Retired grandfather kills a home invader, and is himself killed by LEOs responding to the home.

Not many details yet, but this should remind us all how difficult it can be for LEOs to quickly sort the good guys from the bad guys.

We spend a lot of time and effort talking about hd guns, ammo, tactics and strategy.

We need to invest some time and effort in planning and practicing what to do once you’ve solved the sd problem and the LEOs are imminently going to show up.

Get your gun out of your hands!

Police kill armed homeowner in case of mistaken identity after he killed armed intruder in his home in Colorado | abc13.com

Try not to be holding a gun or looking like a threat when the rollers show up.

...another account from local news...

Aurora police fatally shoot armed resident who killed intruder during home invasion | FOX31 Denver

__________________
A Country Boy Can Survive

Hopefully there were body cams and they'll release the video. Not from a "who's fault is it" perspective, but more a "this is what went wrong, don't do this" standpoint.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

This is aweful. I feel for both the homeowner and the officer involved. Things can happen so quickly and any movement can be misinterpreted. When officers arrive, follow all instructions, keep your muzzle pointed in a safe (nonthreatening) direction, and put your weapon down. Move slowly and deliberately to demonstrate you are not a threat.

Waiting for the whole story on this one. Sounds like police had already arrived when initial gun shots took place. Perhaps the homeowner never had time or was given a chance to "drop the gun". Perhaps he ignored commands to disarm, provided they were given.

Man, what a shame. Definitely food for thought.

You do not even need a gun in your hand to get shot today. if you called 911, get a description to the dispatcher of what you look like. Yes Ideally, do not have the gun in your hand when the good guys roll up. Follow directions, sure if you can hear them. Old gramps, probably partially or totally deaf? The shoot first & ask for forgiveness thing needs to be turned down a bit IMO.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

It's too early to pass judgement. I was in plenty of "close call" situations during my LE career and feel very fortunate that I never had to shoot anyone. But I came really close many times, so I can see how these things can happen.

I know it's frowned upon and probably illegal as heck but if somethIng like this goes down in my home I'll take care of the intruder myself and then I'll do everything I can to put distance between myself and the scene so I'm not there when the cops show up. There's enough evidence that shows, with the new "shoot first ask questions later" attitude it's dangerous to be there when the police show up.
I'll be back around when the guns are back in their holsters. The cops don't need to know where I was or what I was doing, thats for the courts to sort out.

That is so terrible. I feel for the officers involved as well as the homeowner's family.

There’s no “ new shoot first and ask questions later” syndrome. If you weren’t in the town that a shooting took place you didn’t know about it. Which is why we all hear about weekly Chicago shootings, Trayvon Martin. Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, that man in his underwear shot dead in the hotel hallway, etc. None of us would know about any of them without the internet and constant media reporting.

As for this man, it’s a shame. I’ll wait to hear all the facts, but if he was shot with a gun in his hand, or he reached for it in a well meaning way to disarm himself, then I am sorry that he is gone, but he caused his own demise. None of us here would give a second chance to a person holding a gun, cops shouldn’t t either. If you’re gonna carry a gun, know the deal. I’m sure they came full lights and sirens. Drop your piece and step away from it hands in the air. Anything else and you’re taking a big chance. Don’t reach for ANYTHING. They heard the shots and entered the home. Saw an armed man. Drop him. Sorry but that’s the way it has to be. Nobody here would do different.

On the other hand, if the cop suit him while he was not holding a weapon, then that is in the cop.

Wrong - but totally understandable. I would be tempted to do the same.

Yep protect & serve right there.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Cops are human beings too. They have families and friends too. Taking an oath to protect and serve doesn’t mean they should give the benefit of the doubt to somebody holding a weapon, especially one holding a weapon at an active shooter scene. And you wouldn’t do it either. And nobody here would, including me. The oath to protect also extends to themselves. Guys wearing a bathrobe? Could have just shot his wife and children.

We carry guns. Know when to pull it. Know when to put it away.

Then the story around. An informant gives your address as a drug spot. He’s wrong, but the probable cause is there to grant a no knock warrant. You’re sitting on your couch when the door comes crashing down. You’re not gonna shoot those coming in? I am. I know I’m not a criminal, so they must be home invaders posing as cops. Not like that doesn’t happen. Go to eBay and see the uniforms and badges you can buy.

Course, they might be real cops, too. So bet your life and the lives of your wife and children that they are and just cooperate.

