Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on March 31, 2014, 08:18:51 AM
-
We all went round and round with this for a while....
thought some might be curious about it, if no one has posted this story.
I still think he should have been charged. :)
Joe Hendrix, Man Who Fatally Shot Alzheimer's Patient Ronald Westbrook, Faces No Charges
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/joe-hendrix-shoots-alzheimer-patient_n_4875997.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/joe-hendrix-shoots-alzheimer-patient_n_4875997.html)
ATLANTA (AP) — A man who fatally shot a wandering Alzheimer's patient in the early morning hours in north Georgia will not face criminal charges, a local prosecutor said Friday.
Joe Hendrix, 35, fatally shot 72-year-old Ronald Westbrook on Nov. 27. The elderly man had slipped from his home as early as 1 a.m. and wandered in the cold and dark for hours until randomly approaching the home of Hendrix's fiancee on a rural cul-de-sac, repeatedly knocking on the door and ringing the bell.
Hendrix's fiancee called 911, while Hendrix grabbed his .40-caliber handgun, went outside and confronted Westbrook in the dark. Hendrix told police that he fired four shots after Westbrook ignored commands to stop, identify himself and raise his hands.
District Attorney Herbert "Buzz" Franklin's office characterized the incident as a "tragic shooting death" in a written statement. Franklin did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
"I'm a little upset," said Deanne Westbrook, the slain man's widow. She said she felt police and prosecutors had done a thorough job. "I really wanted to see it go before a grand jury, and then maybe before a jury. But they tell me there's not enough evidence for that."
Hendrix appreciated the care and deliberation shown by investigators, said his attorney, Lee Davis
"Mr. Hendrix fully acknowledges the loss to Westbrook family, and his thoughts and prayers are with them," Davis said in a statement.
A series of chance events, even a missed opportunity, preceded the shooting.
On Nov. 19, Hendrix's fiancee called 911 just before midnight to report that a man carrying a piece of paper and a flashlight rang her doorbell and wanted to see a person whose name she did not recognize, according to Hendrix's attorney and police reports obtained by The Associated Press under the state's open records laws. The woman had only recently moved into the rented home and was suspicious, Davis said previously.
Worried, the fiancee called Hendrix, who told her to call 911. By the time Hendrix and police officers arrived, the suspicious man was gone. Afterward, Hendrix, a former soldier, took a handgun from his apartment in nearby Chattanooga, Tenn., and brought the weapon to his fiancee's home.
About a week later, Westbrook slipped out unnoticed from the home he shared with his wife of 51 years. Westbrook suffered from Alzheimer's, a progressive disease that causes memory loss, impairs judgment and can leave it victims disoriented. His widow, Deanne, previously said her husband had become confused about where he lived and struggled to identify those closest to him.
She said she installed alarms on her doors to prevent her husband from wandering, but she didn't hear them when he left with the couple's two dogs, possibly as early as 1 a.m.
A deputy sheriff noticed Westbrook walking along a road around 2:30 a.m. and stopped to question him, Walker County Steve Wilson said previously. Westbrook told the officer that he was getting his mail — he was near mailboxes — and then planned to return home. Nothing about the conversation alarmed the officer.
Just before 4 a.m., Hendrix and his fiancee woke up to barking dogs and realized someone was ringing their doorbell, knocking on their door and trying to get in, police said. Hendrix's fiancee called 911 while Hendrix went outside with his gun.
-
some idiots will connect charging this man with gun control. Completely different issues.
What he did was enter a situation he perceived to be dangerous (leaving safety of locked home with police en route) -
Then, he fired a gun into a silhouette after the shape in the bushes refused to obey his orders.
If could have been a teenage rape victim with a gagged mouth and a roofie in her bloodstream, hiding in the bushes.
It could have been a wounded cop chasing a bad guy, waiting for backup to arrive.
It could have been a brave veteran fighting alzheimers. Oh wait, it was.
Dude fired his gun when he didn't have to. NOBODY here would want this idiot living on their block, for fear of those 4 bullets going stray and hitting someone in their bed.
-
We all went round and round with this for a while....
thought some might be curious about it, if no one has posted this story.
I still think he should have been charged. :)
Joe Hendrix, Man Who Fatally Shot Alzheimer's Patient Ronald Westbrook, Faces No Charges
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/joe-hendrix-shoots-alzheimer-patient_n_4875997.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/joe-hendrix-shoots-alzheimer-patient_n_4875997.html)
ATLANTA (AP) — A man who fatally shot a wandering Alzheimer's patient in the early morning hours in north Georgia will not face criminal charges, a local prosecutor said Friday.
Joe Hendrix, 35, fatally shot 72-year-old Ronald Westbrook on Nov. 27. The elderly man had slipped from his home as early as 1 a.m. and wandered in the cold and dark for hours until randomly approaching the home of Hendrix's fiancee on a rural cul-de-sac, repeatedly knocking on the door and ringing the bell.
Hendrix's fiancee called 911, while Hendrix grabbed his .40-caliber handgun, went outside and confronted Westbrook in the dark. Hendrix told police that he fired four shots after Westbrook ignored commands to stop, identify himself and raise his hands.
