved and the dead gentleman's family.

[billyscott]

My God man, That's sad! For everyone involved. 

[Fourtyfive]

... Edited November 29, 2013 by Threeeighty

[scoutfsu]

Wonder how this would've turned out if the guy had a SureFire on his pistol or in his other hand.

[Fourtyfive]

... Edited November 29, 2013 by Threeeighty

[glock55]

of course we don't know all the details but based on what I read my opinion is the shooter should be charged at least with manslaughter. this appears to be a shooting that should never have happened but for the foolishness of Mr. Hendricks. this shooting seems to me flawed for the following reasons  a) Hendricks was secured inside the house and not under thread of harm or death B) Hendricks had contacted police and should have remained inside the house and let the police do their job  c)  Hendricks did not identify his target as a threat, I find it hard to believe that any 32 yr old would feel threatened by a 72 yr old if he had just identified the target  with some kind of light  d) Hendricks violated the stand your ground law in that while we don't have a requirement to retreat the law does not give us the right to advance on some one.

I feel Hendricks made the same mistake as Zimmerman in that neither understood that self defense should never involve an element of offense or looking for trouble. self defense with a gun should only be a last resort when no other way is available to prevent harm or death to our self or those we protect. Hendricks actions did not meet this standard in my opinion.

 

disregard the smiley face don't know why its there and could not get rid of it.

Edited November 29, 2013 by glock55

[dralarms]

Yea, from the reports he should be charged. You don't go outside looking for a fight, you stay inside and either wait fir the fight to come to you or for the cops to deal with it outside.

[DaveS]

I wasn't aware you could "shoot to kill" someone trespassing on your property. The shooter should have stayed inside, battened down the hatches and made sure no entry was made until police arrived. Believe me, there is nothing outside worth dying over, and this could have went very bad for the shooter as well. Police are trained to handle situations like this and could have used other officers, K-9 and/or "less than lethal" methods to locate and apprehend the elderly gentleman. Most likely just another case of "Johnny shot quick" because he pizzed on himself out of fear when he encountered the old man. Just my opinion as I wasn't there.

 

A sad story indeed!

 

DaveS

Edited November 29, 2013 by DaveS

[Joe357]

I to can see criminal charges. Going outside to confront the person when you are safe inside and have a phone to call LEO IMO is a big no no.

[DaveS]

I to can see criminal charges. Going outside to confront the person when you are safe inside and have a phone to call LEO IMO is a big no no.

Never leave your place of "safety" to go look for someone outside, let LE deal with it. As when you do, I feel it is no longer "self-defense". A lot of folks probably think otherwise.

 

Dave

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

I would not hold my breath for Buzz to file charges. Its easy to look back an say what should an should not have been done. Lets look at it from what was known at the time.

He is out of state visiting his GF in the middle of nowhere Ga but not far from a high crime city. He has probably never seen a patrol car in that community. (I know I have not an I have been there a lot) 4 am he is woken up by someone going from one door to the next trying to get it.

(Assumptions from here on out) Not yet awake he exits the house from the other side and flanks the person. He is putting him self between the "bad guy" an his GF who is still locked in the house. We know now that the person did not have a healthy mind an may have though someone was keeping him out of his own home. The shooter at the time just saw another man who was breaking in round on him an start advancing on him. May have been aggressively.


The end is bad but looking at it step by step an all though I don't think they were smart moves, every action fits in the range of the reasonable man rule based on what he knew at the time. =No charges.

[DaveTN]

of course we don't know all the details but based on what I read my opinion is the shooter should be charged at least with manslaughter. this appears to be a shooting that should never have happened but for the foolishness of Mr. Hendricks. this shooting seems to me flawed for the following reasons  a) Hendricks was secured inside the house and not under thread of harm or death B) Hendricks had contacted police and should have remained inside the house and let the police do their job  c)  Hendricks did not identify his target as a threat, I find it hard to believe that any 32 yr old would feel threatened by a 72 yr old if he had just identified the target  with some kind of light  d) Hendricks violated the stand your ground law in that while we don't have a requirement to retreat the law does not give us the right to advance on some one.
I feel Hendricks made the same mistake as Zimmerman in that neither understood that self defense should never involve an element of offense or looking for trouble. self defense with a gun should only be a last resort when no other way is available to prevent harm or death to our self or those we protect. Hendricks actions did not meet this standard in my opinion.
 
disregard the smiley face don't know why its there and could not get rid of it.

 
 

Yea, from the reports he should be charged. You don't go outside looking for a fight, you stay inside and either wait fir the fight to come to you or for the cops to deal with it outside.