The shock of shooting someone will do strange things to the mind. Poor older guy was not responding to commands I thinking. Feel so sorry for him and the responding officer. Bad day for the families the town and all of us god guys. I don't throw my weapons around but if an officer tells me to do so it will hit the ground. I can clean it are fix a broken grip easily.

I think a lot of the middle class, voting, politician supporting, non-LEO public are becoming frustrated with what appears to be police departments using qualified immunity for officers as an excuse so they don’t have to absorb the expense of providing adequate training for incidences that have had similar outcomes to this. The Mesa, AZ hotel shooting and the Wichita, KS SWATing cases come to mind.

This may not be one of those, but that frustration seems to be building.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

The frustration is building because of over reporting and the media fanning the flames. This isn’t happening more often. It’s being reported more and beaten to death by the media, which is why I’m hearing about a shooting in CO from my home in PA. My uncle was a cop at a time when it was legal to shoot a fleeing felon in the back! Guy snatched a purse and runs and he caught one in the back. During the NYC Blackout of 1976, the desk officer was handing out boxes of ammo to the cops to replenish the 18 rounds of duty ammo many would expand on their tours dealing with armed looters. Think they weren’t firing in the general direction of the shots being fired at them? Who here wouldn’t? Cops as a whole are far more restrained today.

In this case, cops arrive and heard shots ringing out. They go in. Guy with gun in hand. DRT. Shame, but that’s the way it is. But again, if he homeowner was disarmed with his back to them and hands up, then the cop was wrong and should be held accountable.

In the late 90’s an off duty cop who had just been assaulted and was holding the perps at gunpoint as the responding cops arrrived was shot and killed by the cops as he turned towards the cops. Awful situation, but a “good shooting”. Cop had every reason to fire. He retired soon after. Last I heard, he crawled into a bottle s d the wife and kids left him. He just couldn’t handle it, and I don’t blame him. Good chance that the cop who shot this homeowner is in for a life of torment over it.

I know, cops have a tough job. But you know that when they hand you a gun and a badge. It feels like a "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail" moment.

__________________
Time wounds all heels

You stated there is no shoot first & ask questions after but then you completely imply that what ever it takes to go home at night, even if it means taking an innocent persons life? Yep their fault, protect & serve. Good shooting isn't like a good landing. Just cuz you walk away doens't make it right.
Yes cops are people too but you take a job & oath, that should count for something. Walking around with the attitude it is the innocent persons fault when you are the professional rings a bit hollow IMO. I like to give LEO the benefit of the doubt, I have family & friends that are or were active LEO, but it starts within your own ranks. You guys/gals should require a higher level of competency from every officer. After all, you are supposed to protect & serve, pretty sure that doesn't mean accidentally shooting innocents. It will happen for sure, but every possible thing should be done to avoid that, even if it means putting your life at risk, IMO. As a civi I have to abide by that, I think LEO should too. Abject fear is unacceptable cause to kill someone. Imminent threat of death or bodily injury. So ya kinda have to roll with imminent, not probable, again IMO.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

^^^ I agree.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Certainly reads like..... "shoot first and ask questions later".....

"Saw an armed man. Drop him."

I want to see every officer go home safely......saw your theory applied in my home town a few years back.. don't recall all the details; it was a raid, police entered through 2 separate doors.... but do remember .....the second officer was dead at the scene.

Shooting “first” when a person has a gun in their hand or reaches for something when told not to IS shooting first. Because if you don’t shoot first the other guy does, and then you’re dead.

Shooting first when the person has nothing in their hands is quite different and should not be lumped into this scenario. In THIS scenario, they had a verified call of an intruder and head shots being fired. Nobody here would do differently, whether they wear a badge or not.

We don't live in a perfect world and occasionally it results in error and misfortune.

When there is only a fraction of a moment available to assess whether someone with a gun in their hand is a threat...it's not hard to understand why, sometimes, tragedies may ensue.

Good training, tactics and cool heads go a long way to reducing the risk. Unfortunately, it can't be eliminated.

__________________
642-1, M&P15 TS

Seeing a gun in the hand of somebody who is facing you is no time for questions. If you’re gonna carry a gun, know how to act with it. The homeowner was probably in shock and maybe experiencing hearing loss due to firing a weapon. But the cop couldn’t know that. Yeah, they issue you a gun and a badge. They don’t issue you a crystal ball and mind reading equipment.

