Intruder shot, killed

[Spoonman]

A South Salem homeowner shot and killed an intruder Saturday morning when he found him starting a fire in his garage, Salem police said.

The male victim’s identity had not been determined Saturday, said Doug Hanson, an Marion County assistant district attorney.

Linn Stordahl, 64, the owner and resident, was not arrested, Hanson said, and Stordahl was cooperating with investigators.

The incident occurred about 6:10 a.m. at 5505 East Ridge St. S, just north of Crossler Middle School.

The shooting followed an apparent confrontation with a suspected burglar who had started a fire with boxes in the attached garage of the house, said Lt. Dave Okada of the Salem Police Department.

Hanson said the suspected burglar was shot in the neck when he came at Stordahl, who was armed with a handgun.

http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=60294

[Mairead]

1. The victim was a drunken 16-y.o. HS student

(There are pointers on that page to clarifying stories)

[MrBenchley]

2. Strange story...

"Choate’s high blood alcohol level would have made all of his mental, physical and sensory functions severely impaired. It also was in the range where death by alcohol poisoning occurs and was near a level that could induce a coma, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

[Spoonman]

4. BOO FUCKING HOO

What was this guy suppose to preform a sobriety test on a man who was armed with a handgun rushing at him?

Stop, now rush at me putting heel to toe, heal to toe.

[MrBenchley]

7. I wonder how somebody

semi-comatose could be rushing at anyone....

But go ahead and gloat over this tragedy...

[slackmaster]

16. Go peddle it to someone who gives a crap

The "tragedy" was self-inflicted.

[MrBenchley]

20. Yup

The home owner will have to live with having killed a teenage boy. Now go gloat about it to some other "enthusiast.."

[slackmaster]

21. At least he'll have a house to share with his grief

Better a dead wannabe arsonist than a smoldering pile of rubble that was once a home.

Here's a whole string section in commemoration of the incident:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[Spoonman]

29. Sort of like

you gloating over the frog to the face incident?

Explain to us how this stupid drunk teenager starting a fire in someones garage and attempting to attack the owner, didn't get what he deserved, and the kid blinded by the frog did.

"But go ahead and gloat over this tragedy..." Don't even try it, you have already demonstrated your ability to "gloat".

[MrBenchley]

30. Gee spoon

"Explain to us how this stupid drunk teenager starting a fire in someones garage and attempting to attack the owner, didn't get what he deserved, and the kid blinded by the frog did."
Self-evident...or you wouldn't still be moaning and whizzing over it.

[Spoonman]

32. You still failed

to explain the obvious hypocrisy of your statement.

[Mairead]

10. The kid had no handgun. It was the homeowner who did

[slackmaster]

15. And your point is?

[DoNotRefill]

17. He apparently had matches...

plus a lot of alcohol, some pot, and cocaine in his system.

Do you think arson of an occupied home in the very early morning poses a risk to the lives of the people who live there?

[iverglas]

23. oh look, another one

"Do you think arson of an occupied home in the very early morning
poses a risk to the lives of the people who live there?"

What happens if I say "yes"?

Do I automatically get to kill someone I find attempting to do that?

Never mind the law, if we can. Let's just use our noggins, and some really basic thinking skills, in answering that question.

Hell, did Dubya post a risk to the lives of children in Texas with asthma? I can't imagine anyone thinking he didn't.

If I followed what appears to be your logic -- I mean, I just have to assume that you asked that question for a reason, and the only reason I can think of is that you're saying that (attempted) arson justifies homicide -- I think I'd be advocating something that we've already established elsewhere I don't advocate.

But if you advocate permitting a householder who finds a drunken, teenaged, would-be arsonist in his garage to shoot said would-be arsonist dead even if there is no immediate and unavoidable threat to said householder's self or family ... well, I can't imagine why that logic wouldn't also apply to permit a parent who finds a drunken, middle-aged Governor enabling his buddies to destroy the quality of his/her state's air to the point that it endangers his/her child's life to shoot said Governor dead.

