Gun Zero of the Day: Jeffrey Craig Zeigler

Forteen-year-old Brennan Walker knocked on a Rochester Hills, Michigan house Friday morning after he missed his school bus. All he wanted were directions so he could get to school in time for first period. Instead, he almost got a load of buckshot.

The lady of the house seemed to jump to conclusions.

“I knocked on her door a few times and she came down yelling at me before I could say anything and she thought I was trying to break into her house,” he says. “I was trying to explain to her that I wanted to get directions to go to my school. I told her no, I go to Rochester High I’m just looking for directions to Rochester High.”

Then her husband came to the door.

“The man of the house came down, pretty much just grabbed the shotgun to shoot at my son,” says (Brennan’s mother) Lisa Walker.

“I saw it. I saw him holding it like this through the window and I guess I put my hand up, I don’t really remember, and I started to run,” Brennan Walker says. “I looked back behind me I saw him aiming at me and I turned back. I turned back and I heard the gunshot. And I tried to run faster.”

Now the howeowner. . .

…is facing felony charges after shooting at a teenage boy who knocked on his door to ask for directions.

Jeffrey Zeigler, 53, a retired Detroit firefighter, was arraigned Friday before 52-3 District Court Judge Julie Nicholson on charges of assault with intent to murder and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, according to a release from the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office. …

Police determined that the male homeowner chased Brennan into the yard and fired at him with a 12-gauge shotgun.

Everyone has the right to defend their home and loved ones. But security footage apparently showed that Zeigler not only wasn’t threatened, but left his home to chase Walker before taking a shot at him. Fortunately, Zeigler missed. But for his short fuse and an itchy trigger finger that makes all law-abiding gun owners look bad, Jeffrey Zeigler is our Gun Zero of the Day.

 

comments

  1. avatar Greg Lamb says:

    Maybe our last VP will contribute to his defense fund or act as an expert witness for the defense.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Tactical Joe says to just shoot through the screen door at the people on the porch. Must be rough on Girl Scouts, Newspaper boys, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        I imagine he puts loads into mirrors as well;-)

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Somehow, I think the shooter demonstrated he shouldn’t own a gun long before this episode. I am, however, anxious to learn if the shooter is also charged with a thought crime.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      The shooting was obviously bad. The young man did nothing threatening, and the shooter chased him outside to boot. He needs to go to prison.

      I do have to say that the stacking of charges these days seems kinda silly. They added “possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony”. That seems bogus. He seems to have shot at a kid for no reason. That is either attempted murder, or first degree assault. The fact that it was a gun instead of a crossbow doesn’t really seem to matter.

      I was on a jury a few years ago, in a case where a man shot another man. He barely grazed the other guy, no serious injury, and the victim was a total scumbag. Still, we knew the shooting was bad, and convicted the man for second degree assualt, and this added charge of using a gun in a crime.

      Afterwards, we jurors were chatting with the judge, and asked what kind of sentence the man would get. The judge told us 3-6 months for the assault, but the gun charge was an automatic three years additional.

      What difference does it make whether a criminal stabs, runs over, or shoots someone? The actual harm done seems like the main issue.

      Just wondering about it?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Viewing your questions through my law enforcement experience (gained watching every episode of “Land and Order” (which, BTW, was a shortened version of a TV show in the early ’60s called “Arrest and Trial” – 9min episodes), I see “stacked” charges as having two attractions for prosecutors: charge as many violations as possible, in hopes of a slam dunk guilty plea on something; stack as many violations as possible, in hopes of at least getting a jury to convict on something.

        In real life, does a bad actor deserve enhanced sentencing for a crime spree, especially one that spans only one or two days. If the bad actor commits 5 murders, three armed robberies, and a parking violation, should that bad actor be charged with every crime, or merely one count for murder, and one count for armed robbery? After all, the singular crimes were murder and robbery. What difference does it make that there were multiple instances of each crime? Should sentencing be different for multiple crimes, versus one?

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          Sam, if you’ve committed five murders, I can see why you think you should only be charged for one.
          But I fail to understand your reasoning when it includes other people.
          Yes, each murder should have a charge made. Five murders, five murder charges. Why? Because each one must be considered on its own merits. To simply discard four of them by saying they are the same charge is not serving justice, and not even true. Each charge has its own action, and its own victim.
          Now, I can see the logic in saying that if you make an illegal left turn and hit another car, “piling on” charges of making an unsafe turn and reckless driving is probably wrong, because each charge is included in the other, but if you do it twice, then you should indeed be charged twice with one of those charges. Or would you, if you were in the second car hit, be OK with paying for your own damages because a court didn’t find the person who hit you guilty of doing so?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          First, let me make a correction to my comment: the TV segments for “Arrest and Trial” were 90 minutes, total; not 9min.

