Author Topic: Joe Hendrix, Man Who Fatally Shot Alzheimer's Patient Ronald Westbrook, Faces..  (Read 8197 times)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
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

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.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
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. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64028
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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

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

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
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.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
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

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
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.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64028
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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/

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
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.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
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 :( 

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


*

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

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Hadn't heard this bit before:

Quote
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64028
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Hadn't heard this bit before:

Doesn't sound like the interaction you might expect.

Especially if he was a deaf mute. 

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
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.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
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.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
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.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Here's a pic of the house for anyone that hasn't seen it:


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64028
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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. 

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
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.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
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.

wolfrittner

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3406
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!!

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
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.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
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

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
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?