The law is no respecter of persons. It does not protect Governors who endanger people's families, but turn teenagers trying to endanger people's families into fair game for any trigger-happy goon in the vicinity.

I suppose I should rephrase that. In a civilized society that respects the rule of law, the law doesn't do that. And the law shouldn't do it anywhere.

.

[DoNotRefill]

26. Let's see.

The dead kid set fire to an occupied house in the very early morning. I would think that would be a serious criminal offense, and would show a pretty obvious reckless disregard for the health of the occupants, wouldn't you?

OK, so we've ascertained that the kid didn't have a whole lot of respect for human life, seeing how he set their house on fire. If that's all he did, well, I don't think he should have been shot afterwards. That's not all he did. When confronted by the homeowner, did he surrender? Did he run away? Gee willikers, he didn't!!! He had just been caught committing a serious felony, and instead of running away, he ADVANCED on the homeowner! The homeowner who had a GUN! The homeowner who had a GUN, had pointed at the aspiring felon, and YELLED for him to STOP!!!

We obviously don't know what was going through this kid's booze and drug-addled mind. Somehow, I doubt that he just wanted to shake the homeowner's hand, though.

[DocSavage]

35. Another fine example of Regulation

Kid, 16? had

Cocaine: Illegal
Pot: Illegal
Drunk: Illegal

If we just had registration on all of these things and closed the drug show loopholes, this tragedy would never had happened.

At least the kid will not be able to pollute the gene pool.

[DoNotRefill]

18. Maybe the cocaine...

was what was keeping him going. Sounds like he was so wasted that he did some really stupid things.

[slackmaster]

9. Cry us a river

Nobody forced the "victim" to drink. Or to take drugs. Or to break into a house and try to set fire to it.

:nopity:

[Mairead]

11. What are you talking about? I simply reported the facts.

Do you have a problem with the facts?

[slackmaster]

14. You referred to the perpetrator as "victim"

The poor innocent dope-crazed "victim" was attempting to commit ARSON in the man's garage, for crying out loud!

[iverglas]

12. what the hell is that about?

What has

"Nobody forced the 'victim' to drink."

got to do with anything??

I think I'm needing a dose of the real world, where people don't toss off whatever comes into their head as if it were relevant to something someone else had said.

The fact that the intruder was so drunk as to be apparently incapable of carrying out any plan he might possibly, but not probably, have been capable of forming goes to the NECESSITY of shooting, let alone killing, him.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the intruder was responsible for what he was doing when he was shot. Just in case you ... thought ... that someone was saying it did. I mean, I certainly didn't see anyone saying that it did.

Nor does it have anything to do with whether the intruder somehow "deserved" to be shot, let alone killed. Like it or not, being drunk is not a hanging offence, even wherever this happened, I confidently assert.

The ONLY relevance of the intruder's drunkenness is that it meant that he was very unlikely to present any immediate and unavoidable threat to the life or limb of anyone else. And in that Utopia where I live, killing someone who is not presenting an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat to one's life or limb is a crime. Many people, regardless of where they live, would also consider it to be a sin, or whatever they might call an act that is deserving of the disapproval of decent folk.

Oh well, I know. "Nobody forced the 'victim' to drink" is one of those opinion thingies, I suppose, that we're all as free as birds to spout whenever we want, just because ... well, just because.

.

[DoNotRefill]

19. He certainly managed to start a fire....

The ONLY relevance of the intruder's drunkenness is that it meant that he was very unlikely to present any immediate and unavoidable threat to the life or limb of anyone else.

in the guy's house at 6 AM. Fire doesn't kill people, does it?

[iverglas]

22. try again

"Fire doesn't kill people, does it?"

Uh ... not if it's put out, it doesn't. And once it's detected, putting it out would seem to be an option that might actually be related to solving the problem.

Strikes me that a sensible person would be more concerned about doing that than about killing a 16-year-old WITHOUT FIRST DETERMINING whether he presented an immediate and unavoidable threat to one's self.