          The idea of stacked charges leads to over zealousness. For instance, sentencing guidelines should be such that a single charge of murder in a spree that includes more than one murder, is punished by one life sentence, or one execution. What do stacked murder convictions do that adds somehow to “justice”?

          If the law provides (and it does) for “consecutive” sentencing, it means the law is inadequate. If the prosecution cannot win a life sentence for murder, so be it. The “consecutive” sentencing allows the prosecution to under charge (because they know the evidence is not convincing), and depend on the jury seeking revenge. That is, consecutive “5-15” sentences are essentially a life sentence, when the underlying crime really only justifies a single sentence. And to chase this further, it is possible that the stacked sentences will not cover all the victims (the perp will eventually die).

          Take a look at the Nuremberg sentencing. Those not given death or life were given a single term of imprisonment, even though those convicted were convicted for “crimeS against humanity”. (Or their crimes ultimately resulted in atrocities against hundreds/thousands of people). Why should our justice system be more severe?

          But, let’s consider multiple crimes that are not a single spree. Pretend a perp commits five armed robberies over four years (and none are committed within a week of each other). Such a record would not be a “spree”, and logic affords room for multiple charges. Still, we have the problem of sentencing. The crime is armed robbery. Is it justice to create a life sentence (“consecutive” sentencing) just because the crime happened multiple times? (and one could enter the “rehab/punishment” argument here).

          In an imaginary scenario, 41 people are run down and killed in an attack using a vehicle. There is a single driver/perp involved. The current process is to create 41 murder charges. The prosecution can decide that life sentences should be “stacked”, or not. But, what about executions? Imagine that the 41 victims are in some sort of cosmic antechamber. The perp is executed. For which of the 41 victims is the perp executed (are we going to introduce the idea of “fractional justice for each victim”)? What about the “rights” of the other 40 to have their killer executed? How do we present justice to the 41 in the antechamber, when we know the killer cannot be killed more than once? Where is the justice? If “justice” is that the perp was executed, what is the need for 40 additional murder charges? Are we ultimately only deceiving ourselves that “revenge” and “justice” are synonymous?

          (BTW, I have been stationed in states where the prosecution is only allowed to charge one crime in a spree….carjacking, armed robbery, assault and battery, theft, murder all as part of a single spree)

    2. avatar BC says:

      You’re right. Zeigler plead guilty to a misdemeanor is 2004 for shooting a car in a road rage incident. Somehow I bet his prior FD work got him off light on that one.

    3. avatar cisco kid says:

      quote————-Somehow, I think the shooter demonstrated he shouldn’t own a gun long before this episode. I am, however, anxious to learn if the shooter is also charged with a thought crime.———————quote

      Actually people are charged with “thought crimes” all the time in many countries including the U.S. Its called “racism” which results in a person persecuting or murdering a person just because he is of a different race or religion and this case certainly was one of racism, as even a Moron could understand why the guy tried to kill someone when they were only asking for directions and would not quit pursuing him even though the boy was clearly unarmed and running away. They need to lock up this racist for at least 20 years.

      1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

        It’s not a ‘thought crime’ if the person actually follows thru and commits a real crime. But some countries, Germany is one, will put you in jail for exercising your right to free speech. Even if that is your only ‘crime’.

        But it’s good to know where you stand on the issue. And that you support jailing people for speaking out. That’s a very double edged sword you wield there.

        But anybody that supports giving the .gov the right to ‘vet’ gun owners and supports one world .gov, such as you, is a drumphing idiot.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But it’s good to know where you stand on the issue. And that you support jailing people for speaking out. That’s a very double edged sword you wield there. ”

          “Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
          the band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
          and somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
          but there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out.”

        2. avatar cisco kid says:

          To Gun Farts in School Zones. Quote—————–It’s not a ‘thought crime’ if the person actually follows thru and commits a real crime. But some countries, Germany is one, will put you in jail for exercising your right to free speech. Even if that is your only ‘crime’.

          But it’s good to know where you stand on the issue. And that you support jailing people for speaking out. That’s a very double edged sword you wield there.

          But anybody that supports giving the .gov the right to ‘vet’ gun owners and supports one world .gov, such as you, is a drumphing idiot.———————-quote——————

          Like most Hillbillies you know nothing of history nor what limits civilized countries put on people rights. Out of control racist speech should be outlawed and has been outlawed in civilized countries precisely because it results in violence being committed against people especially minorities. If there had been such laws that existed and were enforced during Hitler’s time he never would have become the leader of Germany because he would have went to jail before he ever created a following of fellow racists.

