View Full Version : Stranger Danger
Team Sergeant
05-27-2012, 09:12
It's 3:30AM, you are awoken by a drunk, beautiful, 21 year old woman stranger that just entered your house.
What do you do?
Shoot her.
Shooters, are both psychiatrists. "Shall do no harm" doesn't apply.
I think this is the first sign of the apocalypse.
Zoey Ripple you are welcome at my house anytime! ;)
http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_20710045?source=commented-sports
In this case I believe I would have resorted to Hand to Hand
Homeowners well within their rights to shoot.
sf
Team Sergeant
05-27-2012, 09:53
Homeowners well within their rights to shoot.
sf
I could not agree more, I just love the hypocrisy in such a left wing liberal town.
Wonder what the doctors would have thought after they shot a 10 year old "in the dark" that was sleep walking.........
A 2 million dollar home without adequate security to keep out a 21 year old drunk girl?
Pat
Peregrino
05-27-2012, 09:58
Good thing it wasn't my house - the wife would have been pissed. :p (Cause the 870 on my side of the bed has a light on it and I can identify what I'm shooting [or not shooting] at.)
First we deport that Russian redhead, now we are shooting cute young blondes...What are the odds Ms. Ripple giggled at the husband, at which point the wife grabbed away the gun and shot her?
greenberetTFS
05-27-2012, 10:33
Homeowners well within their rights to shoot.
sf
I'd rather go along with PRBs choice instead........:D:D:D
Big Teddy :munchin
Remington Raidr
05-27-2012, 12:28
who had the Playboy bunny land in his bed, I woulda looked up and said "Thank you God."
A 2 million dollar home without adequate security to keep out a 21 year old drunk girl?
Pat
Odd, no?
Destrier
05-27-2012, 17:23
If a 21 year old drunk college girl wandered into the bedroom and the dog had not barked and I had not heard any of the alarms. The dog would probably be wondering why he was now an outside dog sharing a dog house with a drunk 21 yeard old for the night. My interior alarms would be replaced with tin cans and string.
A 2 million dollar home without adequate security to keep out a 21 year old drunk girl?
Pat
Does not matter how much the house is worth, they left the screen door unlocked. She is lucky they only shot here in the hip.
BigJimCalhoun
05-27-2012, 18:06
Given that it is Boulder, I wonder if the young trespasser had consumed any other substances other than alcohol.
Hmmm...I wonder if Mr. Justice really doesn't know Zoey or if she'd been there before...perhaps when the Mrs. was out? :munchin
mark46th
05-27-2012, 21:45
I'd have handcuffed her. Whips and chains optional...
I'd have handcuffed her. Whips and chains optional...
Ah-Haaaaa .... I know where you shop. ;) :D
Utah Bob
05-27-2012, 22:05
I'd have handcuffed her. Whips and chains optional...
Somebody comes at me in the middle of the night in my house and doesn't stop when I tell em to............ I will definitely handcuff them
But I'll shoot em first.;)
mojaveman
05-28-2012, 18:53
I guess her BAC was about .24 or better. That's stinking drunk. Luckily for her that home owner couldn't shoot straight. Glad she wasn't killed. Time for that young lady to take a look at her drinking patterns. And yes, I too like PRBs suggestion of going hand to hand with that pretty co-ed. :D :p
From the article
"........According to a 1999 online article in Psychiatric News, Orion was stalked for at least a decade by a schizophrenic woman she treated briefly at an Arizona hospital. The article said the woman even followed her to Colorado and moved into the same Boulder neighborhood................"
For a couple in a line of work where they are around strange people you would think they would have a better grip on basic home security. It appears it could well have been somebody other than a drunk college student - like maybe somebody with a plan and a weapon.
Destrier
05-29-2012, 05:11
Unlocked doors: fail
Purchase of a firearm and ability to hit an intruder in the dark with one shot: win
(Got to give them credit here, they at least had one and were able to utilize it under stress -self induced as it was- well enough to hit)
Living in a State with 'A make my Day Law' plan or luck
Not being able to determine the difference between a drunk 21 year old girl and a dangerous intruder: Fail
('lucky' to live in a state with a make my day / castle law)
Team Sergeant
05-29-2012, 08:45
Unlocked doors: fail
Yeah I was thinking the same thing especially considering the spineless doctors were so afraid that a woman stalker was going to have her way with them. So fearful they purchased a gun to "defend" themselves.