This was exactly my thought and I also agree that the officer might not know that, but it is something to be considered prior to entry, imho. (Speaking from the comfort of my couch with my SRT and entry days behind me.)

__________________
642-1, M&P15 TS

I've got to respectfully disagree with most of this post.
I do think the training has changed with the times. I think the police feel more threatened than they used to and I think their training and mind set has changed to reflect that.
We have an older gentleman who may have hearing or cognitive impairments, there are plenty of older folks here who can agree that as they have aged their reactions and understanding of the situation has slowed. Even younger people do some strange and unexpected things after they've been involved in a traumatic event.
HANDS UP DOWN ON THE GROUND DROP THE GUN TURN AROUND LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS GUN GUN GUN........
FLASHLIGHTS AND YELLING.
Why is anyone surprised that an elderly man who just shot a home intruder may be confused or not know what to he is expected to do?

Sorry, with the limited info so far, I have to say IMO, this is 70% officer fault and probably 20% dispatch (I'm being generous, I actually believe 100% of the responsibility of what that bullet does, good or bad, should be with the person who pulled the trigger).
How many home invasion suspects are 60+ years old and wearing pajamas (I don't know about the PJs but at 1:30AM he's probably not wearing a tux)?
Know your target and understand what you are shooting at BEFORE you pull the trigger, yes it's a risk but it's your job.

Primum non nocere, first do no harm.

So, given your post... you're doubling down on ..... "shoot first and ask questions later".

Not arguing what happened here or if the officer involved was justified...... we don't know any facts about how the shooting happened.......but your posts state your position; which you have repeated 3 or 4 times above, is......"shoot first".

You said “may”. You willing to bet your life on “may”?

As for his attire, how long does it take to observe attire, process the thought, and make a decision? Of a man holding a gun? Now how long does it take for the other guy to pull the trigger if you’re wrong?

As for warnings, the article do don’t say anything about the entry. No body cam footage revealed. But cops arriving to a home invasion are coming lights and sirens. Hearing shots, they’re going in immediately. You say old guy with hearing loss is probable, not to mention shock from firing a weapon. So yelling drop your gun is t gonna wash.

And again. What would YOU do? Faced with an armed man at a scene that shots have already been fired? Nobody here knows what happened. Did the cop turn a corner and come face to face with the homeowner? Quite a different scenario than having the man with his back to you 40 feet away while you have cover.

I’m doubling down on when you are faced with a person holding a gun at a verified active shooting scene, and that person is not wearing a uniform, then you do whatever you need to do to survive that situation. I am sorry for the loss of a man who just protected his family. But I do not believe anybody here would have done any different.

And I wonder how many cops and civilians have bled out on the floor as they wondered why they didn’t shoot first? I’ve been present at more than a few police funerals that ended that way. Look up Peter Figoski, NYPD. 21 year veteran responding to a routine burglary call. Came face to face with armed perp. Shot dead. Left behind 3 daughters and a wife.

.........shoot him!!!!!"

Based on what you've written in this thread... up to this point.... I fixed it for you .......

"holding a gun" ...... isn't a de facto threat to you.....

"verified active shooting scene..."....... verified, not so much, as the officer was the first responder..... at this time we don't even know that the responding officer knew anyone had been shot.... just that shot(s) were fired.

Don't you have experience and training to draw on that might lead you to consider another course of action ?????....... you keep stating your only course of action is to shoot?

I wonder how many officers who go to sleep at night ..... thankful that they didn't shoot first; even if justified.
I spoke at length with one just this past Saturday.....

Hindsight is like regular sight, only more fingerpointy.

We don't know any details yet, so we are all speculating, which is wonderful. We can fill in the gaps of what we don't know with speculation and come out with a scenario that has little to do with the reality of the shooting. Something bad happened, we're upset, its time to overreact and start demanding blood and blaming things because, I'm so angry I just have to hit something.

I'll add my own bit of thinking in this whole larger issue since everyone else is. As been said, try to state your description and all information you can to the dispatcher, if possible try to stay on the line. Communication is perhaps the best method to keep mistakes from happening. Communications may break down from you to dispatcher to officer, but good intel keeps the best possible chances of avoidance of friendly fire from ever happening. Calling the police and giving them rough information and no updates means the officers walk in blind into a dangerous situation.