          And since like most uneducated Morons you know nothing about your own history the 1st Amendment was never created to give a person unlimited rights nor was any other amendment passed created for unlimited rights either. Yelling fire in a theater that will cause needless deaths is a good example of limits being placed on freedom of speech when it results in unnecessary deaths and the same is true of racist speech as well. Is all this getting too complicated for you or is this finally making you realize what a racist you really are.

        3. avatar cisco kid says:

          to Gun Farts in School Zones. Quote——————–If a victim is being killed solely based on their race or religion it is a hate crime. Crime is crime and hate is hate. Hate should only be a crime if it is acted on.———————quote——————

          Once again you know nothing of history or why there are laws or should be laws against hate speech because it does indeed lead to violence against minorities. 6 million Jews would be alive today if there had been such laws in Germany in the 30’s. Your ranting that people have the right to hate speech if they do not act on it is about as ignorant of history as you can get.

        4. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          cisco. If memory serves hitler did go to jail. He wrote a book while there. And it slowed his rise to power by none.

          Just remember all the hate filled and vile comments you’ve made here. By your own standards you should be in prison.

          You claim to hate Trump but you wish to give his .gov the right to determine who, if anyone, can own a gun. Now you want to give that same .gov the right to jail people for their speech.

          You are a true nazi.

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Yes, because shooting a person because you are a “racist” is much worse than shooting a person because you want the money in their pocket. All crimes are hate crimes. I have never seen a “love” crime.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I have never seen a “love” crime.”

          Well said.

          Just thought of something….what if it was an “I don’t care” crime?

        2. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          If a victim is being killed solely based on their race or religion it is a hate crime. Crime is crime and hate is hate. Hate should only be a crime if it is acted on.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          No, “hate” is an emotion, and irrelevant to the commission of a crime. If someone kills you, it does not matter to you whether you were hated, or not; you are dead, and beyond recompense.

          “Hate crimes” are “thought crimes”, pure and simple. And there is no parsing. There is no logic behind declaring our constitution provided authority to punish, or enhance punishment because of the “thoughts” behind a crime. You don’t get to say that some emotions are criminal, and some are not.

          There is no natural, civil or human right to not be hated. Only our corroded court system, which is made up of demented liberals who love the idea of thought crimes, prevent the instant abolishment of the notion of emotion as a factor in a crime.

        4. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          Sam. it’s irrelevant if the only motive for the crime is to rob you. The victim is not picked because of race or religion and may be the same as the criminal.

          But it is absolutely relevant if the only reason you’re being murdered is because of your race or religion. No crime would have occurred if not for the hate of the perpetrator.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You are exemplifying an emotional response. Thought crime of any kind should terrify people in a free nation. Declaring that targeting this group or that group demonstrates hate means that one day your group may be declared to have committed hate crimes. There is not “objective”, immutable, unalterable definition of “hate crime”. It is whatever the politically powerful decide.

          I hate rich people, so I only attack rich people.
          I hate poor people, so I only attack poor people.
          I hate military veterans, so I only attack military veterans.
          I hate people taller than me, so I only attack people taller than me.

          If not for hating the people listed above, I would not attack anybody.
          “Hate crimes” are “thought crimes”, period. “Hate crimes” are something more akin to despotic regimes, where any sort of non-allegiance to the official slogans or policies can be punished. Your need for revenge is making you susceptible to accommodating (if not encouraging) government overreach and retaliation for being politically incorrect.

        6. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          Sam, your examples pretty much prove my point. ‘Normal’ criminals are looking for a score, usually to feed a drug habit. They may ‘hate’ that they’re broke, but that’s the limit of their feelings for the crime.

          Attacking or stealing from someone simply based on your hatred of that person or group is, pretty much a hate crime. If not for the hate the crime would not have occurred.

  3. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    Yeah and Mike Brown has hands up in the air allegedly they’re just trying to make a story out of nothing there’s two sides to this let’s hear his side

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Home invaders always knock first.
      If you don’t answer, they break in.

      If you do answer, they deliver a BS story about why they’re there, like needing directions to the school they supposedly attend every day.

      I don’t for one minute believe that he ‘was just knocking to ask directions’, but I do believe that he was not doing anything that merited his death at the moment he was allegedly shot at. Bad actors all around in this movie.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        If we oppose pre-crime punishment (domestic violence restraining orders), we cannot logically and honorably support pre-crime supposition as justification for shooting at someone who unexpectedly knocks on our front door.