 
 

I wasn't aware you could "shoot to kill" someone trespassing on your property. The shooter should have stayed inside, battened down the hatches and made sure no entry was made until police arrived. Believe me, there is nothing outside worth dying over, and this could have went very bad for the shooter as well. Police are trained to handle situations like this and could have used other officers, K-9 and/or "less than lethal" methods to locate and apprehend the elderly gentleman. Most likely just another case of "Johnny shot quick" because he pizzed on himself out of fear when he encountered the old man. Just my opinion as I wasn't there.
 
A sad story indeed!
 
DaveS

 
 

I to can see criminal charges. Going outside to confront the person when you are safe inside and have a phone to call LEO IMO is a big no no.

This reminds me of the TN case of Mike Claiborne. He was with his girlfriend and another couple looking at a house that was for sale. He thought the owner was gone. They were on the back deck when the owner shot through the door hitting Claiborne in the back of the head and killing him.

The homeowner never called out, turned on a light or called Police; just fired though the door. A Grand Jury refused to indict.

[DaveS]

 
 
 
 
 
 

This reminds me of the TN case of Mike Claiborne. He was with his girlfriend and another couple looking at a house that was for sale. He thought the owner was gone. They were on the back deck when the owner shot through the door hitting Claiborne in the back of the head and killing him.

The homeowner never called out, turned on a light or called Police; just fired though the door. A Grand Jury refused to indict.

That's insane!

 

Dave

[chances R]

As I have said in the past, the LAST thing I want to do is have to shoot someone.  If there is a easy way out.....take it.  Don't go outside looking for trouble, and if you do, go back inside.  It is simply not worth the time, hassle, questions, prison, and regret.

[glock55]

The end is bad but looking at it step by step an all though I don't think they were smart moves, every action fits in the range of the reasonable man rule based on what he knew at the time. =No charges.[/quote]

Sir I must respectfully disagree and in fact find it somewhat offensive that anyone would find mr Hendricks actions as reasonable based on the following: 1) we all live or visit areas that have high crime after all that's America today. That is no reason to shoot people we come across. 2) just because he never saw a police car doesn't mean they are not available after all the gf had them on the phone 3) ringing the door bell and trying the door are not reasons to shoot anyone in fact no crime that meets the need for self defense even occurred here. Mr Hendricks should have known this as he did not have to walk over broken glass to get out of the house and in fact had to unlock the closed door to go outside. 4) there was no need to go out and flank anyone as mr Hendricks was between the victim and his gf even before he left the bedroom. 5) if mr Hendricks had time to do flanking maneuvers he should have had time to id the victim as a 74 year old confused man. 6) I will agree with you that they were not smart moves in fact in my opinion they were criminal moves that demand that charges be brought against mr Hendricks.

[Guest TNSovereignty]

I believe all tragedies, and all potential circumstances we may find ourselves in, require case by case analysis.  From the facts given, this sure looks like a dumb shooting.  Same kind of reckless guy who looks for other hunters through his riflescope - dangerously dumb.  

 

Wise people learn from other people's experiences ... fools only learn from their own - often stupid - experiences.  So it's wise to gather facts about this shooting, and many others, and 'war-game' your own potential scenarios.  To paraphrase Gen Eisenhower - when going into war, plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.

 

Good advice given on staying indoors & avoiding confrontation - if possible.  But you have to war-game your own potential scenarios, what & whom you have to protect, where your loved ones may be on your property, etc.  One thought that has come up in a couple of posts is to call the cops.  Good idea.  But where I live, the police have arrived at our local emergencies in 30-40 minutes ... that's personal experience.  I'd still call them, but also don't count on their help if life is potentially endangered.  No one-sized-fits-all solution, and we can't think that what works in suburbia is necessarily the right tactic in the boonies.  

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

The end is bad but looking at it step by step an all though I don't think they were smart moves, every action fits in the range of the reasonable man rule based on what he knew at the time. =No charges.[/quote]

Sir I must respectfully disagree and in fact find it somewhat offensive that anyone would find mr Hendricks actions as reasonable based on the following: 1) we all live or visit areas that have high crime after all that's America today. That is no reason to shoot people we come across. 2) just because he never saw a police car doesn't mean they are not available after all the gf had them on the phone 3) ringing the door bell and trying the door are not reasons to shoot anyone in fact no crime that meets the need for self defense even occurred here. Mr Hendricks should have known this as he did not have to walk over broken glass to get out of the house and in fact had to unlock the closed door to go outside. 4) there was no need to go out and flank anyone as mr Hendricks was between the victim and his gf even before he left the bedroom. 5) if mr Hendricks had time to do flanking maneuvers he should have had time to id the victim as a 74 year old confused man. 6) I will agree with you that they were not smart moves in fact in my opinion they were criminal moves that demand that charges be brought against mr Hendricks.

