Attorney: Shot justified

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OnTheFly

New member
Lincoln Journal-Star

County attorney: Shot was justified
By LORI PILGER / Lincoln Journal Star
Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 - 05:15:19 pm CDT

Prosecutors say they will not file charges against a 21-year-old who shot his father last Friday to keep him from hurting his mother.

“The County Attorney’s office has determined that this was justified self-defense or defense of another,” Chief Deputy County Attorney Joe Kelly said in a press release Wednesday.

On Friday, police arrested Larry Grutel III after calls about shots fired sent them to a four-plex at 1730 S. 17th St. around 7 p.m.

Grutel was waiting outside when they got there.

His father, 45-year-old Larry Holmes Jr. of Omaha, was rushed to the hospital.

He remained there in critical condition Wednesday.

According to the affidavit for Grutel’s arrest, he told officers his father had gone to the building, where Grutel’s mother lives, and an argument ensued.

Grutel fired two shots from his handgun into the air in an attempt to keep Holmes from following her into her apartment.

Holmes went in anyway.

Grutel followed and saw Holmes with his arms around his mother, restraining her, police said. Grutel fired one shot into the wall next to them and they separated.

Court records say he shot Holmes once in the chest, then left to wait for police. A bullet penetrated Holmes’ liver.

Police arrested Grutel on suspicion of first-degree assault and use of a weapon to commit a felony.

He was released Monday without charges or a bond.
Click to expand...

This story surprises me for a couple of reasons. Lincoln, NE in general, and the Chief of Police specifically, are very liberal in their thinking on guns. I was shocked to see that there was not some charge brought against this young man.

The first thing I thought they would charge him on was when he fired into the air twice and then at a wall. Who knows where those first two bullets ended up. The second thing that might have generated a charge was the legal status of the weapon (i.e., stolen, illegally transferred, etc.). Since the story didn't address this, I assume that was all on the up-in-up.

Though the lack of charges is a surprise, it gives me hope that common sense will prevail if I were ever forced to use my firearm in self-defense.

What do you think?
  1. Should he have been charged, or were his actions legal?
  2. Regardless of legal, were his actions (shooting in air, at wall, and finally his father) responsible?
Fly
 
Who knows where those first two bullets ended up.
Click to expand...
No kidding. I think there should have been a charge at least for the two up in the air. He couldn't fire into a tree trunk or something at least?

The actual shooting seems justified though, especially if there is a history of violent abuse. I bet the dad won't doubt him again.
 
You are responsible for every round that goes downrange, but if those rounds going downrange dont hurt anybody, I guess there isnt anything the police can do.
IMO he got lucky... An initial call to the police instead of two shots in the air would have done him a greater service...
But who knows, we werent there :p
 
Sigh. Look, it was his freakin' FATHER. He didn't want to shoot him. Might not have been the best plan but under the circumstances it's understandable.
 
With only the information given in this article it is an awful shoot. If someone can supply some more information that would justify the county attorney's decision I may recant.

According to the affidavit for Grutel’s arrest, he told officers his father had gone to the building, where Grutel’s mother lives, and an argument ensued.
Click to expand...

An argument? Nothing criminal, felonious, life-or-great-bodily-injury-threatening here.

Grutel fired two shots from his handgun into the air in an attempt to keep Holmes from following her into her apartment.

Holmes went in anyway.
Click to expand...

I would not remain outside if someone is shooting, why would we expect Holmes to?

Grutel followed and saw Holmes with his arms around his mother, restraining her, police said. Grutel fired one shot into the wall next to them and they separated.
Click to expand...

He did not see what happened between the pair entering the home and him coming in behind them apparently. Was Holmes doing anything illegal at this point? The article does not say.

Court records say he shot Holmes once in the chest, then left to wait for police. A bullet penetrated Holmes’ liver.
Click to expand...

So he came in, fired a shot and they separated. Then... he shot him. I don't see it.

This article makes no mention of any kind of criminal activity that Holmes was engaged in or what gave Grutel the idea that he or his mother were in a life-threatening situation. Now if there was some kind of history of violence, or he was acting in violation of a court order, or if he was hacking at Grutel's mother with a machete and the article just leaves that part out... maybe I'd say good shoot.

As I currently see it, this is an awful shoot. Maybe someone more familiar with Nebraska law can enlighten me.
 
Sorry to hear someone had to shoot his father. Glad he wasn't charged. As for the warning shots I would hope I wouldn't do the same but don't know until I'm in that situation.
 
Sigh. Look, it was his freakin' FATHER. He didn't want to shoot him. Might not have been the best plan but under the circumstances it's understandable.
Click to expand...

Understandable? It isn't to me ... especially since those first two shots could have easily injured or killed an innocent bystander.
 
As for the actual shoot, I'd say there must be a lot of detail left out of that story otherwise I can't believe they didn't charge him.

As for the 3 rounds he fired at nothing, he should definitely be charged for those. That is ridiculous.
 