      2. avatar RogueVal says:

        You know who also knocks on your door; your neighbors, trick or treaters, USPS/UPS/FedEx, girl scouts, need I go on?

    2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      “Prosecutors say surveillance video showed that Brennan knocked on the door, refuting Zeigler’s claim that the teen was trying to break into his home.”

      http://fox59.com/2018/04/14/black-teen-who-missed-bus-gets-shot-at-after-knocking-to-ask-for-directions/

      The home owner will have his day in court and will have the opportunity to defend his actions.

  4. avatar former water walker says:

    Funny but young black youts banging on my door(at night) pushed my interest in gun ownership. I told my beautiful brown wife to call the po-leece but realized other than a baseball bat I probably couldn’t deter them. They had loudly smashed into my neighbor’s lamppost and barely missed hitting my house…what kind of a dumbazz 14 year old doesn’t know his way to school?!? Chef don’t judge…

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Forteen-year-old Brennan Walker knocked on a Rochester Hills, Michigan house Friday morning after he missed his school bus. All he wanted were directions so he could get to school in time for first period.
      This does seem rather strange. When I was 14, I could about get to school blind folded.

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        He’s only been going for less than a year if he’s a 14-year-old freshman, and if he takes the bus every day it’s likely he would know the shortest way to walk or ride his bike there.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Fourteen year-olds can’t see past their cell phones these days. and you expect then to be able to find anything without a map app.?

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          Cell phones are good for getting directions. Maybe this young man doesn’t have one.

  5. avatar Gabe says:

    I would plead the Joe Biden defense.

  6. avatar Junior says:

    What teenager doesn’t have a phone that they can look up directions with?

    1. avatar BC says:

      His mother had taken it away as a minor punishment.

  7. avatar H says:

    He takes the bus missed that bus and was following the route and got lost. Why not the benefit of the doubt here? Every Negro is a perpetrator? Get over it. Because some Negroes do break into homes do all? Seems to me a lot of meth and oxy heads are breaking into homes and they aren’t Negroes. Oh that’s different. That’s a public health crisis.

    Stop defending your position cause it’s just old. It doesn’t make Caucasians look intelligent. It plays to Hillary’s vision. Don’t care? You should. It’s not loving in any Christian sense. So stop.

    Our Zero broke the law of homedefense. You can’t shoot after someone is running away.

    1. avatar Mercury says:

      Of course you can shoot (or stab, bludgeon, immolate, detonate, defenestrate, etc.) a perp who’s running away. But only if he’s already tried to harm you or yours. Someone who’s already shown willing to violate, maim or kill you or your loved ones doesn’t magically stop being a threat when he turns around. He’s no longer a threat when he’s incapacitated, unconscious, dead or so far off he’d need a sniper rifle to return fire.

      However, in this particular case it sounds like the would be burglar (let’s be real here, he was absolutely not knocking on a random door to ask for directions to school; he was checking to see if it was clear to break and enter) never showed an inclination to do more than property crime, so firing at him as if he was a deadly threat was certainly the wrong move. Unless it turns out the police botched the investigation and/or the DA got hot in the trousers to prosecute another of those nasty gun owners. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Someone who’s already shown willing to violate, maim or kill you or your loved ones doesn’t magically stop being a threat when he turns around.”

        Might want to carefully review laws of self-defense in your state/municipality. What is the allowable range at which point someone running away does “magically stop being a threat”? In the majority (at least) of locations, disengagement is “the end” of the conflict, and legal use of deadly force ends as well. If the person, reengages, it starts an entirely new event (and the perp cannot claim self-defense). While there are instances where a perp was shot in the back at the moment of disengagement (reaction time interval), and the defender was acquitted, the burden of trial was not relieved.

        In law, “right” does not make right.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          quote——————“Someone who’s already shown willing to violate, maim or kill you or your loved ones doesn’t magically stop being a threat when he turns around.”—————-quote

          This is one time we agree on something but what you are ignoring is “reality” and that reality is that most Jury’s don’t see it that way and the prosecutors damn well know this and have used this and continue to use this to convict many people in shooting incidents. Whenever you shoot someone who is unarmed or even lesser armed say with a knife and running away you automatically become the “bad guy” in the eyes of the Jury. Emotionalism not logic or reality is what counts most in a Jury trial. All anyone has to do is watch the old movie “Twelve Angry Men” to get a dose of chilling reality on how many people got convicted for crimes they never should have went to jail for simply because the Jury resorted to emotionalism or racism.