District Attorney Herbert "Buzz" Franklin's office characterized the incident as a "tragic shooting death" in a written statement. Franklin did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
"I'm a little upset," said Deanne Westbrook, the slain man's widow. She said she felt police and prosecutors had done a thorough job. "I really wanted to see it go before a grand jury, and then maybe before a jury. But they tell me there's not enough evidence for that."
Hendrix appreciated the care and deliberation shown by investigators, said his attorney, Lee Davis
"Mr. Hendrix fully acknowledges the loss to Westbrook family, and his thoughts and prayers are with them," Davis said in a statement.
A series of chance events, even a missed opportunity, preceded the shooting.
On Nov. 19, Hendrix's fiancee called 911 just before midnight to report that a man carrying a piece of paper and a flashlight rang her doorbell and wanted to see a person whose name she did not recognize, according to Hendrix's attorney and police reports obtained by The Associated Press under the state's open records laws. The woman had only recently moved into the rented home and was suspicious, Davis said previously.
Worried, the fiancee called Hendrix, who told her to call 911. By the time Hendrix and police officers arrived, the suspicious man was gone. Afterward, Hendrix, a former soldier, took a handgun from his apartment in nearby Chattanooga, Tenn., and brought the weapon to his fiancee's home.
About a week later, Westbrook slipped out unnoticed from the home he shared with his wife of 51 years. Westbrook suffered from Alzheimer's, a progressive disease that causes memory loss, impairs judgment and can leave it victims disoriented. His widow, Deanne, previously said her husband had become confused about where he lived and struggled to identify those closest to him.
She said she installed alarms on her doors to prevent her husband from wandering, but she didn't hear them when he left with the couple's two dogs, possibly as early as 1 a.m.
A deputy sheriff noticed Westbrook walking along a road around 2:30 a.m. and stopped to question him, Walker County Steve Wilson said previously. Westbrook told the officer that he was getting his mail — he was near mailboxes — and then planned to return home. Nothing about the conversation alarmed the officer.
Just before 4 a.m., Hendrix and his fiancee woke up to barking dogs and realized someone was ringing their doorbell, knocking on their door and trying to get in, police said. Hendrix's fiancee called 911 while Hendrix went outside with his gun.
Already posted. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=508185.800
-
Saw this a month ago and should have posted. Sorry, guys, if you've only recently heard about it.
Hendrix may have been pressured into treatment, too, you never know. I'd be satisfied with that outcome.
-
some idiots will connect charging this man with gun control. Completely different issues.
What he did was enter a situation he perceived to be dangerous (leaving safety of locked home with police en route) -
Then, he fired a gun into a silhouette after the shape in the bushes refused to obey his orders.
If could have been a teenage rape victim with a gagged mouth and a roofie in her bloodstream, hiding in the bushes.
It could have been a wounded cop chasing a bad guy, waiting for backup to arrive.
It could have been a brave veteran fighting alzheimers. Oh wait, it was.
Dude fired his gun when he didn't have to. NOBODY here would want this idiot living on their block, for fear of those 4 bullets going stray and hitting someone in their bed.
not really wanting to start a h8ge thing... but im pretty sure there is no law saying you have to stay inside your locked home when defending yourself. If dude HAD been a maniac, id much rather face him out in the open with room to fire and maneuver than I would in a CQB environment
-
not really wanting to start a h8ge thing... but im pretty sure there is no law saying you have to stay inside your locked home when defending yourself. If dude HAD been a maniac, id much rather face him out in the open with room to fire and maneuver than I would in a CQB environment
him leaving showed he wasn't in 100% fear for his life - yes, that's a reasonable assumption.
Had he just ran into dude outside and opened fire, that's something that could be explained by "oh shit, i was scared and fired".
In this case, Hendrix was tired of waiting for police to arrive (ten minutes?) so he got out his gun, went outside to where he knew the dude was, and gave him verbal orders. When the silhouette didn't get on the ground as ordered, Hendrix fired 4 bullets at him.
And you are fcking CRAZY if you'd rather confront an unknown bad guy OUTSIDE IN THE FCKING DARK rather than forcing him to come thru a door. NOBODY with any kind of tactical training wil agree with you there. You lie down on ground, take cover, and you shoot him if he comes thru the door. Easy target in a small, lit area, 100% legal. can't beat that.
The thought of gaining ANY kind of tactical advantage by walking out into the yard in the middle of the night? come on, man! That's the kinda shit that gets people killed.
-
him leaving showed he wasn't in 100% fear for his life - yes, that's a reasonable assumption.
Had he just ran into dude outside and opened fire, that's something that could be explained by "oh shit, i was scared and fired".
In this case, Hendrix was tired of waiting for police to arrive (ten minutes?) so he got out his gun, went outside to where he knew the dude was, and gave him verbal orders. When the silhouette didn't get on the ground as ordered, Hendrix fired 4 bullets at him.
And you are fcking CRAZY if you'd rather confront an unknown bad guy OUTSIDE IN THE FCKING DARK rather than forcing him to come thru a door. NOBODY with any kind of tactical training wil agree with you there. You lie down on ground, take cover, and you shoot him if he comes thru the door. Easy target in a small, lit area, 100% legal. can't beat that.