And they leave the door unlocked.
I fear no one and I still lock my doors cause I don't want that bloody mess all over my floors.
First we deport that Russian redhead, now we are shooting cute young blondes...What are the odds Ms. Ripple giggled at the husband, at which point the wife grabbed away the gun and shot her?
I met the red head before she changed hair color. Anna was a brunette and while attractive, Maxim magazine did some serious photoshopping. She was quite the entry-level con artist (we met in Moscow) trying to get a $550K investment from the fund I managed. The business plan did not rate it so end of my involvement. I think it was ok kicking her out. It boosted her career opportunities so a win-win.
Dohhunter
05-29-2012, 09:30
Mr. Prosecutor, define "Shoot".
I'd have handcuffed her. Whips and chains optional...
I think that girl needs a good spanking. :D
I think that girl needs a good spanking. :D
And HARD labor. :D
Hmmm...I wonder if Mr. Justice really doesn't know Zoey or if she'd been there before...perhaps when the Mrs. was out? :munchin
That's why the dog didn't bark. ;)
S.
Daaaang, that's why I never find any young, hot and drunk coed students wandering off in my bedroom: I always lock all doors at night! :D:D
All of them were wrong, but shooting someone who poses no real threat trumps all of those wrongs. I wonder if being too drunk to know what you were doing is a defense for trespassing?
All of them were wrong, but shooting someone who poses no real threat trumps all of those wrongs. .......................
So you would have waited to have a conversation with the intruder to determine if she/they were a threat first?
From the article ".......In the darkness, they shouted to warn the intruder to leave and that they had a gun, but Ripple continued walking through the bedroom, and Justice fired one shot, police said................"
Airbornelawyer
05-30-2012, 05:04
I wonder if being too drunk to know what you were doing is a defense for trespassing?
I am not an expert in Colorado law or criminal law, so my knowledge of this is pretty basic, but I think not.
Nothing in the article suggests she was drugged, so it sounds like there is no claim of involuntary intoxication. For voluntary intoxication, "being too drunk to know what you were doing" is not a defense to most crimes because "One who voluntarily drinks himself into unconsciousness intends whatever the foreseeable consequences or inevitable results of such intoxication are." Watkins v. People, 408 P.2d 425 (Colo. 1965)
Voluntary intoxication can be relevant evidence for a specific intent crime, one where you not only intend the criminal act, but the consequences of that act. Voluntary intoxication is however generally not relevant to general intent crimes. This is a common law rule, but it is also codified in the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. § 18-1-804). "Intoxication of the accused is not a defense to a criminal charge, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, but in any prosecution for an offense, evidence of intoxication of the defendant may be offered by the defendant when it is relevant to negative the existence of a specific intent if such intent is an element of the crime charged." [Subsection (3) refers to involuntary intoxication.]
So, for example, a defendant could offer evidence of drunkenness to show he didn't have the requisite specific intent to commit first-degree murder, but he would still be liable for second degree murder, a general intent crime. More relevant to this case, Ms. Ripple could offer evidence of drunkenness if she had been charged with burglary, a specific intent crime, but she would still be on the hook for criminal trespass.
The quote in the article from her attorney saying "She didn't enter the house with any intent of committing a crime or harming anyone," is not relevant. She wasn't charged with burglary, where her specific intent on entering the dwelling would be an element of the offense, but with criminal trespass. Colette Cribari (http://www.cribarilawfirm.com/attorney-profile.php) is a highly experienced criminal attorney, who surely knows the distinction between burglary and criminal trespass, so I would hope the article just quoted her out of context of a longer argument.
All of them were wrong, but shooting someone who poses no real threat trumps all of those wrongs. I wonder if being too drunk to know what you were doing is a defense for trespassing?
According to the Boulder DA, “Being drunk is not a defense,” said Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett.
Zoey Ripple surrenders in Boulder home intrusion case
BOULDER, Colo. – Zoey Ripple, the 21-year-old woman accused of drunkenly wandering into a Boulder home last week only to be shot by one of the homeowners, was booked into the Boulder County Jail on Tuesday.
