Elderly Man Shoots At Oncor Worker

[carlson1]

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/Elderl ... at_Oncor_W" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elderly Man Shoots at
Oncor Worker

Published : Tuesday, 18 Aug 2009, 11:29 AM CDT

DALLAS - Police say an elderly Dallas homeowner opened fire on an electric utility employee replacing meters after suspecting the worker was trying to break into his home.

According to a Dallas Police Department statement, the Oncor utility worker was hit by flying splinters Tuesday morning when one of the shotgun rounds hit a wooden post. Paramedics examined the worker, but he wasn't taken to a hospital.

Police say the worker knocked on the 79-year-old man's door but got no answer. He went to the rear of the house and used a ladder to climb a fence to get access to the meter.

Police say the homeowner, thinking the worker was breaking in, fired several shotgun blasts through the back door. They're questioning him and likely will refer the case to a Dallas County grand jury.

[HighVelocity]

I don't know what Oncor's policy is about meter access but using a ladder to climb the fence?

[TDDude]

I'll probably get flamed for this but the homeowner was wrong.

Assuming that the story is true, and that is a HUGE assumption, shooting through a closed door is the "acme of foolishness".

I've read many times of people shooting through doors and I even have one acquaintance that heard someone outside the door, shot through the door, and then found out that he’d just killed his own son.

If you’re sitting behind the closed door with a gun in your hand, you already have the drop on the guy. At least call out or wait until you know who it is. It may be your college age daughter coming in for a late laundry run, or a son who was out after curfew and was trying to sneak in un-noticed by you, the parent.

Personally, I’d much rather die than live with the guilt that I’d killed one of my own children.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I suspect we will hear claims from the other side of the isle that the "Castle Doctrine" made this possible. Remember, in order to have the benefit of the presumption set out in the "Castle Doctrine," one must "know or have reason to believe" that the person against whom deadly force was used . . . was attempting to unlawfully and with force enter an occupied habitation. This man clearly could not have "known" he utility worker was trying to enter as the man wasn't trying to enter. Therefore, the question comes down to whether or not the homeowner had "reason to believe" he was trying to enter. In other words, was the homeowner's belief reasonable under the circumstances?

Don't believe the lies of the Brady Campaign about the "Castle Doctrine" being a "shoot first and never ask any questions" law! That was just political rhetoric of the worst kind.

Chas.