As usual with news reports, it's lacking in enough detail to make an informed decision. At the very least the guy should be charged with the warning shots (discharging a firearm or something similar). After all, in SD, we're taught that if deadly force is not waranted, don't fire the weapon. No shooting to wound, no shooting to scare. If thats all you're doing, then the situation was apparently not that serious.

But, as I said, I'd like to have more factual information as to the actual shooting. I agree in that he probably should have called the cops the first time
 
michell anthony. Why you asked. The guy just shot his dad. I’m sure you’re a real tuff guy and putting you in this situation you wouldn’t hesitate to put a round in your dad and you would follow letter of the law to a teeee. Just like I'm sure you do every day, "not speeding-always using your blinker" or just being a human being with feelings.

The guys probable in a living hell right now
 
Sigh. Look, it was his freakin' FATHER. He didn't want to shoot him. Might not have been the best plan but under the circumstances it's understandable.
Click to expand...

I agree. The shots fired off into the air might be a dumb idea to those of us with training and experience, but this is still a 21 year old wet-behind-the-ears kid who now finds himself faced with the decision of how to keep his father (who very likely has a past DV history) from injuring or killing his mother.

Under the circumstances, he went above and beyond any reasonable attempt to avoid having to shoot his father and only did so when the SOB made it apparent he wasn't going to stop what he was doing even after the warning shots.

It sucks for the kid, but I think he done good.

Shame on the police for such crappy police work, good on the prosecutor for not filing.
 
Comn-cents, trying to reinterpret your flame as an answer, I will assume you were responding to my question of "Why?" (as in "Why are you glad he was not charged?")

Your reply indicates you are glad he was not charged because of the psychological trauma he is experiencing as a result of the shooting. I am unclear, are you implying that the emotional aftermath is punishment enough for an unjustified shooting? Or did you read something in the article that justifies the shooting and you are glad he does not have to defend himself in court?

I also believe it was a poor decision to imply I would shoot my father in the same situation. Did you understand that I believe the shooting was not justified based on the information given? Actually I believe it was tacky to imply I would shoot my father at all.
 
Last edited:
To Stevelyn, I won't say the blind assumption of a history of violence is an unlikely one, but assumptions don't have any place in determining the lawfulness of a shooting.

Also, I can't find the part of the article that indicates that his father was attempting to injure or kill his mother. I read that Grutel claims he entered the room to see his father restraining his mother. His arms were allegedly around her, not striking her or strangling her. Do we know why he was doing this?

Further, I cannot find the part in the article that indicates poor police work. If you are referring to the fact that they arrested him at all, remember the police arrived to find an unarmed man shot and some "victims" with no visible injuries indicating Grutel was the shooter.
 
Maybe the father turned on the son

After the son interrupted him bashing the mother?

We will never know, we werent there? Hopefully the falling bullets didnt hurt someone elsewhere :eek: not a good idea at all, yes a tree or garden might have been a better idea... dunno, wasnt there.....

I am sure the cops would have charged him if there was cause, must have been circumstances for them to not press charges.

We can only trust the law has made the right decision on the facts they have at hand :eek:

Hope the dad is ok, hope the boy is too.... a shame when families fight, it's not right :(
 
Why is everyone getting into such a tizzy over this?

From the OP, there are a few facts that can be gleaned.

  • A young man shot his father.
  • Police arrived at the scene and it was not immediately apparent what had actually happened, so
  • The young man was arrested on suspicion of first-degree assault.
  • An investigation into the incident was made.
  • The County Attorney declined to file charges, after reviewing the investigative report.
  • The young man was released since no charges were filed.

That is all we know. Barring other evidence to the contrary, all the arm-chair quarter-backing of this incident is useless speculation.

You weren't there. No one has any other facts than the above.

So why is everyone getting into such a tizzy over this?
 
Antipitas said:
Why is everyone getting into such a tizzy over this?
Click to expand...

Because I have this magical way of asking a question that riles everyone up and eventually gets my thread closed. I swear I could ask something as benign as "What is your favorite color?", and conversation would escalate to pointed jabs being thrown back and forth that would eventually erupt into a bar fight, ultimately closing the thread...sheesh! :o

Fly
 
Why is everyone getting into such a tizzy over this?
Click to expand...

Because we have seen countless threads warning and admonishing against so-called 'warning shots' and/or shots fired into the air as irresponsible and extremely dangerous. And if anyone thinks warning shots are 'okay' or even warranted in this particular situation, they would be wrong...especially since this incident seems to have taken place at an apartment complex of some kind which generally has a denser population per square foot and the probability of someone being hit by those un-aimed shots is far higher.
 
Fly

Are you causing trouble.... AGAIN? :eek::D

My favorite colour is BRASS... filled with BLACK with GRAY on top & a little SILVER (or gold) thingy in the back :D
 
Creature, as a general rule, yes, warning shots are not warranted. I agree. Yet, there are exceptions to this rule.

Apparently, this was a case of an exception. I say apparently, because it met the "smell" test of the D.A.

Yet some of you want to focus on a peripheral "fact" instead of all the facts. And remember, we don't know all the facts. Just a very few inferences from the article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top