Another good reason to stay in your room or where you are at and perhaps not go house clearing by yourself. If you can call the police from your bedroom and stay in there, or saferoom, staying in place and letting the police know your location is another way of keeping confusion down. You go running around your house looking for the intruder you may run into him, or have one of his buddies wander into your back while you are trying to go forward. Or, you wander into the police officer in the dark and have an incident. Although this case seems to have elements which support the home owner, the fact that an adolescent was being assaulted probably meant the homeowner had to move to defend someone, perhaps negating this idea in this particular situation.

On a last note, almost off topic, or at least leading to, the advantage of uniforms, ID's, markers, ect. One thing we can learn from the olden days, where modern people mock the old school for wearing flashy uniforms to musket fights, there was great wisdom. In combat, colorful, identifiable uniforms help to distinguish who is who in the clutter of battle, with all that smoke. Police who wear uniforms today have the advantage of being recognizable in public or elsewhere, you can see who they are, a good thing. Police who wear street clothes run the risk of "blending in" perhaps too well, like the plainclothes officer who was killed by mistake. The all vaunted 'grey man" blends in when he wants, but unfortunately does so when he doesn't.

Contacting police with details is important if possible, whatever contrasts you against the attacker, whatever makes you stand out is a huge advantage. "I'm a guy and there's a dood in my house" isn't good enough when you can try to do whatever you can to differentiate and identify yourself. Wearing a chicken suit may not become part of your self defense strategy, but remember that anything that makes you easy to identify can be a literal lifesaver.

All of that is the risk any gun owner takes. You hope you are capable of doing the right thing if a situation occurs that you have to use deadly force.
The police went to someones home, someone lives there, shots are fired. Wouldn't that indicate that there are bad people AND good people on scene? Someone is shooting at someone else (or they have a Elvis thing going on and shooting the TV. My point is it's likely you may encounter victims as well as the bad guy. Make sure you know which is which before you go killing people.
Do you think the officer made the right call in shooting the homeowner? He may have made the call he thought was the right call, but he was wrong wasn't he? We can go round and round all day for weeks and the bottom line won't change, the officer killed an innocent person. I don't think he meant to kill an innocent, but he made the wrong call. There's no way around it, it's his fault because he pulled the trigger. I know you would like to share the fault by saying you may have done the same thing, so be it, share the fault if you must, but we all know you weren't there so that leaves it on the officer who was there.

Also look up Jim Cirrilo NYPD. While I respect and thank You for Your LEO service, I don't want You on My cities PD. The responding officers have more body and head armor than any civilian and can take an extra second or three to assess the situation without going in blazing.

Holding a gun IS a threat to you. Depending on the position of the person, it’s more of s threat or less of a threat. So a guy walking away from you with a gun at his side isn’t the same as a person 10 feet away in a hallway facing you. But you knew that.

You never side with cops so I’m not gonna expect logic to sway you. But I’ll ask one more time since you haven’t answered it yet because you know the answer is the same as the cops. You are walking into a KNOWN shooting. Doesn’t matter if somebody HAD been shot. Shots HAVE been fired. You encounter a man that you do not know with a gun in his hand. You have less than a second to decide. What do you do?

If the news reports the man was shot in the back as he was running away, I’ll join you in vilifying th Officer. But from what I have read so far, it is a justiciable but regrettable shooting.

...drop on the floor spread eagled and play dead. Stay that way until paramedics 'revive' you.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest. The officer’s decision to fire at the time was correct. Based on the information that he had at the time. Nobody, even a cop, has the luxury of being able to see into the future.

Among my many talents, I’m a high school soccer referee. Pretty good one. Refereed the high school state championships a couple times. Worst part about the job is the parents, who will working themselves into a Tasmanian Devil frenzy over some call or noncall that they know absolutely nothing about, but are just going by the Urban Legends they’ve internalized over the years with no actual knowledge of or experience with the game other than writing the check for little Johnny to join the league. Even the parents of high level players are surprisingly unaware of the true laws of the game. I’ve told more than one parent that, one of these days, I’m gonna show up at the bank or the restaurant where they work and scream personal insults about their job performance, knowing nothing about what they’re supposed to be doing and how they’re supposed to be doing it.

I don’t critique other referees except for blatant inccorrext interpretation of the law. I wasn’t on the field with them, and I didn’t see it from their angle.