But that's just me.

.

[DoNotRefill]

24. Ah.

What do you think a "normal" person would think when confronted by an arsonist who just set fire to their house, and what do you think a "normal" person would think when the arsonist refused to stop and advanced on them, even though they had a gun and yelled to the arsonist to stop and not come any closer?

I bet I know! I bet a "normal" person would think that the arsonist just wanted to go into the kitchen, to bake the "normal" person some cookies! Yeah! That's the ticket!!!

If he was running away, I'd be much more sympathetic towards the dead kid. The evidence does not support that.

[slackmaster]

25. Mr. Stordahl apparently determined the arsonist was a threat

If you disagree with his decision then you must either believe that he is not a "sensible person" or that he made an error in judgement. Have you considered the possibility that he might have done the best thing under his particular circumstances? There's a lot about this case that we don't know, such as what kind of health Stordahl is in, lighting conditions in the garage, interpersonal distances, what each person said and heard, and precisely what the shootee did in the seconds before Stordahl shot him.

You are free to second-guess Stordahl for his actions, but at the end of the day his house is standing and he's not in jail.

[DoNotRefill]

27. Not only that...

but the Grand Jury agreed with him, and refused to charge him. I guess that according to community standards as to what a reasonable person would have done, they felt that he was justified in what he did and how he felt.

[iverglas]

28. you forgot one

"... at the end of the day his house is standing and he's not in jail."

Of course, you've also mixed up some apples and oranges, but there's hardly any point in even noting that. Just in case: the connection between the two facts you've stated -- i.e. how their connections to the fact that he shot and killed a person are in any way related -- escapes me.

But that's the bit you've "forgotten". At the end of the day, a 16-year-old is dead. Did you bother finding out about that part?
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=60445

And if you really really believe that the outcomes you seem to be pleased about -- and hey, they're good outcomes -- the standing house and the unjailed householder -- could not have been achieved without the outcome that I find abhorrent, then I'll go back to being happy that I live in a real world where I don't actually know anyone who would say that.

"There's a lot about this case that we don't know, such as what
kind of health Stordahl is in, lighting conditions in the garage,
interpersonal distances, what each person said and heard, and
precisely what the shootee did in the seconds before Stordahl
shot him."

Yeah, what with one of the two people there being dead and all, it does make things kind of difficult.

Here's some stuff we do know, though -- at least, as recounted by the householder in question:
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=60749

Stordahl woke up around 6 a.m. after hearing noises from his garage on East Ridge Street S. He grabbed a flashlight and his .22-caliber handgun.

When he opened the door from the house into the garage, Stordahl saw a box had been set on fire and an unknown intruder was on the other side of the burning box.

The two exchanged words, each asking the other what he was doing there. Choate then started walking toward Stordahl, who warned him to stop. Choate kept advancing, even after Stordahl warned him again and said he had a gun.

Stordahl pulled the trigger on his lawfully owned handgun and heard a click because a round was not chambered. When he pulled the trigger again, Choate was shot in the carotid artery in the neck, according to a district attorney’s news release issued Monday.

Householder opened door and saw person and burning box.
Opportunity to close door again and call police and fire department. (In my experience, fire departments tend to respond rather well to calls like that, but of course yours may differ.)

Householder spoke to person. Householder heard person speak and ask what householder was doing there.
Opportunity to go back through door and call police and fire department.

Householder saw person advance, warned person to stop, warned person he had a gun.
Opportunity to go back through door and call police and fire department.

Householder pulled trigger for the first time, firarm failed to fire.
Opportunity to go back through door and call police and fire department.

Householder pulled trigger and gun fired.
Opportunity to shoot OBVIOUSLY slow-moving intruder, who had brandished NO weapon of any kind, in ... oh, the leg?
Not to mention: opportunity to go back through door and call police and fire department.


Hmm. I seem to know just about everything I need to know.

