The homeowner told police the two men said they were police and claimed they were at the home to serve a warrant.
[The homeowner] became suspicious, because, you know, they have a ring camera too, and the suspects were saying they had a warrant, but it was just two people and they’re masked up and no police cars, no lights or anything like that," said Lt. Khan with HPD.
At some point, police said the men shot at the homeowner through the door, prompting the homeowner to return fire.
The homeowner was not hurt in the gunfire, but the two men were both hit and pronounced dead at the scene.
That’s honestly fine. If someone ends up dead, especially if the killer is the only surviving witness, it’s pretty reasonable to have a thorough determination of responsibility and legality.
Yep, but going through those motions is enough to ruin someone’s life because of ruining their employment prospects because of their name being associated with horrific crimes, even if they are entirely innocent.
Arresting someone because a crime may have occurred, without there being evidence to determine such, is not great, especially when there’s video proof that it was self defense. It’d now be up to a jury putting the home owner under a microscope to determine if the homeowner made the correct split-second decisions in a situation so stressful they can’t even imagine what it’s like because they never lived through it.
Criminal charges are not necessary for that and this line of thinking is insane. The victim of a home invasion must now necessarily be charged and re-victimized by the justice system? This practice won’t last.
No one said they should be charged, but they need to be investigated to determine that it was actually a home invasion.
Do you think an investigation could occur on scene, where you have a ring camera, dead individuals who might be able to be identified as not cops, their car, the evidence on the house’s door of bullet holes, etc. and show that the homeowner maybe was justified? Maybe?