Rant over, and peace out. All replies to this post will be duly noted . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Jim Cirillo was a member of a unit that killed more people than any other. He had 17 confirmed kills himself. He killed those men in violent store and business robberies. Not in a residence. They used unauthorized weapons and ammunition. And there is NO WAY he or ANY other cop not wearing high level SWAT type body armor would let somebody shoot them because they were wearing body armor. That’s just a dumb statement. Peter Figoski was identified initially because he was an old timer still carrying a revolver. He had been shot point blank in the face. The unit was disbanded due to cirillo’s body count. Not that I disagree with their results. But using cirillo as an example is not the best. He was a gunfighter in a time of gunfights being common.

Here’s my question. It’s sincere.

If a LEO goes into a house knowing shots have been fired and finds himself face to face with a guy with a gun in his hand, wasn’t there a tactical failure with how the LEO was clearing the house that put him in that position to start with?

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I do side with the Police more often than not.... my Father was a Police officer for 39 years .... I have worked/trained with the local Police. I have a number of friends that are Police officers.

As I wrote above I'm not judging this shooting as justified or not.... we have no facts just some early news reports.........

My issue is "with what you have written" in response to this and other threads....... what you have stated (intended or not), is that the only course of action you consider when confronting a person with a gun...... is to "shoot first and ask questions later".

Remember; "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of Law"

You may not be qualified to critique if they followed the correct processes in the restaurant, but you’re more than qualified to critique the outcomes from your visit. Did you receive the food you actually ordered and was what you received prepared properly. If you ordered grilled tuna and were served raw hamburger, you don’t have to be an expert in restaurant operations to know there’s something broken with the system. Similar here. Something is broken.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

It seems to me, at least two good lives were destroyed - The homeowner and the officer's. It sounds like the invader wasn't there to borrow sugar...

I will be waiting to hear the entire story.

Your complete misunderstanding of my point is duly noted. What should the outcome here have been? We don’t know, because we don’t know what happened. . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

NOBODY here, WAS THERE. I guess MANY people do believe what they hear/read & the media.

I wonder if the homeowner had shot one of the LEO's would THAT have been considered justified?

I agree facts are not out and any judgement of anyone’s actions need to be held until more is known about all sides of the situation. Way too much to speculate on.

Secondly I want to share that while I’m not a police officer, many of my friends are and I work with the department daily in my job. What concerns me about what is said is the response by some. Basically what is said is “officer arrives on scene sees guy with gun= Officer shooting guy with gun”. Because the police office wants to go home and sees this as a threat.

Can it be a threat, yes absolutely. So can walking up on a car while issuing a ticket. So can a lot of things. It does not mean in all situations you should be shooting the person. I agree that in a shooting situation it’s always best to not be armed or look like you are a threat. Makes their job much easier. However the basics of how some of the posts read if they see a guy with a gun regardless of what he is doing with it he gets shot.

I’m sorry, that is just wrong. That type of logic and thinking is what can give police officers a bad name. It’s it tough job, I respect them and their duties. However it’s also the job they signed up for. I’m sure the officer that shot him feels terrible and will likely haunt him for a long time. I don’t necessarily blame him, (though it’s his shot he is accountable) but the mindset of what was shared and training provided can cause lots of problems with these types of actions.

I'm not sure what the "duly noted" thing is all about, but you seem to use it a lot and it is duly noted.

I didn't misunderstand your analogy at all. You get frustrated with people that don't have your expertise in an area (soccer was your example) critiquing your interpretation of rules in areas where you are an expert. And you choose not to critique people in areas where you're not an expert. I think your analogy is off base.

Here's a better one. You don't need to be a registered structural engineer (an expert) to look at a building full of people that just collapsed to understand that shouldn't happen. A normal person on the street may not understand all the nuances of structural engineering, but they still rightly understand a building with people in it shouldn't collapse.

In the case of the shooting in Aurora, if you're arguing that the police killing an innocent homeowner defending his home during a home invasion is an acceptable outcome, that's just wrong. It may have been legal, it may have been unavoidable, but it was an unacceptable outcome.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Yes, Monday morning is the time to change what you do next sunday. Do we just keep saying "it's ok" and keep making the same mistakes? I say no. We judge and do it better next time. If you can't deal with that, I don't know what to tell you. Denying that there was a mistake is ludicrous.

Very sad set of events. Many things to consider, sounds like the law showed up fast.
Homeowner, may not have had time to separate himself from his firearm.
He may also have been shell shocked and unable to hear and follow the commands.
Another incident for us all to think about and learn from.