The thought of gaining ANY kind of tactical advantage by walking out into the yard in the middle of the night? come on, man! That's the kinda shit that gets people killed.
Ah, not really... generally one is allowed to defend his property. It it happened OFF his property I'd agree. He's not only allowed to defend himself in his home. And as far as I know he isn't bound to run and hide before trying to defend himself.
-
Ah, not really... generally one is allowed to defend his property. It it happened OFF his property I'd agree. He's not only allowed to defend himself in his home. And as far as I know he isn't bound to run and hide before trying to defend himself.
Yep. That's essentially what the DA concluded:
District Attorney Herbert “Buzz” Franklin said since it could not be proven that Hendrix was not acting in self-defense, he would not press criminal charges.
"It's a difficult burden to meet," Franklin said, according to AP. "You have to be able to prove what was in their mind at the time of the act. All the circumstances here could lead one to reasonably believe that Mr. Hendrix was acting in self-defense."
http://rt.com/usa/georgia-alzheimers-shot-charges-302/
-
Ah, not really... generally one is allowed to defend his property. It it happened OFF his property I'd agree. He's not only allowed to defend himself in his home. And as far as I know he isn't bound to run and hide before trying to defend himself.
You're allowed to shoot someone IN your house.
You're not allowed to shoot someone IN YOUR YARD.
No, generally one is only allowed to defend property inside house or car. You can't shoot someone for being in your yard.
If you want to change this to a debate on fear for life, we can do that... but no, he is required to have the same burden of proof whether he shot in his yard, or in a yard a block away. Only INSIDE is he granted castle doctrine.
it's why so many idiots will shoot someone in their yard, then drag them inside. They know. Can't shoot them in the yard.
-
people should know the yard is NOT the same as inside the house. not by a country mile.
in this case, the trigger happy idiot got away with it. Doesn't mean he wasn't wrong, just that he claimed he feared for his life, then he lawyered up. Could have been a drugged teenage girl or wounded cop. Could have been a brave vet suffering from alzheimers :(
-
*
A man who shot and killed an elderly Alzheimer’s patient in rural Georgia after mistaking him for a prowler will not face criminal charges, a local prosecutor said. The state is also one of several considering broadening its ‘stand your ground’ law.
In late November, Ronald Westbrook, 72, wandered from his home around 01:00 EST. Hours later, he randomly approached the nearby home of the fiancé off Joe Hendrix, 35. Westbrook repeatedly knocked on the door and rang the doorbell of Chickamauga, Georgia house.
As his fiancée called 911, Hendrix called at someone he saw in silhouette who did not answer, he told investigators. Westbrook was carrying what Hendrix described as a cylindrical object that turned out to be a flashlight. Once Hendrix determined the man walking toward him would not stop despite repeated requests, he fired three or four times, fatally wounding Westbrook.
District Attorney Herbert “Buzz” Franklin said since it could not be proven that Hendrix was not acting in self-defense, he would not press criminal charges.
"It's a difficult burden to meet," Franklin said, according to AP. "You have to be able to prove what was in their mind at the time of the act. All the circumstances here could lead one to reasonably believe that Mr. Hendrix was acting in self-defense."
According to police, Westbrook, who his family says had been suffering from Alzheimer’s disease for two years, had been walking in the near-20 degree weather for four hours with his dog, wearing only a light coat and a straw hat, before approaching the home of Hendrix’s fiance, possibly drawn by the house’s porch light. Westbrook was clutching a piece of mail when he was found by police.
"I'm a little upset," said Deanne Westbrook, the slain man's widow. "...I really wanted to see it go before a grand jury, and then maybe before a jury. But they tell me there's not enough evidence for that."
Franklin said he understood the Westbrook family’s frustration, but he stood by his decision.
"What little satisfaction there may be in that, I might be able to take some small comfort in that. But the Westbrook family lost their father, husband, and there's nothing we can do to change any of that," he said.
Lee David, attorney for Hendrix, said his client appreciated the care shown by investigators.
"Mr. Hendrix fully acknowledges the loss to Westbrook family, and his thoughts and prayers are with them," Davis said in a statement.
The Nov. 27 shooting was preceded by a possible earlier encounter with Mr. Westbrook.
On Nov. 19, Hendrix’s fiancée called 911 to report a man carrying a piece of paper ringing her doorbell just before midnight and asking for someone she did not recognize, according to Hendrix's attorney and police reports obtained by AP.
She had also called Hendrix, but by the time he and law enforcement arrived, the man was gone. Worried, Hendrix brought his gun to her home from his nearby home in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
About a week later, Westbrook slipped out of his home without his wife noticing. His widow said he had a difficult time remembering where he lived or identifying family members.
A Chickamauga resident called 911 around 02:30 EST saying a man was in her driveway shining a flashlight into a car. The sheriff’s deputy who responded to the call later found a man identified as Westbrook walking away from an area mailbox with a flashlight and several pieces of mail, according to authorities.
Westbrook seemed flustered and upset that he was being questioned by the officer. He told the deputy he lived up the driveway and walked away. Then around 04:00, he approached the house of Hendrix’s fiancé.