And I don't appear to be "second-guessing" anyone. Because I think IT IS PERFECTLY OBVIOUS that the householder KNEW PERFECTLY WELL that he did not have to kill the intruder in order to save himself or his family from death or serious injury.

He knew that as well as I do. Now you do too.

Some people see a law that permits people to kill other people who are not presenting an immediate and unavoidable threat to their life or limb, and think that said law is a complete answer to any ETHICAL and LOGICAL questions raised about the killing in question.

Other people see that law and think that it is an abomination on the face of the earth, and a violation of fundamental human rights, and no answer at all to the ethical and logical questions raised by a killing of an unarmed teenager.

You'll find me on the LEFT of that axis.

.

.

[Romulus]

31. race to the death

64 y/o man vs. aggressive 16 y/o kid apparantly intent on doing harm.

The 6/4 y/0 is supposed to outrun the kid and:
1) turn around
2) run for the door
3) close the door
4) lock the door.

And before the kid breaks the door down:

5) get to the phone
6) dial 911
7) wait for the 911 operator to pick up
8) explain the situation to the operator
9) verify his address to the operator
10) wait for the police and FD to show up

YMMV, but I'm OK with the homeowner's outcome.

Dial 911 and die

[slackmaster]

34. Maybe I didn't put enough violins in my other post

But that's the bit you've "forgotten". At the end of the day, a 16-year-old is dead. Did you bother finding out about that part?
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=60445

What difference does it make whether the piece of shit setting the fire was 16 or 24 or 49 or whatever?

Next time YOU find someone starting a fire in YOUR garage, you are free to act according to your reasoning as it applies to your particular situation.

The homeowner probably has only two hands, just like most of the rest of us. He chose to put a gun in one hand and a phone in the other. I'd probably choose a gun and a fire extinguisher, but the situation described in the article did not involve you or me.

And now a brief musical interlude by Montovani and his orchestra.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

Concert master ------------------> :nopity:

Montovani -----------------------> :nopity:

[ohmyman1]

3. good

i have no problem with shooting someone who breaks into your home.

[amber dog democrat]

6. That's a tough call

One needs to be very sure before using deadly force - but there is no grand jury in Texas that would truebill you under those conditions.

I actually feel less safe with fire arms . In the heat of the moment it is hard to tell what the out come will be.

[iverglas]

13. the question

"there is no grand jury in Texas that would truebill you under those conditions."

What does that tell us about grand juries in Texas? (That we didn't already know ... .)

Me, I don't rely on juries in Texas, grand or otherwise, either for correct interpretation and application of laws or for guidance as to what the decent thing to do might be.

Not suggesting that you do, please don't take me wrong. Just asking one of those "I see things the way they might be, and ask 'why not?'" questions.

.

[DocSavage]

36. Texas Grand Jury

What is says to me is the people of Texas believe that protecting ones property is a reason to use force. Maybe they think that criminal behavior is wrong.

Don't worry, I am sure that this is not over for the homeowner. He is going to be sued by the family of that punk for wrongful death, this will drag on for years. In the end, he will have no money due to legal bills and have to sell his house to pay for them. So the victim is punished once again. And of course, the kid will be defended by having a bad home life or somthing like that. Punish the parents for the kids behavior? HAHAHAHAHAHA, like that is ever going to happen.

[RC]

8. You are going to shoot someone

who breaks into MY home? The apartment complex with the sheetrock walls and kids all over the place? I don't think so.

"i have no problem with shooting someone who breaks into your home."

[CO Liberal]

5. April 20, 2003

Still not current, Spoonman.

[Spoonman]

33. OK,

lets say current is within the last 30 days?

http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/news/2422751/detail.html

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/080903/new_20030809015.shtml

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/081403_NW_atmrobber.html

http://www.click10.com/news/2373119/detail.html

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=59620

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/6485706.htm

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2043526

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1392944&nav=0RaPHLMO

This ones really good

http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/todays_editorial/article/0,1426,MCA_537_2152471,00.html