Police say under Colorado’s Make My Day law, the homeowner who shot her is not being charged.
According to the arrest documents, there is no prior connection between Ripple and the homeowners.
Timothy Justice and Doreen Orion say they were sleeping when they heard and saw someone come into their house through an unlocked door. They say they shouted at her to stop, but she did not.
Justice told police he finally pulled a gun from the nightstand and shot Ripple when she was six feet from the foot of the bed. Orion, a psychiatrist who wrote a book about a dangerous stalker who threatened her, called 911 in a panic.
Ripple told police she thought she was at a friend’s house, and yelled “hello” like she always does and became confused when people started shouting at her.
Police say Ripple had been drinking at The Goose Bar on the Hill and then went to a party. There is about an hour gap and then Ripple shows up inside the strangers’ home and is shot.
Police say Ripple had a blood alcohol level around three times the legal limit when she opened an unlocked screen door and entered the College Avenue home of Timothy Justice and Doreen Orion around 3:30 a.m. Wednesday, and then walked into the couple’s bedroom.
“Being drunk is not a defense,” said Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett.
He says they see 12 to 15 cases like this a year, and adds they’ve had two cases of a drunk person wandering into a stranger’s home in the past seven days.
“Depending on the case, what we normally try to do is evaluate the person and help them figure out what kind of treatment they need to get for their drinking problem,” Garnett said.
Ripple’s roommate, Patrick Mulholland, says he does not think Ripple has a drinking problem. Hesays she’s a terrific person and this is totally unlike her.
Ripple was released from the hospital and posted a $5,000 bond to get out of jail Tuesday afternoon.
Her roommate says she’s fully recovered and is doing fine.
Her attorney, Colette Cribari, says Ripple does not want to comment, but Cribari released a copy of Ripple’s resume, which includes an impressive GPA and involvement in organizations that focus on leadership and community involvement.
Garnett says this kind of case is a reminder to people to not drink to excess. He says if you’re with someone who does, make sure they get home safely. And, he adds, homeowners should remember to lock their doors.
http://kwgn.com/2012/05/29/zoey-ripple-surrenders-in-boulder-home-intrusion-case-2/
PedOncoDoc
05-30-2012, 09:24
According to the Boulder DA, “Being drunk is not a defense,” said Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett.
Not to get too off topic, but what about a woman who consents to sex while intoxicated and later claims rape because she does not recall the consensual nature of the act? Claims she was "taken advantage of" and "victimized" while in a vulnerable state.
I remember a guy in college was jailed in that situation.
So you would have waited to have a conversation with the intruder to determine if she/they were a threat first?
From the article ".......In the darkness, they shouted to warn the intruder to leave and that they had a gun, but Ripple continued walking through the bedroom, and Justice fired one shot, police said................"
I have a weapon mounted light on my pistol to avoid shooting someone that I have not positively identified. The article also stated they left their doors unlocked. I read this story and wondered how the reporting would have been different if they had shot a family member, a child, or a friend.
I don't think they should have initiated a conversation to determine the intent of the individual, but "shedding some light" on the situation could have let the homeowners know that maybe this is not a situation that requires immediate deadly force.
Team Sergeant
05-30-2012, 21:15
I have a weapon mounted light on my pistol to avoid shooting someone that I have not positively identified. The article also stated they left their doors unlocked. I read this story and wondered how the reporting would have been different if they had shot a family member, a child, or a friend.
I don't think they should have initiated a conversation to determine the intent of the individual, but "shedding some light" on the situation could have let the homeowners know that maybe this is not a situation that requires immediate deadly force.
You are an accountant, good with numbers. Pete is a retired SGM of the US Army Special Forces.
Your "opinion" is noted, and you are wrong. While I value your Freedom of Speech I don't value your opinion especially in regards to the use of deadly force. You'd be better served doing more reading and being quite.
Team Sergeant
You are an accountant, good with numbers. Pete is a retired SGM of the US Army Special Forces.
Your "opinion" is noted, and you are wrong. While I value your Freedom of Speech I don't value your opinion especially in regards to the use of deadly force. You'd be better served doing more reading and being quite.
Team Sergeant
I have done quite a lot of reading since I joined this forum five years and 25 posts ago, and I have enjoyed the wealth of info this community has to offer.