Investigators believed Georgia’s ‘stand your ground’ law could have applied should charges have been filed against Hendrix. The state’s 2006 law says that a person "has no duty to retreat" and has the right to "stand his or her ground," including the use of deadly force pertaining to self-defense of one’s home or property.
Georgia is actually considering expanding the law, as the House is considering a provision that would allow individuals to invoke the defense for shootings that occur on public transportation.
In early November, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH coalition filed a lawsuit against Georgia for what it alleges are uneven interpretations of the 'stand your ground' law.
*
From the RT link above
-
Hadn't heard this bit before:
A Chickamauga resident called 911 around 02:30 EST saying a man was in her driveway shining a flashlight into a car. The sheriff’s deputy who responded to the call later found a man identified as Westbrook walking away from an area mailbox with a flashlight and several pieces of mail, according to authorities.
Westbrook seemed flustered and upset that he was being questioned by the officer. He told the deputy he lived up the driveway and walked away. Then around 04:00, he approached the house of Hendrix’s fiancé.
Doesn't sound like the interaction you might expect.
-
Hadn't heard this bit before:
Doesn't sound like the interaction you might expect.
Especially if he was a deaf mute.
-
You're allowed to shoot someone IN your house.
You're not allowed to shoot someone IN YOUR YARD.
No, generally one is only allowed to defend property inside house or car. You can't shoot someone for being in your yard.
If you want to change this to a debate on fear for life, we can do that... but no, he is required to have the same burden of proof whether he shot in his yard, or in a yard a block away. Only INSIDE is he granted castle doctrine.
it's why so many idiots will shoot someone in their yard, then drag them inside. They know. Can't shoot them in the yard.
Thats interesting... because I've hear of several cases where the judge ruled that the person has a right to defend his property. Adonis has posted several times that the castle doctrine in NC extends not only to your property BUT also to your VEHICLE.
-
Thats interesting... because I've hear of several cases where the judge ruled that the person has a right to defend his property. Adonis has posted several times that the castle doctrine in NC extends not only to your property BUT also to your VEHICLE.
yes home, and yes, in many states now, vehicle.
no, to the yard.
You can find cases where dudes get away with it. You can try to apply justified shooting, which completely obfuscates the entire argument because it's making the shoot legal by applying another standard.
But yes, you can shoot someone for being in your living room, and
NO you cannot shoot them for standing in your front lawn.
House, yes. Car, probably. yard, no. They're always trying to stretch it to yard, it comes and goes in a few lucky states... but generally speaking (in a debate with 50 states with 50 different sets of gun laws)... you CANNOT shoot someone for being in your yard, but you can damn sure shoot them for being in your house.
I say this dude, not to win any argument, but in the hopes that you, or someone else reading getbig, never runs outside and shoots someone in their yard, thinking it's legal. 99% of the time, your ass is probably going to prison if they're not inside your house, or inside your car (and only when you're IN the car... you can't stand on front porch and open fire on kids reaching into your empty car for a radio). I dont want to see anyone go to prison cause they think shooting in yard is okay. It's not.
-
Especially if he was a deaf mute.
I'd missed any claim that he was deaf, but it wouldn't surprise me if one was made.
-
Here's a pic of the house for anyone that hasn't seen it:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/01/article-2570738-1BED5FD700000578-226_634x344.jpg)
-
anyone that thinks he shouldn't be charged...
i want to hear them say people should be allowed to fire their guns, while in their yard, into any person or target or animal or whatever, that fails to obey their command. Cause that's EXACTLY what happened here.
He knew there was a person out there. So it wasn't a big surprise when he confronted, um, a person.
He didn't see the person, so it's tough to argue "he looked like he was reaching for something".
His only claim was "i wasn't too scared to open the door, I wasn't too scared to find the silhouette and order him to the ground, but suddenly I feared for my life when he didn't comply with my motherfcking order!"
That's a weak claim. But it's georgia, so yeah...
I want anyone supporting hendrix to say it should be legal to fire your gun at dogs, children, elderly, or anything else in a 'shape' in the darkness in your yard. Say it.
-
I'd missed any claim that he was deaf, but it wouldn't surprise me if one was made.
At least two people posting in the longer thread said it. It never made sense because he talked to the police. If he was a deaf mute the cop would have certainly taken him home or the police station.
-
At least two people posting in the longer thread said it. It never made sense because he talked to the police. If he was a deaf mute the cop would have certainly taken him home or the police station.
Yeah, some people may think muteness always comes from deafness, meaning that a mute person must be deaf, but of course that's not true.
Lots of places saying he was mute, but without including the cop stop. Looks like December 1 is when information appeared with the deputy's claim that Westbrook spoke words to him.
-
anyone that thinks he shouldn't be charged...
i want to hear them say people should be allowed to fire their guns, while in their yard, into any person or target or animal or whatever, that fails to obey their command. Cause that's EXACTLY what happened here.
He knew there was a person out there. So it wasn't a big surprise when he confronted, um, a person.
He didn't see the person, so it's tough to argue "he looked like he was reaching for something".
