Can you believe this 1?!

Ebner will not face charges, according to the statement, because his blood alcohol levels were very high and justice would not be served by prosecuting him.
Click to expand...

So if you're drunk, you won't be prosecuted; justice would not be served. Poor guy was drunk, he didn't know what he was doing. :rolleyes:

Stephen Cook, Ebner's attorney, said he and his client both thought the prosecution decision to not charge the felonies recommended by Fort Collins police a "shocking disbelief."
Click to expand...

Now I realize we don't have the facts of the case, and the DA does... but even the bad guy and his own attorney are shocked by the DA's decision not to prosecute.
 
C'mon, you're not portraying the entire story.

You forgot to mention this one sentence from the story:
"This shot, Abrahamson said in the statement, placed all those within range at risk and warranted the misdemeanor charge."

That refers to the last shot by the homeowner that was unaimed and unnecessarily endangered other people in the area.
It is ONLY that shot for which the homeowner faces a misdemeanor charge, and I say "great".

It just goes to reinforce the very important idea that we who carry legally or who shoot legally in a home intruder situation are NOT automatically given a "pass" on making a shot that's dangerous to other innocent bystanders.
It also goes to show that we are responsible for acting responsibly and making judgement calls in situations where the judgement call may not be totally obvious.

The homeowner is facing NO charges for shooting the intruder, nor for harming the intruder. I'm good with that. I think the DA is doing about the best he can do with the uncertain circumstances surrounding some parts of the shooting.

The part I do have a problem with is that the intruder won't be charged because he was drunk.
I guess Ted Kennedy has set an important precedant concerning culpability of a crime while drunk (Chapiquiddick).

Carter
 
:rolleyes: You c'mon.

The story was portrayed just fine. It's a ridiculous situation where a man gets charged for discharging a firearm, and the guy who attacks him gets off Scot-free.

If the DA wants to exercise discretion and sympathy, let him throw it towards Mr. Steven Ray, 58, who whilst going through this sort of ordeal may have been a little on edge considering he'd just been attacked, instead of towards the miscreant attacker.
 
The misdemeanor charge the homeowner faces is not unreasonable. Every one of us here knows the recklessness of firing blindly. That last shot was exactly that, and if it had entered some kid's bedroom window across the street and killed him, the homeowner would be in very deep doo doo. Don't shoot unless you can see your target and know what's behind it. D'oh.

I'm wondering, although this is conjecture, if the reason the guy wasn't charged is that he was so drunk he didn't know where he was???? The article actually doesn't say the guy attacked the homeowner, only that he was trying to get in (which is why the shooting was justified, except for the last shot).

Springmom
 
I agree that the third shot was unnecesarry and dangerous.
However, Ray was justified to the shooting...
According to the statement, Ebner was reaching for a door handle when Ray returned, a struggle ensued and Ray fired three times.
Click to expand...
... since there was a struggle.

Even though Ray may never see this situation occur again, the other guy, Ebner, will probably go out and get drunk again and do something stupid. Or, maybe not, getting shot may be a wake-up call for him to curtail his drinking habit.

If Ray does see this kind of situation again, he may aim a lot more accurately.
 
Letting the guy off because he was too drunk to realize what he was doing... Isn't that kind of like letting off a DUI-caused accident because the person was too drunk to know they were driving when they plowed into someone?? Where is the logic here?? If you hit something/someone while driving drunk, you are going to be held fully responsible for the actions and prosecuted to the fullest extent. How is this different?? I don't see it...
 
I think we should all go to www.fija.org & print out information on what to do as a jurror & then hand out the flyers to everyone we meet. Leave some at doctors waiting rooms, restaraunts or even better, hand them out to everyone on sidewalks near court houses.

Set the home owners free with "jury nullifacation".
 
springmom said:
The misdemeanor charge the homeowner faces is not unreasonable. Every one of us here knows the recklessness of firing blindly. That last shot was exactly that, and if it had entered some kid's bedroom window across the street and killed him, the homeowner would be in very deep doo doo. Don't shoot unless you can see your target and know what's behind it. D'oh.
Click to expand...


Um, I think that the rules of shooting on a shooting range or on a hunt are not to be necessarily applied 100% in a stressfire situation.

The hope is that one hits his target (the human attacker). If he is going to KILL ME NOW if I don't shoot him, and I see a window behind him, I am probably still going to shoot at him. For one thing, the closer he is (he's inside a room in a house, so how far can he be?) the less likely I shoot past him, out the window, across the street, and hit some kid lying in bed.

And if I shoot him and hit him, and don't miss and fire through the window, should I face charges of recklessness because IF I HAD missed, I MIGHT have hit an innocent? Even though I was shooting to end a threat to my life?? :rolleyes:


-azurefly
 
There shouldn't even be a discussion as to whether the homeowner acted properly, There SHOULD be outrage that this drunk SOB is walking free! :mad:
 
Lemme see if I've got this straight.
The homeowner shoots at the intruder.
Several times.
The intruder is hit.
No one else is injured.
The homeowner is charged with something or other.
Careless shooting or something.
The intruder is let go 'cause he was drunk.
Does that sum it up?

Dayum, that stinks. Real bad.
 
So, did they figure out where the bullet actually ended up? From the sound of it, he would likely have been firing downward from a porch at the BG on the lawn. I wouldn't consider a point-shot in that case to be much of a risk, since misses would go into the ground not too far beyond the target.
 
Ray had no reason the shoot his gun that night other than the reason of the intruder. The intruder holds sole responsibility here. my .02$
 
Of COURSE the misdemeanor charge against the homeowner is unreasonable. Never mind the fact the very idea is pathetically stupid on its own merits, within the context of this case it's bizarre. Criminal gets pass because he's drunk, victim doesn't get pass though he's under immense stress caused by criminal? The consistency here is...?
 
The homeowner need's to get the drunks lawyer for his case.Claim the homewoner was drunk and didn't know what he was doing.Site presidence from the D.A.'s case against the drunk and get it kicked.
 
Well, with any luck, the homeowner will come back in the next life as a privileged basketball player and then he won't have to worry about such petty legal troubles as this. :rolleyes:

He could probably even fire FIVE extra shots and not have any problems come of it. :barf:

-azurefly
 
Last edited:
The part I do have a problem with is that the intruder won't be charged because he was drunk.
Click to expand...

That's the only problem I'm having with it, too.

It's a misdemeanor, and a citation to boot. He'll get community service and will likely get the charges expunged, so he can rearm himself in the near future to go shooting wildly into the night once again.

The one time the DA comes close to being reasonable, everybody gripes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top