I am just explaining Ga law to you an why the sheriff who is also upset that a friend has been shot has not filed charges an does not expect the DA to ether. You can hold any opinion you want but the law is what it is.

 

 

If you put this story to a Walker County Ga Jury as it is known to us, at least 1 in 12 would say that knowing what he knew they may have got a gun an went out side. If asked about being outside armed an an man came at you in the dark I would also assume at least 1 in 12 would say they may have fired. That means his actions fall in to the reasonable man rule. It has nothing to do with what is the right reaction but what you can expect to be in the range of how a normal person may react.

 

As I was saying, he did not actually break any laws in this state an his actions fall withing the reasonable man rule so though looking back we can say it was dumb, charges probably will not be filed.

[dawgdoc]

Also, at this point, no one except the cops know what the shooter said happened immediately before the shooting.  In other words, there are several situations possible (some favorable, some unfavorable to the shooter), but no one knows for sure.

Some of the reports indicate that the victim was rattling the door knob, knocking or banging on both front and back doors.  These are all normal actions for someone who was confused and thought he was locked out of his own home, but would be quite alarming to the rightful occupants.

The Sheriff has stated that he did not think the man should have left the house, but it wasn't illegal either.  He is also quoted as saying there is no doubt the occupants felt threatened.

 

I can imagine two extremes that resulted in the shooting:  On one extreme, the shooter could have been nervous and ready to pull the trigger at the slightest twitch, which resulted in the death of an innocent man.  On the other extreme, the shooter may have given several commands to stop, displayed his weapon, backed up a few feet (i.e. retreated), and only shot when the man made some type of threatening motion (lunging, acting like he was pulling a weapon, ordering the dog to attack, etc).  In between these two extremes are myriad of possibilities, but we are left with an absence of information on which to judge.

[dawgdoc]

I should also add, that were it me, I would have stayed inside.  In my case, I would have to go through several obstacles to try to outflank a person at my front door.  Any intruder intent on getting in could make it through the front door or a window before I even got to the side of the house.  

 

Also, we had very similar situation in Catoosa County (a guy circled around to an outside entrance to his house and confronted two unarmed teenagers who were stealing from the basement).  He fired a shot when they approached, and one burglar later died.  The difference of the support (on the news comments section) for that situation and the Alzheimer's patient situation is dramatic, even though there is about as much information publicly available.  I assume that because in the latter case the victim turned out to be an actual criminal, they don't have a problem with it, even though it appears the basic facts (man shoots person who wasn't supposed to be there) are essentially the same.

[McGarrett]

Tragic for all involved. I have went outside plenty of times to check noises usually raccoon or squirrel on the porch or a dog. I live out in the country so I don't tend to call 911 every time I hear a noise outside. My driveway is 1/3 mile long and the area is wooded so you can't see my house from the road. We don't get a lot of unannounced visitors especially at night. It does not seem out of place to me to go outside to check a noise or suspicious activity on your property however you are still subject to follow the law. 

 

The only time I have had someone come up unannounced at night I heard a knock at the front door at 3am and went to the door with my 12ga and it was a Sheriff's Deputy telling me there was a car accident out at the road and he thought it took out my fence but it turned out it was on the neighbors property. I just set the shotgun down and leaned it in the corner while talking to him. Later while we were down at the road the officer commented that most times late at night people are armed when they come to the door like that and it was not the first time he had seen that.

 

My grandmother had Alzheimer's and my wife's mother is in the beginning stages of it now so I know a little about that. When my grandmother still lived at her home my dad and his sisters would take turns staying with her and they had to put alarms on the doors because she was trying to leave the house at night saying she was "going home". She would get very frustrated and say that was not her house so they took her for a visit back to the old homeplace but she did not like that either. She had lived in this same house for over 40 years but she kept talking about a different house. This disease does not follow logic and rational thinking so there is no telling what was going on in the victim's mind at the time. The victim may have thought that he was at his own house when he went to the shooter's house, he could have even thought the shooter was a trespasser. Nobody will ever know for sure what he was thinking.

 

Justified or not I am sure none of us want to shoot anyone much less an unarmed innocent person. It is just a reminder that along with the hcp and carrying of weapons comes a tremendous responsibility. All we can do is hopefully learn from these experiences.

[Guest Bassman17SC]

Know your target.

 

1.  Why did they not turn on the exterior lights?

2.  Why did he not have a light mounted on his pistol?

 

Very sad, but avoidable (if he had identified the target before firing, that is), situation.

 

My mom was diagnosed with Alzheimer's before she passed away this past spring.  She had a couple of episodes where she "got lost."

[Hershmeister]

Whats the pressing need to go outside?