His only claim was "i wasn't too scared to open the door, I wasn't too scared to find the silhouette and order him to the ground, but suddenly I feared for my life when he didn't comply with my motherfcking order!"
That's a weak claim. But it's georgia, so yeah...
I want anyone supporting hendrix to say it should be legal to fire your gun at dogs, children, elderly, or anything else in a 'shape' in the darkness in your yard. Say it.
dude,you always operate with what ifs, buts, assumptions, 'but only imagine if this had happened instead!' and 'but wont somebody think of the children!!!' Whenever you start your self defense moral grandstanding. You never operate within the realities of the law, which is why you're always finding yourself in the wrong.
-
Its sad but he is in the right! He didn't know if he is harmless or not.
In Georgia you shoot first ,ask questions later!!
-
Its sad but he is in the right! He didn't know if he is harmless or not.
In Georgia you shoot first ,ask questions later!!
The exact reason he should have stayed inside and protected his fiancee, but I get what you're saying. The decision isn't outrageous.
-
The exact reason he should have stayed inside and protected his fiancee, but I get what you're saying. The decision isn't outrageous.
its really not outrageous at all... acting in defense doesn't always mean you have to be reactive. Assessing the situation, taking control and acting proactively is far superior to trying to wait until the last possible second to determine if the man breaking into your home is trying to kill you.
Well, what if the guy locked himself in the house and the old dude dumped gas on the building and lit it on fire, and waited outside with a weapon for them to come out?
Acting in self defense doesnt mean you have to cower in fear until the enemy is bearing down on you and has you in his sites... you have a right to protect yourself, your family, and your property from threats.
If someone is on your property, isnt responding, and looks hostile, youre damn right im going to move into a defensive posture and prepare to fight where I have the best chance at winning the confrontation... not locking my door anf hiding and waiting until he has me at a disadvantage to suddenly decide hes hostile and i better do something
-
its really not outrageous at all... acting in defense doesn't always mean you have to be reactive. Assessing the situation, taking control and acting proactively is far superior to trying to wait until the last possible second to determine if the man breaking into your home is trying to kill you.
Not in this case, though, right? And would you agree he may be giving up control by placing himself in direct jeopardy?
Well, what if the guy locked himself in the house and the old dude dumped gas on the building and lit it on fire, and waited outside with a weapon for them to come out?
Acting in self defense doesnt mean you have to cower in fear until the enemy is bearing down on you and has you in his sites... you have a right to protect yourself, your family, and your property from threats.
If someone is on your property, isnt responding, and looks hostile, youre damn right im going to move into a defensive posture and prepare to fight where I have the best chance at winning the confrontation... not locking my door anf hiding and waiting until he has me at a disadvantage to suddenly decide hes hostile and i better do something
So if Hendrix were imagining such a thing as the fire/shooting scenario, then what do you suppose he felt would stop the intruder from shooting him upon his leaving the house?
Not only would he (Hendrix) be potentially killed, but his fiancee would become unprotected, too.
Would the idea be to have a shootout, and pray for the best, or what?
-
its really not outrageous at all... acting in defense doesn't always mean you have to be reactive. Assessing the situation, taking control and acting proactively is far superior to trying to wait until the last possible second to determine if the man breaking into your home is trying to kill you.
Well, what if the guy locked himself in the house and the old dude dumped gas on the building and lit it on fire, and waited outside with a weapon for them to come out?
Acting in self defense doesnt mean you have to cower in fear until the enemy is bearing down on you and has you in his sites... you have a right to protect yourself, your family, and your property from threats.
If someone is on your property, isnt responding, and looks hostile, youre damn right im going to move into a defensive posture and prepare to fight where I have the best chance at winning the confrontation... not locking my door anf hiding and waiting until he has me at a disadvantage to suddenly decide hes hostile and i better do something
Completely agree. As I've said before, very easy to dissect someone's conduct after-the-fact. Much more difficult to make decisions in real time.
-
No, I don't think you'll find too many people arguing that it was a good decision by Hendrix, from whatever perspective/time the argument might be made from.
It's pretty fucked from all angles.
-
But fact is, it was effectively his property, and that's what saved him.
(wouldn't be surprised if he was directed into treatment. Not surprised at all. And that would make a satisfactory outcome. No sense giving the guy a criminal record)
-
Completely agree. As I've said before, very easy to dissect someone's conduct after-the-fact. Much more difficult to make decisions in real time.
Disagree... in "real time", he was safely locked in a house waiting for popo to arrive.
Had hendrix made a decision to kick thru the door, then yes, hendrix would have been forced to make a split second decision.
instead, he went outside at his OWN LEISURE and entered into a confrontation in which he KNEW it was a dude in his yard. He gave the order to lay down, then at his own leisure fired 4 rounds.
sorry, but that's an elective shoot.
NOBODY on this board wants ten joe hendrix' living on their street, do they? but its okay, cause it happened in Georgia... lol
-
Yes, decisions in real time differ from somebody on the internet dissecting what he thinks happened.
And I would certainly welcome this guy as my neighbor.
I can tell you who I absolutely would not want as a neighbor: some idiot roaming the street accosting people with a loaded weapon. That's just scary.