Why specifically am I wrong? That is an honest question, and I would like to understand your opinion. You may not value my opinion, but I value your opinion the opinion of the members here.
Thank you.
Ambush Master
05-30-2012, 22:08
I have done quite a lot of reading since I joined this forum five years and 25 posts ago, and I have enjoyed the wealth of info this community has to offer.
Why specifically am I wrong? That is an honest question, and I would like to understand your opinion. You may not value my opinion, but I value your opinion the opinion of the members here.
Thank you.
Sir,
I pose a rather simple question. Have YOU ever been in a "Shoot-Out" where it is (quite literally LIFE OR DEATH) and how did You Respond?!?!
I shall await this answer before I continue with the, extremely obvious result to this Equation (Question)!!!
Destrier
05-30-2012, 22:09
My take on why you are wrong.
"if they had shot a family member, a child, or a friend."
Not sure about you, but my family members, my children, and my friends know that entering my house uninvited is verboten. Should they happen to find an Unlocked door to gain entry.. they do not use it. This should be the norm for any person when choosing to enter another's home.
We do target discriminate, we may or may not choose to utilize a light.
Example: I did not utilize my weapon light Sunday morning at 3am when some woman was wandering around my back deck and her man was wandering in my back yard. I quietly observed from deep within my darkened home interior.
Luckily for her she choose to wander back to the front door and knock and not attempt to gain entry through my back door.
As far as I am concerned, once you cross that threshold into a mans castle uninvited, you have cast your vote.
The castle doctrine in Colorado puts the responsibility on the intruder not the homeowner. She committed a crime by entering the couples home uninvited, they do not have to figure out if he/she plans on committing others.
A light has its uses. Informing an intruder where a defender is located, after verbal shouted warnings were ignored... is not one of them.
Looking back now that we all know she was simply a drunk 21 year old girl.. awesome. Yea a light would have been great, see it was only a girl in hindsight.
The couple was stationary in the bedroom not clearing the house for threats.
Flicking on the light illuminating oneself to get a look at an intruder that has ignored your shouted warnings is a great way to get shot by some bad guys shotgun.
But that's my take. Certainly not speaking for Pete or TS.
Why specifically am I wrong? That is an honest question, and I would like to understand your opinion. You may not value my opinion, but I value your opinion the opinion of the members here.
Thank you.1. I was raised not to be sneaking into the house at all; especially during hours of darkness.
2. The "young" woman was extremely lucky; had it been me--she would've had more than just a "single" gunshot wound.
3. I have never been that drunk that I wandered into someone else home.
4. People shoot at flashlights...trust me!
5. And NO, I would not have felt guilty for shooting her dumb drunk ass.
Stay safe.
Lots of coulda-shoulda-woulda with this situation, and the outcome is far from what it could have been. Lucky girl who learned a hell of a lesson she wasn't taught at CU but will never forget.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Sir,
I pose a rather simple question. Have YOU ever been in a "Shoot-Out" where it is (quite literally LIFE OR DEATH) and how did You Respond?!?!
I shall await this answer before I continue with the, extremely obvious result to this Equation (Question)!!!
Ambush Master, I have never been in a shoot-out and I do not know how I would respond in that situation. If your point with this question is that I am unqualified to offer an opinion on the subject on the basis of my lack of experience, then I would agree with you.
Team Sergeant
05-31-2012, 18:01
After serious thought on the situation I agree the homeowners were 100% in their right. Yea they should have locked their door but on the other hand they shouldn't have to. Saying that is was a dumb mistake on the girls part. Being the forgiving guy I am I am sure the coed and I could work something ;) out instead of pressing criminal charges. Hey what can I say, I'm a nice guy. :D
Thank you Judge Judy.
Are there any more dead horses you'd like to beat?:rolleyes:
Team Sergeant
05-31-2012, 18:35
I've written before that as a weapons amateur a gun light is a bad idea.
Go find the thread.
As was said, "We do target discriminate, we may or may not choose to utilize a light."
Real men don't fire blindly into the darkness, they enter that darkness and close with the threat.
While I may or may not have a conversation with the intruder they will know I'm there in a few seconds.