          To give a further example one High School kid that was a star football player got blown away breaking into a home and because of his background of being “a white upper middle class kid” and a football star to boot the Jury convicted the home owner of excessive force and second degree murder when he clearly was in his rights to defend his home and his life from a young man bigger and more powerful and younger than himself. Jury emotionalism and racism again reared its ugly head.

      2. avatar B-Rad says:

        If there isn’t your own video of you chasing them around the yard with a shotgun and taking potshots at them.

  8. avatar Timothy says:

    The jury may be out on whether the teen is telling the truth and there was nothing nefarious about his actions.

    The jury has long ago passed judgement on chasing an unarmed person to shoot at their back. Especially since this was caught on security camera. Pretty sure that’s attempted murder.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      If it’s HIS security camera, he might be one of those “wish a motherf—er would” types, and having a security camera on your house and shooting that kid in the back would probably get him a premeditated murder charge if he hadn’t missed.

  9. avatar MLee says:

    What a total doofus. Hopefully they don’t plea-bargain this down to disorderly conduct or some other hand-slap BS. Shooting at someone for no good reason is right up at the top of serious sh–.
    What a moron.

  10. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    Some media sources say the homeowner was previously involved in a firearms-related road rage incident.

    Glad he’s not my neighbor.

  11. avatar Bob says:

    But Joe Biden told me it was okay…

  12. avatar Sam I Am says:

    There have been several comments here regarding the size, age, etc. of the youngster who was shot at. All that matters is whether the homeowner reasonably believed the unexpected visitor posed an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

    Did the youngster point a gun at the homeowner? Did the youngster have a gun displayed? Did the youngster attempt to force entry into the home? Now, suppose for a moment that the youngster was using an M-16 (full auto) to bash in the homeowner’s door, and the door was breached. Now suppose that the armed youngster actually gained entry through the door. Now suppose that the youngster saw the homeowner standing there, and decided not to attack the homeowner, but to flee back out the door, and down the street. Is the homeowner, at that point, facing an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm? Yes/No?

    A person who breaks through your door or window, full body armor, helmet, night vision, grenades hanging of a tactical vest, a pistol holstered on each leg, and a full-auto Galil, but retreats upon seeing you does not pose an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. No matter how evil this fictional intruder is, no matter his original intent to slaughter anyone in sight, once the intruder disengages, threat gone. No justifiable homicide available to the homeowner who pursues the intruder, or shoots him/her in the back running away. This is all that matters about the posting. Forget the kid’s action, disorientation, lack of smart phone, familiarity with the neighborhood, or the way home from school.

    Was there an imminent deadly threat to the homeowner?

    1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      Aw, c’mon, can’t I just wing him?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        If you can reliably and safely make that shot….something to think about. Might not make a difference in the offense charged.

  13. avatar IdahoBoy says:

    This is why some people can’t have nice things.

  14. avatar Rickster A-15 says:

    Some people should not have guns. I agree , zero of the day. Lucky the youngster was not shot in the back. No one deserves that. Any person running away , hands in the air , is retreating. Regardless of his initial intentions. We do not shoot kids in the back. Cowards do.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      You’ve just defined “castle doctrine” & shown a common tactic used by overzealous prosecutors.. cops shoot people in the back on a fairly routine basis in this country.

      This case is unique in that the door wasn’t breached, but the homeowner was correct in fetching & making a weapon ready when his door was fussed with. A standard residential door is often a one-kick affair & this 14 year old is six feet tall, not a peter-pan waiflike child.

      There is a tape & it hasn’t been released, only one sides impressions of that tape. If the police are going to make statements smearing a man’s actions (and tainting a possible jury) like that, they should be forced to release the unedited tape.

      1. avatar RogueVal says:

        One incident, doesn’t a trend make, but he was busted before to a road rage incident shooting at a car. The police were also called to his house in February because he was drunk and disorderly.

  15. avatar neiowa says:

    What dumbass 14yr old can’t find his school? Perhaps hasn’t been making it there regularily? I bet he could he find a pot dealer.

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      quote——————–neiowa says:What dumbass 14yr old can’t find his school? Perhaps hasn’t been making it there regularily? I bet he could he find a pot dealer.—————quote————-

      And you can bet if he had been a white upper class kid you never would have made that statement. Its called racism. Tell me did you also march at North Carolina in the torch parade and shout “death to the Jews” It would not surprise me if you were there.