-
I wouldn't want him as a neighbor, no fucking way.
He scares too easy, shots too quickly.
Don't want children anywhere near him. Especially teenagers.
-
I wouldn't want him as a neighbor, no fucking way.
He scares too easy, shots too quickly.
Don't want children anywhere near him. Especially teenagers.
Different strokes. I looked at his background. Impressive. I suspect that is part of the reason he wasn't charged.
-
Different strokes. I looked at his background. Impressive. I suspect that is part of the reason he wasn't charged.
His background nor his conscience is clean any longer.
-
His background nor his conscience is clean any longer.
I don't think anyone has an entirely clean background. Everyone makes mistakes. I think he made an honest mistake.
Regarding his conscience? Who knows? He could be saddled with guilt for the rest of his life, or he could accept what he cannot change and continue to live a life as a good citizen.
-
I don't think anyone has an entirely clean background. Everyone makes mistakes. I think he made an honest mistake.
Regarding his conscience? Who knows? He could be saddled with guilt for the rest of his life, or he could accept what he cannot change and continue to live a life as a good citizen.
Not to many people have back grounds with a controversial shooting death.
So if something like this ever happens with him again, his back ground is gonna look like Natalie Portman with a pimple the size of Texas in her nose.
-
Not to many people have back grounds with a controversial shooting death.
So if something like this ever happens with him again, his back ground is gonna look like Natalie Portman with a pimple the size of Texas in her nose.
True, it's rare. Still, it doesn't have to ruin his life. He doesn't have to be demonized. It's not like he's OJ.
-
True, it's rare. Still, it doesn't have to ruin his life. He doesn't have to be demonized. It's not like he's OJ.
I agree.
-
Different strokes. I looked at his background. Impressive. I suspect that is part of the reason he wasn't charged.
and imagine... ten years from now... you're in your yard watering your lilies and suddenly you have a stroke. unable to get your hands out of your pocket with your messed up arm, you limp next door to ask ol' Joe for help.
Someone else has been knocking and running, and your timing sucks. You're only a foot in his yard when he comes storming our of the yard into the 9pm yard screaming and waving around a pistol. You try to tell him you need him to call 911 and you cannot open your door, and suddenly he starts screaming and firing his gun.
As you fall to ground & hold your chest with a gaping bullet hole, you suddenly realize that maybe people SHOULDNT be able to fire bullets into a silhouette presenting zero threat. Maybe people SHOULDNT be allowed to get away with "oh, he was scared" when the only threat is - drum roll please - in his imagination. ;)
So yeah, that could happen. A teenage girl could be roofied and asking for help. Hendrix created fear for his life, IN HIS MIND, when there was none in real life. dude, you seriously would want a neighbor who will FIRE BULLETS into the darkness because of some irrational threat that exists only in his head? Scary... I wouldn't want that dude living in my state.
-
Unlike my feelings about Zimmerman, I don't think this guy's inclined to get into trouble again. I believe Hendrix is legit, but that he's mentally fucked from a lifetime of stress and an inability to think clearly due to it.
-
Unlike my feelings about Zimmerman, I don't think this guy's inclined to get into trouble again. I believe Hendrix is legit, but that he's mentally fucked from a lifetime of stress and an inability to think clearly due to it.
dude will still have a gun tomorrow. He'll still be the personality that will issue orders to "get on the ground" then fire bullets into a shape. He'll still be the type of person that creates crazy threats "in real life" and fires bullets at them without getting enough info.
He perceived a threat that just wasn't there. He still has his gun. He may shoot someone again. Even a small charge would ensure the dude wasn't carrying around that same hand cannon while doing gardening next week. Oh, we're going to whine about depriving him of his liberties? How about the old man's right to live?
-
dude will still have a gun tomorrow. He'll still be the personality that will issue orders to "get on the ground" then fire bullets into a shape. He'll still be the type of person that creates crazy threats "in real life" and fires bullets at them without getting enough info.
He perceived a threat that just wasn't there. He still has his gun. He may shoot someone again. Even a small charge would ensure the dude wasn't carrying around that same hand cannon while doing gardening next week. Oh, we're going to whine about depriving him of his liberties? How about the old man's right to live?
I think he was talked into getting treatment, though. I really do.
Unlike some of the dudes on this board, you can bet no one down there felt he did the right thing by leaving his house. This case was kept for quite a while for a reason. Lots of thought went into it, because it's too plain something very wrong happened.
-
I think he was talked into getting treatment, though. I really do.
Unlike some of the dudes on this board, you can bet no one down there felt he did the right thing by leaving his house. This case was kept for quite a while for a reason. Lots of thought went into it, because it's too plain something very wrong happened.
I've always said he probably should have stayed in the house, but I have the benefit of knowing what already happened.
-
I've always said he probably should have stayed in the house, but I have the benefit of knowing what already happened.
If that's how you're judging it, then why would you say 'probably'?
lol, j/k
-
If that's how you're judging it, then why would you say 'probably'?
lol, j/k
Because there is more than one right answer.
-
We all went round and round with this for a while....
thought some might be curious about it, if no one has posted this story.
