Man shoots, kills elderly man with Alzheimer’s at Walker County, Ga., home

[d_r]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Lasher (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Chattanooga Times Free Press


A 34-year-old Chattanooga man shot and killed a 72-year-old man who rang the doorbell around 4 a.m. today at a home in a new subdivision off North Marble Top Road in rural Walker County, Ga., Sheriff Steve Wilson said.

At a news conference this afternoon, Wilson identified the shooter at the house on Cottage Crest Court as Joe Hendrix of Ooltewah and the victim as Ronald Westbrook of Walker County.

Wilson said the victim, who had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, had been walking around for about four hours and almost three miles before the incident occurred. He said Westbrook was lost and rang the doorbell and turned the door handle at the home, where Hendrix was visiting his fiancee.

The woman, who was not identified, called a 911 dispatcher and was on the phone with that person when Hendrix took a 40-caliber handgun outside and confronted the victim in the yard behind the home, the sheriff said.

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

---

The man who was killed had his dog with him. He was shot three times. The dog wouldn't leave him for an hour while the police investigated and animal services finally took him away.

No charges have been filed.

[Le Taz Hot]

1. I'm sorry, "No charges have been filed?"

THIS is what happens when any idiot can own a gun. This right here.

[d_r]

2. I know.

And they are teaching every other redneck that it is OK to go out in yard and shoot first and ask questions later.

Joe Hendrix, communications director for Scottie Mayfield's bid for the republican nomination for congress: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/joe-hendrix/44/855/869

[DWinNJ]

4. I hope

The " no charges have been filed" just refers to at the time of the story being reported.

[Major Nikon]

7. There's a bit more too it than that

While it's true that this is the result of what happens when any idiot can own a gun, the fact that they can't be prosecuted or sued after the fact is the gift of shoot first laws.

I'm not familiar with the GA law in particular, but shoot first laws often (if not always) require only the belief of a threat and not an actual threat. So once you remove the duty to retreat, perfectly innocent people can and are killed by gun happy loons and there is absolutely no accountability to said loons.

So what is the benefit to shoot first laws? The NRA and ALEC never provided any evidence that any significant number of people (or any for that matter) were being maliciously prosecuted for "standing their ground". The gun happy crowd promoted these laws on the basis that perfectly innocent people could go to jail for reasonable self defense without providing any actual tangible data to support those claims. The results speak for themselves and who could have ever guessed this would happen? Well, it turns out pretty much everyone smarter than head ogre, Wayne LaPierre. Police, prosecutors, and gun control advocates warned that THIS was going to happen and it does. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last. To the gun happy crowd we can say we told you so, but that is of little consequence to the family of the victim. They will probably never see justice.

[sir pball]

30. Can you drop that "only requires belief" meme? ALL SD laws "only require belief", even DTR ones.

For the record, I don't support this guy and I do think he should be charged with negligent homicide or somesuch...yeah, dementia patients can be aggressive, but I don't buy it. Lock the damn door and call the cops.

Anyway, here's the relevant NY statutes, a non-SYG state - if I'm boring you, skip to the question after the quote please. (redacted for brevity, emphasis added):

Sec. 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
...
4. A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself may use physical force upon such person to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to thwart such result.
...
Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
...
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

Ref

That's a whole lot of "believes" and not a lot of "actual threat". I'm honestly curious, how would you legally define "actual threat" vs. "believes there's a threat"? I've yet to see a good answer, which quite honestly I would like to have in law to eliminate any sorts of ambiguity that might cause tragedies like this. And of course, there's still the question of "knowing with complete safety", that sounds like a higher bar than "reasonableness". Not that it's a bad thing to have in the law; I haven't heard of any cases where anything other than disguised murder has been prosecuted under DTR - it's just an awfully high bar. Legitimate mugger with a knife in an empty parking lot by your car, would you say you Know With Complete Safety you could outrun them?


Here's GA's law while I'm at it. Looks like the same standard as NY, just sans DTR. Though I don't see how a doddering senile old man with a dog meets any of the standards in 16-3-23. (redacted for brevity):

16-3-21
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
...
16-3-23
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

[Major Nikon]

35. Not much different than any of the other demonstratably stupid shoot first laws

Removing the duty to retreat means we have to have this debate in the first place. It places an almost impossible burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate state of mind before any charges can even be considered. Cases where people just like this man walk free with no accountability exist and will continue to exist. Do I really need to bring up right wing poster boy of the 2nd amendment, George Zimmerman? Had their not been tremendous outcry from the public, he never would have been so much as considered for indictment and the end game speaks for itself. Other cases aren't hard to find.

