Stranger Danger

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by Auditor

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-ripp...rusion-case-2/

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by Sdiver

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.

[Auditor]

Originally Posted by Pete

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]

Originally Posted by Auditor

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

[Auditor]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Auditor

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]

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.

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Auditor

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.

[Richard]

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

[Auditor]

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

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]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

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.

Thank you Judge Judy.

Are there any more dead horses you'd like to beat?

[Team Sergeant]

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]

pusillanimous

Probably the 4th time I've ever heard/read that word...I'm impressed.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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]

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.