I still think he should have been charged. :)
Joe Hendrix, Man Who Fatally Shot Alzheimer's Patient Ronald Westbrook, Faces No Charges
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/joe-hendrix-shoots-alzheimer-patient_n_4875997.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/joe-hendrix-shoots-alzheimer-patient_n_4875997.html)
ATLANTA (AP) — A man who fatally shot a wandering Alzheimer's patient in the early morning hours in north Georgia will not face criminal charges, a local prosecutor said Friday.
Joe Hendrix, 35, fatally shot 72-year-old Ronald Westbrook on Nov. 27. The elderly man had slipped from his home as early as 1 a.m. and wandered in the cold and dark for hours until randomly approaching the home of Hendrix's fiancee on a rural cul-de-sac, repeatedly knocking on the door and ringing the bell.
Hendrix's fiancee called 911, while Hendrix grabbed his .40-caliber handgun, went outside and confronted Westbrook in the dark. Hendrix told police that he fired four shots after Westbrook ignored commands to stop, identify himself and raise his hands.
District Attorney Herbert "Buzz" Franklin's office characterized the incident as a "tragic shooting death" in a written statement. Franklin did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
"I'm a little upset," said Deanne Westbrook, the slain man's widow. She said she felt police and prosecutors had done a thorough job. "I really wanted to see it go before a grand jury, and then maybe before a jury. But they tell me there's not enough evidence for that."
Hendrix appreciated the care and deliberation shown by investigators, said his attorney, Lee Davis
"Mr. Hendrix fully acknowledges the loss to Westbrook family, and his thoughts and prayers are with them," Davis said in a statement.
A series of chance events, even a missed opportunity, preceded the shooting.
On Nov. 19, Hendrix's fiancee called 911 just before midnight to report that a man carrying a piece of paper and a flashlight rang her doorbell and wanted to see a person whose name she did not recognize, according to Hendrix's attorney and police reports obtained by The Associated Press under the state's open records laws. The woman had only recently moved into the rented home and was suspicious, Davis said previously.
Worried, the fiancee called Hendrix, who told her to call 911. By the time Hendrix and police officers arrived, the suspicious man was gone. Afterward, Hendrix, a former soldier, took a handgun from his apartment in nearby Chattanooga, Tenn., and brought the weapon to his fiancee's home.
About a week later, Westbrook slipped out unnoticed from the home he shared with his wife of 51 years. Westbrook suffered from Alzheimer's, a progressive disease that causes memory loss, impairs judgment and can leave it victims disoriented. His widow, Deanne, previously said her husband had become confused about where he lived and struggled to identify those closest to him.
She said she installed alarms on her doors to prevent her husband from wandering, but she didn't hear them when he left with the couple's two dogs, possibly as early as 1 a.m.
A deputy sheriff noticed Westbrook walking along a road around 2:30 a.m. and stopped to question him, Walker County Steve Wilson said previously. Westbrook told the officer that he was getting his mail — he was near mailboxes — and then planned to return home. Nothing about the conversation alarmed the officer.
Just before 4 a.m., Hendrix and his fiancee woke up to barking dogs and realized someone was ringing their doorbell, knocking on their door and trying to get in, police said. Hendrix's fiancee called 911 while Hendrix went outside with his gun.
This is exactly what the Republicans wanted.....a bunch of Zimmermans running around with a license to kill someone for no reason....Wild West
-
Because there is more than one right answer.
What do you mean?
-
What do you mean?
Staying inside would have been reasonable. Going outside under the circumstances was reasonable.
-
This is exactly what the Republicans wanted.....a bunch of Zimmermans running around with a license to kill someone for no reason....Wild West
if the dude perceives a threat - and it's anything remotely threatening, then yes, maybe he gets away with it.
in this case, the ONLY threat was imaginary, the one perceived in Hendrix' head.
The old man knocked on the door. He called police. Can't blame him. Knocking on door in middle o night, not a good idea to answer.
But then he went outside to have a standoff with the dude - and the dude was NOT a threat. He didn't have a gun or a knife or even a superior physical presence. He was so far away, he couldn't tell if it was man or woman or zombie or Ghandi. He just started shooting because of the fear of the unknown. The MINUTE we make it legal to empty your gun into an unknown area of your yard because of.. well... fear? Okay, let hendri start shooting kids and old ladies and puppies and whatever else. Hey, move him to your block. I sure as shit don't want a dude that'll shoot bullets at an unknown thing, living anywhere NEAR me.
-
I'll tell you, it really makes a person think, with these self-protection laws. In a time when people may be forced to infringe upon others' spaces in order to survive (food/water shortages, etc.), you can see how shit would get carried away very quickly.
-
Staying inside would have been reasonable. Going outside under the circumstances was reasonable.
It wasn't illegal, I'd say that.
-
Staying inside would have been reasonable. Going outside under the circumstances was reasonable.
BUT shooting a gun at something that was NOT a threat = not reasonable.
Especially when you remove the element of surprise.
He fired a gun 4x because whatever was in the bushes didn't obey his command - think about that.
It sure gives "You kids get off my lawn" a whole new meaning, doesn't it? Imagine Mr. Wilson shooting Dennis the menace because the little punk refused his immediate order to get on the ground...