And what is the benefit to these laws? Far right wing groups like ALEC, the NRA and their allies promised us these laws were required, yet never demonstrated any evidence for it. The idea that our justice system operates in a vacuum of common sense is demonstrably ignorant. The 6th amendment and all sorts of other legal protections were already in place to insure these things don't happen. District Attorneys are accountable to the voting public for stupidity, a grand jury system means the people have a say in who gets indicted, and the accused have the right to a jury of their peers. All sorts of legal protections exist to capture these things, yet ALEC and the NRA assured us these laws were necessary because good people with guns were going to jail. Do you agree?

[sir pball]

40. Which law, GA or NY? Also, and this is a major separate discussion, Zimmy had nothing to do with SYG

As far as I can see, the only difference between the two is the omission of the completely separate "knows with complete safety he can retreat" section - the standard for actually pulling the trigger is separately codified as the same "belief" in both states. I'm fine with DTR, but logically (in the strict academic sense) it doesn't need to be present - if you know with complete certainty you can escape, then there was never a "reasonable belief" of harm, QED. The entire self-defense law then falls apart regardless of a separate, codified DTR and any competent prosecutor will make the case. Doesn't mean I don't think it should stay, though. And no, I never bought into the "innocent people being persecuted" meme.

Of course, the legal travesty that was the Zimmerman case had nothing to do with the removal of DTR in Florida law, it has to do with Florida's separate and grossly idiotic immunity statute which AFAIK was pushed through with SYG and has subsequently been conflated with it (redacted, brevity):

Title XLVI. Crimes.
Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
...
(2)?A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Literally all you have to do is say "IT WAS SELF DEFENSE" and barring eyewitnesses to the contrary, it stops there, no investigation, no nothing. That's unthinkably irresponsible and is why "justifiable homicides" have skyrocketed down there. There's only a tiny handful of states that take it that far, everywhere else you're arrested and the DA's office (rightfully) is the agency responsible for deciding if charges will be further prosecuted. I'm fine with that too, assuming in general you'll be conditionally released and not held on a million dollars' bail. If I justifiably shot somebody I'd expect to cool my heels in holding for at least a few hours and then get a thorough investigation.

Apologies if anything's messed up. Posting from the train on my way to work. Going to be silent all day now.

[Major Nikon]

42. You didn't answer my question

Good faith debate means both of us get to ask reasonable questions and the other side is obligated to answer them. If you don't want to play by those rules I have no interest in this discussion.

I will ask again. NRA and ALEC assured us good guys with guns were going to jail which is why these laws were needed. Do you agree?

[sir pball]

44. I did, but not separately and succintly.

I should have said it separately.

"And no, I never bought into the "innocent people being persecuted" meme."

That may not have been direct enough, so two letter answer:

No.

That being said, I don't think SYG is inherently harmful assuming the police are still allowed to arrest you and let the DA sort it out later, which is the massive problem with Florida and the reason Zimmy walked away that rainy night.

[Major Nikon]

50. Shoot first laws are inherently harmful

The idea that shoot first laws didn't play a role in Zimmerman's acquittal is a right wing talking point that has been debunked over and over and over. Here's just one reason why. These were the jury instructions given by the judge:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The reality is that the shoot first law protected Zimmerman in countless ways in every step of the process. It prevented the police from arresting him initially. It affected the DA's decision not to pursue a GJ indictment until the public outcry was overwhelming. It made the prosecution's case untenable, and ultimately it prevented Zimmerman from going to prison where he belongs. It's not as if Zimmerman is the only gun happy shitbag out there shooting people for no good reason, either. Shoot first laws are harmful, damn harmful even. The chances that Z will kill again are better than even. He is a living testament to the law of the instrument and nobody could take his guns away after the trial. With any luck his latest fuckup with accomplish that, but I'm not really optimistic.

The idea that police are arresting good guys with guns and DA's are trying to prosecute them is no better. Why on earth would these people do this if the end game is failure? Trying to poke holes in the duty to retreat with no demonstrable evidence of actual adverse impact is banal. Laws aren't perfect, that's why countless other protections are in place. Inventing solutions that had no problem with predictable negative consequences is idiocy.

[Hoyt]

36. Sounds to me no "entry made/attempted," the gun fancier walked outside to "confront" sick man.

Gun fanciers do not easily give up an opportunity to use their lethal weapons, after all they probably practice in front of the mirror, on targets the resemble humans, etc.

