West Virginia 72-Year-Old Repels Home Invasion With Butcher Knife, 9-Millimeter And Shotgun
At noon Saturday, 72 year old Menuard Frazier's home was invaded by three men who beat him and tied him up while they robbed his residence.Just wait. It gets better. Frazier freed himself, grabbed his pistol, and ran out to confront the men who had beaten him. They started shooting, so he went back into his house for more firepower.
According to WSAZ, the three men knocked and asked the retiree to use the phone. As he led them to the kitchen, they jumped him, tied his legs up and put a sheet over his head.
An angry Frazier told police: "I ran out on the porch with an 11-hundred automatic and emptied it as they drove across the creek down here," he said. "I did my best to kill everyone of them."
14 comments:
Sorry, but "An angry Frazier told police: "I ran out on the porch with an 11-hundred automatic and emptied it as they drove across the creek down here," he said. "I did my best to kill everyone of them." does not get applause from me. The imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm was past, and shooting down the road and across the creek is not knowing where your bullets are going to land if you miss your intended target.
As much as I hate fokks who invade other people's homes, tie them up, and steal their stuff, along with threatening to kill them, we are supposed to remain the Good Guys at all times. It sucks that the law is what it is, but when we go around breaking the law we are just as much criminals as the VCAs.
Texas seems to be OK with shooting robbers in the back in the night-time. Go convince your legislators you want it to be OK in your state, too. (BTW, I'm trying to get mine to say it's OK both in the nighttime and in broad daylight.)
stay safe.
When someone breaks into my home, with the intent to rob, beat and murder me, they place themselves outside of the law. As they are not willing to abide by its obligations, they are no longer entitled to its protection, and can morally be put down like a mad dog.
Now to convince my legislature of that.
But, you do have a valid point that he was shooting in the dark and couldn't be sure of his target or what was behind it. And for that, I will fault him.
skidmark: This part is important.
"After grabbing his 9-millimeter automatic pistol he spotted the thieves making their way back across his yard from robbing his son's home, and they opened up with weapons they'd stolen from the younger Frazier's house.
Frazier returned fire as the trio rushed to their pick-up for a get away." [emphasis mine]
Self defense.
Even if they weren't still shooting at him when he transitioned to the rifle, I believe that in West Virginia, like in Virginia, use of deadly force is legal when attempting to stop a felony - and the theft of a firearm is generally a felony.
He broke no laws, and theft of a firearm is one situation where I have no qualms about shooting someone while they are trying to escape, even if they are no longer threatening you - because that stolen firearm will be used to commit other crimes and endanger innocents.
As far as "shooting down the road and across the creek is not knowing where your bullets are going to land if you miss your intended target", he probably does know what's downrange - and with it being West Virginia, "downrange" is probably the side of a hill or mountain. I would defer to his and the local Sheriff's knowledge of the area as to whether he was being reckless or not.
I have to disagree here. First off, it was noon, so he wasn't firing blindly in the dark. It sounds like he was shooting buckshot or birdshot towards water, so I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Rule Four was observed.
He's got multiple aggressors who were shooting at him - they pose a clear and present danger to him and anyone else they come in contact with. He's got a reasonable fear that they'll come back and finish the job later IMHO...
Skidmark - (Great name by the way)
I'm going to have to agree with Jake on this one as I'm going to give benefit of the doubt to the old man that he knows the layout of his own property.
Josh
Sorry, Jay G I let this one set a little while before posting.
Good to see great minds think a like or maybe you should be worried.
:-)
Josh
Stepping back a bit, the problem began when the old man let them in to use the phone. ANY Stranger who comes to my House and wants to use the Phone, gets this response "Just stay out there (on the other Side of my Locked Door), and I'll get you some help from our local police, okay?" Those who are in need say thank you, and have a seat on the bench on my stoop. But 3 times since I lived here, they took off as soon as they heard me say "Police."
This policy doesn't help to build the DGC, true, but it also doesn't build up Lawyer Fees and Court Costs, either.
Am I the only one who finds it entertaining that the phrase "Remington 1100" within the article's text is a link to the model page on Remington's web site?
Like Les, my first thought was "why the #$% did he let them in the house?". Mistake on the old man's part. For what it's worth, and this covers Skidmark's comment as well, I looked up the guy's street on google maps and it's a pretty rural area. I'm guessing the kinda place where your front door was already unlocked and open. Chances are unless he was firing directly at another home, there was nothing past his target except a lot of woods.
I don't think the description of a shot riddled Chevy pickup will narrow the search in West-by-God Virginia. OK, the S10 model may help some ...
To establish my bona fides, I'm originally from that part of WV... As I've posted in comments on other blogs, WV is a place where we've had a court argument used that when someone threatens to kill you, and it's a credible threat, you're justified in going and finding them and killing them first. We're some of the nicest folks you could ever find, for the most part, and some of the worst you ever want to tangle with once we're done being nice.
I've no doubt that Frazier knew where he was shooting, and what might be behind it. Open land is hard to find in WV, there's hills everywhere, and most of the roads are down towards the water. Moreover, when someone has threatened violence to you in your own home there, no one faults you for continuing to shoot at them as long as you can see them, whether they're running away or not.
As to letting them in his home, well... Cell phones don't work that great in a lot of spots in WV, there's just too many dead spots. I can travel a mile away from my parent's house and have perfect signal, but in the valley where they live, nothing. Throw in the fact that people are very hospitable, and you've got folks that don't think much of opening their doors to someone. Tactical mistake in this case, but he's probably done it for years with no problems.
What Phillip said.
Country-folk in Appalachia are generally hospitable.
However, this is an area populated originally by Scots-Irish (mostly former Border Reaver families) and mostly everyone with roots there has Cherokee ancestry. These are not cultural matrices which place a large amount of value in rolling over and playing dead when threatened.
Their legal history reflects this, and the common cultural meme (somewhat reinforced in the courts by case history) runs something like, "If you come up and try to kill me, or even credibly threaten to, I'm going to kill you before you actually succeed."
Also, multiple shooters in a vehicle mean that everyone but the drivers still a credible threat until they are gone -- it is NOT the same situation where a mugger turns and runs away, because the passengers in a truck can still easily shoot. Neither your family, the coroner, nor St. Peter really cares if a criminal trying to kill you hits you with skill, or just a lucky shot.
If he'd transitioned to a .30 rifle, and continued to lay fire at 200 + meters against fleeing suspects with handguns and shotguns, THAT would be clear cut.
Even so, as DA, you still might not find a jury to convict, however. They might just acquit based on the "reasonable man" (by community standards) standard. (In Texas, I believe this type of acquittal is formally called, "He needed killin'."){grin}
Quotes from follow-up stories:
"They had a pillow and a sheet over my head,” he said. “They said ‘If you look at us, we'll kill you.’"
That's a threat that can be interpreted to reasonably indicate they are likely to come back to eliminate a witness. . .
Frazier says the three men walked back by his house with guns they'd stolen from his son's house, saw that he'd freed himself, and started firing, leaving a total of 9 bullet holes on Frazier's walls.
"When they started shooting into my house, that's when I started firing back," he said.
So, he's in the middle of a gunfight that he DID NOT initiate, even though he legally could have fired first. (Thieves, who have already assaulted him, threatened to murder him, and are walking in his direction with guns in hand, may be reasonably presumed to NOT be selling Girl Scout Cookies.)
Please note that he was using a SHOTGUN at the conclusion of this incident.
It is more likely to not have had slugs loaded so then the effective range is limited and the multiple attackers in the S10 makes them a credible continuous threat.
I think they should be looking in the hospitals too.
Post a Comment