  16. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    Rochester is an extremely low crime area. Things that make the local paper are stolen wallets from unlocked cars, or trash thrown out of a vehicle. I really don’t understand chasing someone moving away from your home to shoot at them- especially since no crime was committed by the youth. I can totally understand answering the door while armed. I can even understand being worried about who was at the door. But shooting someone who’s running away…? This is stupid on so many levels. Tactically, morally, legally.

  17. avatar ironicatbest says:

    this article is full of shit

  18. avatar John Clark says:

    I don’t by for 1 second that this kid didn’t know how to get to his school. He was playing hooky looking for a home to burglarize. The homeowner should never have taken a shot at him however but maybe has saved the punks life by scarring him to the straight and narrow

    1. avatar Gralnok says:

      Well, given that it’s Detroit, the young thug was playing hooky, I’d assume the worst also. I guess the difference is, I wouldn’t shoot first. I’d issue a verbal warning, make sure the little shit saw my gun, and given him a final chance to rethink his life decisions before opening fire.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Which could subject you to charges of menacing and brandishing. “Oh, but I was in my house, and I have a right to menace a stranger who posed no threat”. Be sure you know the laws in your jurisdiction. Trials are not free.

        1. avatar Gralnok says:

          Actually, I do have a right to menace someone who clearly does pose a threat and tell them to GTFO before I fill them with lead. Then again, you’re right about local rules. I have the above right in Arizona, but in Detroit Michigan, I probably have to invite the hoodlum in and offer milk and cookies while he robs me blind.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Chill, and reread my comment (“…a stranger who poses no threat:”) Moving the goal posts (from “no threat” to “poses a threat” is the tactic of a gun grabber.

          New scenario: I knock on your door, and announce that I wish to sell you a pig in a poke. After you permit me to enter, you decide you have no wish to purchase such pig. Then, you ask me to leave, but I persist in my Power Point presentation. You immediately yell at me, “I am ordering you to leave my house and property”. Still I persist in the presentation, effectively ignoring you.

          What are your legal options? Are you facing an “imminent threat” of death or grievous bodily harm? Are you justified in displaying a weapon, and threatening to shoot me if I do not depart? If I still refuse to leave, are you justified in shooting me for refusing to leave?

        3. avatar Gralnok says:

          New scenario? Got it. If I’m the home owner, I get to decide if it’s time for you to leave. If you don’t leave, but don’t pose a threat, then it’s time to call the cops. If you do pose a threat, then I can, and will, get a gun and order you to leave. If you still insist on your PowerPoint presentation, while holding a baseball bat, or however you become a threat, then I’ll start firing.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Now you have come to the proper conclusion: use of deadly force when not facing imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm is illegal. thus, chasing a non-threat from your home with a gun, and firing on the fleeing person cannot be justified. Yes, you get to determine when someone must leave your home, but not justified in using any means at your disposal when there is no threat. And, you don’t get to shoot at the trespasser because you thing that person is likely to have bad intent.

        5. avatar Gralnok says:

          Circumstances are the key variable, here. I’m just going with the scenario presented. If we alter it by having the perp kick my dog, steal something, or promise to return with friends, then yes, I will detain, pistol whip, or shoot to kill.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You should really consult the laws of your locality. What you propose reads like disproportional response, which is often a chargeable offense. Indeed, some jurisdictions prohibit using force to protect property.

        7. avatar Gralnok says:

          Well, I tried looking up the local laws, but only got a real vague description of use of force.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Vague descriptions are the tool of politicians. And one should be highly suspicious, and highly circumspect in action.

          In our state, the statutes declare that one may not use deadly force to protect property, in or out of the house (this means an intruder may take property without hindrance, but if the homeowner has reasonable concern that the intruder has the capability to attack using deadly force, the homeowner may protect themselves and occupants). In our state, your garage is a free-take zone, not your domicile. In our state, if a bunch of unarmed folks corner you and demand your valuables, you are not authorized to use deadly force to prevent the robbery. You must be under “imminent” threat of death or serious bodily harm. There is even some uncertainty about disproportionate force. That is, if someone attacks with a steel bar, can you use a gun to counter? If someone throws rocks, can you use a knife (blade over 3in) to defend yourself.

          Vague is good for the prosecution.