For most people it's a good idea to sit tight and to tell the intruder you just called the police and that you have a gun.
When you do that you just gave away the element of surprise.
What does my sig line say? That is how I plan on meeting an intruder.
I would also side with the homeowners but I think the way he went about it was very pusillanimous.
TS
Snaquebite
05-31-2012, 18:57
pusillanimous
Probably the 4th time I've ever heard/read that word...I'm impressed.
I would also side with the homeowners but I think the way he went about it was very pusillanimous.
TS
I agree with everything you wrote - except the quoted part. While "Bang, don't move or I'll shoot" is certainly a recreant philosophy, I don't believe that intruders into my bedroom deserve anything less than "Surprise, Speed & Violence of Action."
Please elaborate.
Team Sergeant
06-01-2012, 11:39
As has been written on this website, we are taught to target discriminate. And unlike tactical weapons instruction at some major tactical flashlight companies we look at the hands first, not the face, if the hands are empty we look for other targets. Having identified the possible threat (instead of shooting into the dark) and determined there were no more threats the situation ends there.
The day I deem an unarmed 21 year old skinny little female a threat will be the day I sell all my guns and move to Tibet to live with the monks.
Another good reason not to shoot until you've identified the threat is it could be a family member or friend.
The psychiatrists that did this shooting was probably scared enough to fill his pants and demonstratively frightened enough to fire into the dark. When you're that afraid you are capable of all sorts of irrational behavior, this is not the sort of individual you want to be teamed with in a gunfight. Was he within his rights, sure, but now he has to live with the fact he shot an unarmed little girl.
This also has everything to do with mindset, offensive vs. defensive. I've never attended a "defensive" shooting school. Chew on that.
Mindset, why would 300 Spartans stand in the face of 500,000 Persians, mindset.
If you are going to live your life in abject fear (like many do) get good locks and sturdy doors, and lock them.
Don't shoot into the darkness because of fear, shoot the identified target to negate a threat.
In my book Zoey presented no threat and henceforth did not require two to the chest.
All valid points and I do not disagree (except maybe on the selling/moving part).
While you (and others) have made excellent points on why not to shoot - I still don't see how the homeowners were cowardly.
Thanks.
Team Sergeant
06-01-2012, 11:56
All valid points and I do not disagree (except maybe on the selling/moving part).
While you (and others) have made excellent points on why not to shoot - I still don't see how the homeowners were cowardly.
Thanks.
Would you shoot into the dark? Or would you ID the threat first?
Would you shoot into the dark? Or would you ID the threat first?
Would I ensure I KNEW where my wife was first, yes. Would I is not the same as will I nor should I. Circumstances dictate action. As for mindset - yes I would.
Team Sergeant
07-02-2012, 09:58
OK, this just happened to me last night! Two big morons came to my door at 22:12 last night and attempted to open the door with a key. Four seconds later they both heard, what I'm sure was very unsettling, a loud, "BACK AWAY FROM THE DOOR". What they didn't know was there was a .45 HK pointed at them through the door. Their reply, "SORRY, WE'RE LEAVING". As they were leaving I glanced out and saw their hands were empty. No one was killed and I went back to watching TV.
Locked doors save lives.
Barbarian
07-04-2012, 13:59
Locked doors save lives.
Their lives, in this case...
Did they have a key to your house???
convallion
07-04-2012, 14:04
I am not walking so well right now, so I would tell her to get me a glass of water and make me a sandwich.
cat in the hat
07-04-2012, 14:10
Not to get too off topic, but what about a woman who consents to sex while intoxicated and later claims rape because she does not recall the consensual nature of the act? Claims she was "taken advantage of" and "victimized" while in a vulnerable state.
I remember a guy in college was jailed in that situation.
the guy need only claim he was also drunk and unable to consent as well.
both can then "claim" rape or whatever. fair is fair (or it used to be)
Team Sergeant
07-04-2012, 17:08
Their lives, in this case...
Did they have a key to your house???
They had a key that fit the lock but did not open the door. I now live in an apartment. My guess is they are new here and thought they were opening their own door.
Probably the second time in my life that I scrambled for a gun to meet a possible threat. Four seconds from couch to door is not bad.....;) Then again, I'm never far from a gun, especially in my own cave.;)