[jpak]

3. Happy Thanksgiving from the SYG gun nuts

yup

[wyldwolf]

5. He was standing his ground against an old, weak and mentally ill man

His parents should be so proud. Everyone dig deep and contribute to this douch's FOX New defense fund

[justhanginon]

6. Sometimes

I just want to sit down and cry for what this country is becoming. So many needless deaths and so many that no longer care for anyone less fortunate than themselves. To my mind we seem to be losing our way as a nation.

[Mnemosyne]

21. I hear you.

[niyad]

26. agree completely

[onehandle]

8. Gun owners have more rights than Normal people, so no big deal.

America. Your gun is the law.

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Another killer for the humpers to praise.

[mahannah]

10. What the fuck are we doing?

[Hoyt]

29. Kowtowing to gun fanciers.

[DBoon]

43. kowtowing to paranoid agressive gun owners

The ones who are whipped up into a frenzy of fear, with hair-trigger rage

Also known as the republican base

[yuiyoshida]

11. This is just horrible.

I have no words for this at all, other than.. I am glad I live in California.

[marble falls]

12. He went outside to confront the victim while his "fiancee" was on the phone with 911? Why wasn't ...

he detained?

[lostincalifornia]

24. why didn't he wait for the police, why did he feel important to go out and confront?

[DBoon]

45. "when seconds count, the police are there in minutes"

They believe the police (and all other government employees) are completely useless.

[4lbs]

53. Because he was at his fiancee's place.

He wanted to show off to her what a big strong man he was, with a BIG STRONG GUN too!

Never underestimate a gun nut's need to impress the ladies by whipping out the BIG.... LONG.... GUN.

[RVN VET]

13. I won't be judge and jury without a full body of evidence, but

if Hendrix did, indeed, go outside with a gun to confront a dazed and harmless old man -- and also assuming the dog wasn't posing a threat -- isn't this premeditated murder?

(The dog was apparently no threat -- or Hendrix would have been at least a little chewed up after he killed the old man.)

It's possible, of course, that Hendrix may just be a very slow witted man, unable to grasp the simple fact that the guy in his yard was old, harmless, and in need of assistance. Or maybe his mind was clouded by substances the police should have inquired about.

No charges filed at the time the article was published. Anybody hear anything since?

[penultimate]

17. It's hard to come up with any situations that would justify the shooting of this man

Hendrix was safe in house from the dangerous confused old man. There was no reason for him to even approach him with a gun. I don't even understand why that would even be a consideration. If I see an elderly person wandering around like they are lost, my first thought wouldn't be that I need to arm myself. I would like to think I'd go out there to try to help them by contacting their family or 911.

And even the elderly was belligerent, all he had to do was go back in and wait for the police to arrive. If there dogs were an issue, why didn't he shoot the dogs instead of the owner? So I don't see how the dogs could have been a threat.

[Major Nikon]

18. It could be

But shoot first laws means it isn't. They are typically written to require only the belief of a threat which places a nearly impossible burden on the prosecution to prove nefariousness in the state of mind of a loon who would shoot a 72 yr old man suffering from geriatric dementia before they can even consider any other charges. The same laws also often prevent said loons from ever being sued.

[penultimate]

14. Ugh. What a coward.

Shooting an elderly man because he was wandering around confused?

[radhika]

15. He was 'safe' behind a closed door, and 911 was called...

But that wasn't enough. He had to leave the safety of his house. Why? To get better aim at the sick old guy and his loyal dog.

Seems like a minor point in this mess, but I sure hope that dog gets claimed from the shelter.

[fbc]

20. These A-holes always get away...

- George Zimmerman

[lostincalifornia]

28. in addition, it wasn't just one shot but three shots the jerk did. Something is very wrong with

this country

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. I'd guess the reason no charges have been filed ...

... is the Prosecutor is taking a four-day weekend.

[allan01]

19. the joh wayne syntrome rides again

dont ask questions , just shoot . id be all over this with elder abuse . wtf has this country come to. we are worse than the old west.

[niyad]

22. if I am reading the article correctly, this gunnut fired four shots--one of which struck the victim.

in other words, even at that short distance (looking at the pics, these are not large yards) he is a lousy shot. what happened to the other three rounds?

[Hoyt]

23. Walker County, Ga - whatayabet killer is a gun fancier with a few AR15s, along with his 40 caliber?

Trained and waiting for an opportunity to shoot a cold, weary, sick, unarmed old man center mass, three times.