        9. avatar Gralnok says:

          Well, that’s fine and dandy. I’m not sure I’d call the cops anyway after a DGU. As long as no shots are fired, there’s no reason to report it. Cops are not to be trusted, in my experience. The only reason I’d call them, is to get someone off my property or to report a theft. This conversation does get me thinking, however. How would I explain away the sound of a gunshot? I’m increasingly under the impression that if something happens, I’m on my own for dealing with the criminal and the aftermath.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” I’m not sure I’d call the cops anyway after a DGU. As long as no shots are fired, there’s no reason to report it. ”

          This is one of those concepts that is quite controversial. The major drawback being that we have already had lawsuits filed against a gun owner defending her/himself, without shots fired. The perps filed “menacing” and “brandishing” charges against the homeowner, who did not first report the incident. Like it or not, it then becomes the burden of the homeowner to prove the confrontation was a defensive action.

          I don’t have a bulletproof answer for unreported, on-gunshot defensive use of firearms. I don’t have an answer at all. But I cannot ignore the implications.

      2. avatar B-Rad says:

        Rochester isn’t Detroit, its one of the most affluent towns in Michigan, with very low crime rates and average household income well over $100k a year.

  19. avatar Hannibal says:

    “All he wanted were directions so he could get to school in time for first period…”
    Considering that his school was something like 5 miles away, I very much doubt that he was going to make first period. There’s something stinky in the story.

    …but it doesn’t really matter because when you open fire on someone who hasn’t attacked you and is running away, you dun goofed.

  20. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Here in Florida the law is clear
    If there is a closed between you and the threat, legally you are not In danger and cannot open fire
    Even if he has a weapon and is screaming threats
    As for opening the door and chasing an unarmed fleeing person?
    That is a bad shoot in every state
    The question is what kind of moron opens the door and chases someone who knocks on your door?
    It is 100% legal to walk up to a house and knock
    If you are afraid of the person, don’t open the door
    You can scream at him to get lost without opening it.

    1. avatar John Clark says:

      It is not legal to walk up to my house and Knock on my door, Like many others. In order to walk up to my house you would have to ignore The no trespassing signs, The no benevolent purpose signs the beware of donkey and dog signs. Then hop a locked gate or fence, risk getting stomped to death by a belligerent donkey and stripped naked by goats. Then ignore more signs and hop another fence or gate and be grabbed up by a bull mastiff and chewed on by weenie dogs. All while the guinea hens would be screaming bloody murder.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        No matter the barriers a person crosses, it is a rare jurisdiction that would see shooting a property trespasser as permissible. (except maybe illegally entering your home and committing a crime).

  21. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Why is the kid banging on a neighbor’s door, allegedly to “ask for directions” to a school he’s been attending all school year? Sounds more like he was skipping school and looking for some trouble to cause and a house to rob.

    And TTAG? Seriously? This is how you’re going to report on these events?

    “But security footage apparently showed that Zeigler not only wasn’t threatened, but left his home to chase Walker before taking a shot at him. ”

    TTAG has not seen the video. At this point, there is no “apparently showed” anything. There’s just the teen’s near-teenage mother and the dindunuffin’ teen himself who CLAIM that the home security video corroborates their (read: the teen’s) version of events. On the basis of one-sided, self-serving story telling from an idiot, possibly truant, kid, you’re bandying about phrases like “apparently shows” and “Gun zero of the day”, seriously?

    Good Lord. Farago, are you reading this? TELL me the TTAG purchase agreement includes a takesies backsies clause!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      My friend, no matter how you spin it, if the homeowner left the residence, entered the yard and fired a shot, the homeowner is guilty of a crime.

      If the homeowner does not dispute that he left the home, then security systems/tapes/harddrives are moot. The reasons for the teen being on the porch are moot. “Imminent” means “imminent”.

      In our state, if an attacker disengages through action or words, the almost attacked person has no legally sufficient grounds for continuing the engagement. Even if you are shot at, and the perp then drops the weapon and turns to flee, the homeowner has no justification to pursue with deadly force (or pursue at all; following at a distance, to observe the direction of the escape, is not “engaging”).

    2. avatar det.nickvalentine says:

      “teen’s near-teenage mother”

      That might be the weirdest claim of the bunch. WTF dude?

      Its amazing how many racist comments and stereotypes quickly find their way into every single post on this page that involves people of color.

      1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

        She’s 34, but I guess its close if you’re trying really hard to be racist.

        1. avatar Det. Nick Valentine says:

          34. Gotcha. So she had him when she was 19 or 20. So that possibly qualifies her to have once been a teenage mother, but only slightly. Doesn’t seem like that is too relevant here outside of him clearly wanting to attack black people from any stereotypical angle he can think of.