-
For one thing, according to Hendrix, the person did not respond to the answering of the knocks/chiming. So upon deciding to place himself outside, what caused him to believe the person may answer to commands?
-
It wasn't illegal, I'd say that.
According to the DA it wasn't illegal. In fact, he didn't even present it to a grand jury, which means it wasn't even a close call.
-
BUT shooting a gun at something that was NOT a threat = not reasonable.
Especially when you remove the element of surprise.
He fired a gun 4x because whatever was in the bushes didn't obey his command - think about that.
It sure gives "You kids get off my lawn" a whole new meaning, doesn't it? Imagine Mr. Wilson shooting Dennis the menace because the little punk refused his immediate order to get on the ground...
::) Give it up already. You can continue to just make stuff up, complain, invent ridiculous fictional scenarios, etc. all you want. You were wrong. The DA got it right. It's over.
-
According to the DA it wasn't illegal. In fact, he didn't even present it to a grand jury, which means it wasn't even a close call.
Yep, that's true (and that's why I said so).
-
Yep, that's true (and that's why I said so).
I know. I was agreeing with you.
-
I know. I was agreeing with you.
Haha..never know with you. Always looking for a fight, I've noticed. lol
-
Haha..never know with you. Always looking for a fight, I've noticed. lol
??? Hardly.
-
he got tired of waiting for police and went outside to handle the shit himself.
He knew it was a human that wasn't going to respond - great point you made.
He went outside then suddenly shot the man for doing nothing but being in the yard and not communicating. Unreal that anyone can defend this kind of behavior. I could see if the old man attacked him or even raised his hand... but he didn't even know it was an old man. He entered a dark yard in middle of the night against a human he knew wasn't responding - then shot the human for not responding.
Sickening.
-
??? Hardly.
Not you, no. Of course not.
:P
-
he got tired of waiting for police and went outside to handle the shit himself.
He knew it was a human that wasn't going to respond - great point you made.
He went outside then suddenly shot the man for doing nothing but being in the yard and not communicating. Unreal that anyone can defend this kind of behavior. I could see if the old man attacked him or even raised his hand... but he didn't even know it was an old man. He entered a dark yard in middle of the night against a human he knew wasn't responding - then shot the human for not responding.
Sickening.
-
he got tired of waiting for police and went outside to handle the shit himself.
He knew it was a human that wasn't going to respond - great point you made.
He went outside then suddenly shot the man for doing nothing but being in the yard and not communicating. Unreal that anyone can defend this kind of behavior. I could see if the old man attacked him or even raised his hand... but he didn't even know it was an old man. He entered a dark yard in middle of the night against a human he knew wasn't responding - then shot the human for not responding.
Sickening.
I wonder. Would absolutely LOVE to know what his reasoning was. The woman present had an impact on his actions, I'd bet on that. But would really like to know what he said and what he seemed to be thinking at that critical time.
-
Wonder if he was tested for dope at all.
-
Wonder if he was tested for dope at all.
doubt it. they didn't test zimmerman for alcohol, despite his history of mixing alcohol with violence... chasing kids around the projects at night, one would think maybe he had a few. Kinda crazy, but in hillbilly strongholds like florida and georgia, it's no surprise they didn't bother.
and yes, I'm sure he was trying to be a hardass "if those cops aren't going to do something, I AM!"
-
he got tired of waiting for police and went outside to handle the shit himself.
He knew it was a human that wasn't going to respond - great point you made.
He went outside then suddenly shot the man for doing nothing but being in the yard and not communicating. Unreal that anyone can defend this kind of behavior. I could see if the old man attacked him or even raised his hand... but he didn't even know it was an old man. He entered a dark yard in middle of the night against a human he knew wasn't responding - then shot the human for not responding.
Sickening.
youre such a drama queen. You always project your imagined idead and logic into situations kniwing 1/100th of the facts.
You have no idea what the dude was thinking nor how the exact scenario played out. Anytime something doesnt fit your dramatic little movie you see in your head, you just try and discredit whoever it is bringing up their pastl, or saying that theyre clearly just trying to cover it up because you took a 5 min CWP class that taught everyone how to kill someone legally (oh brother) and that somehiw makes you an authority on firearm owners thought processes, and then go about projecting your imagined thought processes on them again to try to convince everyone why your imaginary scenario (that always happens to be the exact opposite of what the facts/testimony point to, weird huh?) Is actually what happened.
it tells us a lot more about how YOU think than anything.
-
I know there wasn't a threat. at least a real one. Only a perceived one that he didn't perceive when he unlocked door to go outside... which suddenly was created (in his head, mind you) the minute the silhouette didn't obey him.
legalize it. Make it 100% legal to shoot anyone in the dark, that doesn't listen to you. Bad idea, right?
You can't say this is okay. not even once. Charge him and give him a suspended sentence. but you do realize this dude is STILL packing heat, right? He still has ability to scream orders at unknown people then shoot bullets at them, should they disobey some noble power he believes he has.
Sorry shockwave, but you sure as SHIT wouldn't want this cowboy as your next door neighbor. Would you? Yes or no.