[progressoid]

25. Some days I wish I ...

never mind.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

[valerief]

27. No charges? Only in America, land of gungeoneers. nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

31. They'll probably make him grand marshall at the Turkey Day parade. nt

[Baitball Blogger]

32. No charges are being filed?

Yet, the black woman who killed her daughter in a case of mistaken identity gets hauled off to jail. Her mistake? She was so emotionally distraught that she asked the police to haul her away.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-mother-shoots-daughter-holding-baby-20131126,0,6571701.story

[giftedgirl77]

33. This shit is just stupid & uncalled for.

I won't even pull into someone's driveway to turn around because of these morons. This shit needs to end.

[Turbineguy]

34. For Wayne Lapierre

this is an opportunity to advocate for the arming of those with Alzheimers.

[lonestarnot]

37. More shooters' world. Ignorant fucks.

[Divernan]

38. Headline: "Sheriff: Homeowner shoots prowler to death"

At the link, the video clip had the headline, "Sheriff: Homeowner shoots prowler to death"

So who was the good ole' boy who wrote a headline describing an elderly, lost Alzheimer's person as a "prowler." It appears to be a quote from the sheriff, but could have been a piss poor piece of reporting.

Seems to be a kneejerk response to justify that shoot to kill mentality.

Wilson said the victim, who had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, had been walking around for about four hours and almost three miles before the incident occurred. He said Westbrook was lost and rang the doorbell and turned the door handle at the home, where Hendrix was visiting his fiancee.

[Kaleva]

39. a link to an article with more info

Charges may be filed later.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/nov/28/wandering-man-with-alzheimers-shot-killed/

[erpowers]

41. What Is This

What is with this desire to shoot someone if they knock on your door? What happened to just calling the police and waiting for them to handle the situation? When I grew up, my family told me if I hear a knock on the door look out the window, or through the peep hole to see who was at the door. If I did not know the person do one of three things: crack the door and ask what they want, ignore them, or call the police. If I cracked the door and they said they needed help do not let them in the house for any reason, but offer to bring the phone outside and let them use make a call for help. If they refuse the use of the phone leave them outside and wait for them to leave, or call the police. Never did they tell me to shoot anyone.

[doc03]

46. Is Georgia another SYG state? The Republicans are pushing that law in Ohio now. I am

suprised he didn't also killl the dog.

[mountain grammy]

47. No gun control and legalized killing; what could possibly go wrong?

[Rozlee]

48. My husband has Alzheimer's and this terrifies me.

We live in Texas; need I say more? I watch him like a hawk and we have a home alarm system, so I'm not afraid that he'd wander away at night, but I was hospitalized three months ago and his brother's wife was watching him and didn't realize how crafty he is. When she was cooking, he grabbed her car keys and tried to drive to the VA hospital to see me, but couldn't remember how to get there. He drove for hours until the Texas Highway Patrol found him on the side of the road when he ran out of gas. He's deteriorated so much worse and we live in a rural area; everyone out here has guns; I hear those morons shooting them off all the time. This just adds another worry to the never-ending disaster scenarios always going through my mind.

[Dash87]

49. Another gun nut got to do what they always wanted to do.

If they think they'll be able to get away with it, they'll start shooting.

[otohara]

51. No Charges Filed AGAIN

it's legal to kill people in this fucked up gun crazed country.

[L0oniX]

52. Why take a chance and call the cops? The cops might shoot someone.

Another person that shouldn't have ever been allowed to own a gun. WTF congress? Do something to make at least a dent in how many low IQ morons own a gun.

[BREMPRO]

54. WTF is wrong with people??? paranoia is epidemic..

uh.. hello can i help u? or who is it? or get off my porch or i'll call the police? can't think of any rational reason a 34 year old man with a gun would be afraid of an elderly alzheimer patient... just effin stupid paranoid gun nuts..

[tabasco]

55. Another gun toting coward

murders a helpless person.

[Iggo]

56. Gun-fuckers.

[BlueJazz]

57. Up until this past year or two, I was OK with the 2nd amendment. Now...I'm wishing for a

...complete change in the constitution.
Americans simply can't handle subtleties having anything to do with weapons.
They're like a pack of zombies....biting, eating anything that moves.

[Ed Suspicious]

58. Happy Holiday's gun humpers!

[UCmeNdc]

59. Moral of this story....... Never knock or visit anybody

Even if you know them stay away or risk death. (sarcasm)

[Lasher]

60. Locking, local story

We do not see this as important news of national interest.