    3. avatar Patrick says:

      I agree that the story seemed suspicious, but having looked at this, I do believe the news report is legitimate.
      It would be nice if the footage was shown. I watched the news video, but saw no security video, unfortunately. The story is that the guy started walking the four miles to school, but got lost, which I find to be credible. Also, and this is relevant regardless of skin color, the young man apparently has a dad at home (but who is currently deployed), so statistically is less likely to engage in criminal behavior. If the video confirms the story, then of course the shooting wasn’t justified.

      Relating to skin color, the mother was so upset that the homeowner said “they”, referring to black people. Sadly though, as she should be aware, there’s a reason folks in that area are suspicious when teenage black male strangers knock on their doors. (Yet again, not justification for shooting, but certainly suspicion.)

  22. avatar Tom says:

    Around blacks never relax. Remember St. Trayvon Skittles was just a “gud boi doin nuffin” until he started bashing a guys head into a concrete sidewalk. I hope the homeowner is exonerated.

    1. avatar Det. Nick Valentine says:

      “Around blacks never relax”

      Why does TTAG not censor this obviously racist garbage? I’ve had posts in the past “flame deleted” for attacking someone’s intelligence in a case where it was obviously questionable.

      1. avatar Tom says:

        Ahh, poor little snowflake is upset. Do you love your wife’s illegitimate child as much as this fine good boy knocking on random doors?

        1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          Isn’t it time for your Koffee Klatch Kids meeting?

        2. avatar Det. Nick Valentine says:

          I’m just sick of you racist douche bags making the rest of us rational, law abiding gun owners look bad.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’m just sick of you racist douche bags making the rest of us rational, law abiding gun owners look bad.”

          It is what makes America great: all opinions are valid opinions (facts are another matter); even the worst of us are permitted to speak our minds.

          Speech control and thought control are two sides of the same coin. Then comes pre-crime confiscation of legal property. Then comes pre-crime arrest. Where on the spectrum do you wish to reside?

        4. avatar RogueVal says:

          No, not all opinions are valid. That’s snowflake logic, i.e. complete bullshirt.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          All opinions ARE valid. They exist. Everyone has one about something. We may disagree with someone’s opinion, but the opinion remains an opinion. As the saying goes, “You have a right to your opinion, but not a right to your own set of facts.”

          Simple example: You like Vanilla ice cream, I think it is simply disgusting. Both opinions are valid. You like guns, I think they are evil. In either case, your opinion works for you, mine for me. Neither of us has a superior or lesser opinion.

        6. avatar RogueVal says:

          He said opinions are “valid”, like valid has a meaning in this case. Valid is not the same thing as true, observed true things counter opinion. You can go on to your safe space, snowflake.

      2. avatar Cory C. says:

        While I am generally opposed to censoring even the most abhorrent of comments, I do share your sentiment that the morons are out in full force. I don’t think these racist fools appreciate how much harm they do to our cause.

    2. avatar tinhats says:

      Unless that kid just shave off his scruffy beard, ditched his badass clothes, got his tats and piercings removed, he looks about as harmless as the most harmless of my high school students. Hardly someone – in daylight no less – to instill fear.

  23. avatar Tom says:

    Nah, Leroyious, The KKK has way too many feds and low IQ dipshits in it. You would fit right in, Im sure.

    1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

      At least I know how to use a comment section to reply.

  24. avatar 22winmag says:

    I for one prefer JURY trials to TTAG trials.

    Slam the guy all you want after there is a legit conviction on the books.

  25. avatar George Venable says:

    I’m curious as to the distance he fired from. Buckshot or birdshot ? If buckshot, attempted murder at any range. If the kid was 30 yards away and moving, birdshot’s gonna hurt but most likely not kill a human(ask Dick Cheney’s friends!). Still, major stupidity on the shooter’s part. His wife should invest in a peephole lens and intercom as she will be living alone for some time !

  26. avatar LibGunOwner says:

    The shooter committed several cardinal sins: 1). He panicked while armed, and consequently nearly committed murder. 2). After grossly misreading the situation, he gave chase to a fleeing victim…while armed. Chasing down your unarmed, juvenile victim is really lousy optics. 3). He missed. That means he sent high-speed projectiles where they could strike unintended targets. 4). This isn’t his first incident of armed, angry stupidity. He pled out his last bit of gun rage.

    Mr. Zeigler let down his neighbors, his community, and all of us gun owners who handle firearms with due regard for the rights and safety of others. Mr. Zeigler is not currently proficient or safe with his firearms and needs a lengthy 2A time-out so he can reflect on his bad behavior.

  27. avatar Chris says:

    Stupid move on homeowners part but I have seen law enforcement do worse and get a paid vacation over it. Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander. Treat officers the same as the rest of us

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email