Owensboro KY LEO chasing bad guy shot by homeowner in fenced yard

blewis3

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
445
Location
Spring Lake, NC
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
https://www.owensborotimes.com/news/2018/10/opd-confirms-officer-shot/

KSP identifies officer in morning shooting

by The Owensboro Times
24 hours ago

UPDATE:

Around 6:30 a.m. this morning, Kentucky State Police Post 16-Henderson was notified by Owensboro Police Department (OPD) of a shooting involving an OPD officer. OPD authorities requested KSP investigate the incident related to the shooting.

The preliminary investigation revealed that around 5:30 a.m. this morning, Owensboro Police Officer Zachary Morris, 23 of Owensboro, responded to a call of a suspicious person possibly breaking into parked vehicles in the area of Hathaway and 6th Street in Owensboro.

Morris arrived in the area and observed a person matching the description. The suspect fled on foot and Morris gave chase.

Officer Morris lost sight of the fleeing suspect behind some houses in the 500 block of Hathaway Street. As the officer was checking a fenced-in area at 522 Hathaway, the homeowner of the residence shot at Officer Morris striking him.

Officer Morris was wearing a ballistic vest but was struck in the lower abdominal area. He is at Owensboro Health Regional Hospital recovering from emergency surgery and is in good condition.

Morris is a two-year veteran of Owensboro Police Department and is assigned to patrol.

At this point, KSP’s Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) is helping detectives determine what role participants had. The homeowner was detained for questioning and no charges have been filed.

All other events leading up to this incident is being investigated by Owensboro Police Department Criminal Unit.

————————————————————————————————————-
 
I am not sure what the law is in KY, but I don't think you can shoot someone for just being in your yard. They have to at least be attempting to break in to your home.
 
The ex wife of the homeowner just posted the following:

I would like to say this happen at my son's house. His Dad lives in the back of our son's house. Everyone is praying for the cop and we r too. But anyone here if u were in your back yard and the next thing you know someone has shot at you twice you woud have shot back. My ex didnt know it was a cop cause nobody said nothing just shot twice at him. And my poor little grandbabies put on the ground with guns on them and saw their family pet shot and killed. All of this could have been prevented if someone had announced that this is the law. Praying for the officier and his family but also praying for my family. Thank you

If this happened as indicated the police officer needs to be fired. Hopefully there is a body cam to determine who fired first and if he did announce himself as an officer.
 
Last edited:
The comments on that link site are too much.
 
The news doesn’t mention the pet either. The officer should be fired IF he is proven to have done wrong. Again the innocent until proven guilty...same for the homeowner.
 
Still not enough information and certainly not sure of the info we do have. Need to hear if the officer actually fired first and if it was at the pet or the man.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure what the law is in KY, but I don't think you can shoot someone for just being in your yard. They have to at least be attempting to break in to your home.

You dang well can shoot someone, and the homeowner just proved it. Oh, you mean do it and get away with it. Nevermind.
 
Remember in your CHP class they told you that the curtilage of your home is part of your home, thus, Castle Doctrine applies? I know this is KY and not NC/SC but I expect the legal principals are the same.

Wikipedia "curtilage": In law, the curtilage of a house or dwelling is the land immediately surrounding it, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated "open fields beyond", and also excluding any closely associated buildings, structures, or divisions that contain the separate intimate activities of their own respective occupants with those occupying residents being persons other than those residents of the house or dwelling of which the building is associated.[1] It delineates the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where "intimate home activities" take place. It is an important legal concept in certain jurisdictions for the understanding of search and seizure, conveyancing of real property, burglary, trespass, and land use planning.
In urban properties, the location of the curtilage may be evident from the position of fences, wall and similar; within larger properties it may be a matter of some legal debate as to where the private area ends and the "open fields" start.[2]
 
I am not sure what the law is in KY, but I don't think you can shoot someone for just being in your yard. They have to at least be attempting to break in to your home.
In KY you can use deadly force to protect property as it should be everywhere. I know a guy that shot a guy trying to steal his truck. He shot him with a broadhead in the throat & he bled out before the ambulance got there.
 
The ex wife of the homeowner just posted the following:
I would like to say this happen at my son's house. His Dad lives in the back of our son's house. Everyone is praying for the cop and we r too. But anyone here if u were in your back yard and the next thing you know someone has shot at you twice you woud have shot back. My ex didnt know it was a cop cause nobody said nothing just shot twice at him. And my poor little grandbabies put on the ground with guns on them and saw their family pet shot and killed. All of this could have been prevented if someone had announced that this is the law. Praying for the officier and his family but also praying for my family. Thank you

I thought this was a remarkably balanced, thoughtful, and respectful (though grammatically painful) response. We cannot know yet if her facts are correct, but I appreciate the fact she showed compassion for the officer and respect for police in general, despite her immediate disagreements with them.
 
Waiting for facts, would like to think that the officer wouldn’t have been shooting at a fleeing suspect of a property crime, and would like to think that the homeowner fired first seeing someone rushing his house or whatever, but no way to know until the investigation is over. Agree with everyone that said “hope they publish video.”
 
My suspicion, pure speculation, officer enters yard, pet, presumably a dog "attacks". Officer shoots dog as resident comes out. Resident shots at "perp" (officer).
Fits what we’ve been told better than what I was thinking.
 
My suspicion, pure speculation, officer enters yard, pet, presumably a dog "attacks". Officer shoots dog as resident comes out. Resident shots at "perp" (officer).

Sounds plausible, but the ex-wife said her "grandbabies" saw their pet dog being killed. So, it sounds like that may not be the case. Could be, kids waking up to go to school. See the dog barking in the back yard, shot rings out, grandfather, in fear of getting robbed with kids in the house, grabs his weapon and returns fire. Doesn't sound like a likely scenario based on the news article and comments.

More likely is that the dog was shot when the responding officers burst in the house and put everybody on the ground forcibly and fido responded appropriately by trying to defend his family.
 
http://www.the-messenger.com/news/local/article_870b681d-60d4-5ec1-973d-c2c1be903985.html

Little more info.

Owensboro Police Department officer Zachary Morris remained at Owensboro Health Regional Hospital on Thursday after being shot in an incident early Wednesday in the 500 block of Hathaway Street.

Morris was shot while searching for a person who fled after he responded to a suspicious person call in the Hathaway Street area about 5:30 a.m. Morris was shot by David Thomas Turley, who lived in the Hathaway Street home. Turley was identified by his attorney, Evan Taylor.

Trooper Corey King, public affairs officer for Kentucky State Police in Henderson, said he does not think it was Turley who made the suspicious person call to police.

Reports from KSP, who are investigating the shooting, say after the suspicious person eluded Morris, the officer doubled back and was looking over fences to see if the man was hiding behind them when he was shot.

Deputies from the Daviess County Sheriff's Department also responded to the home. Reports at the sheriff's office say Turley's son, "advised someone had fired two shots at his father."

Investigators determined Morris did fire his service weapon.

Reports at the sheriff's department said David Turley and his son, also named David Turley, shot back at Morris. A bullet fragment struck Morris in the abdomen.

King said he "did not hear anything about the son" also being involved in the incident.

Turley and his son were interviewed as part of the investigation, King said. Turley was questioned at OPD and released. No charges have been filed.

A sheriff's department report said the residence was cleared of people by law enforcement. The reports said a deputy at the scene "heard two shots fired at a dog that exited the back door."

Taylor said in an email Wednesday that officers had shot a family dog. Taylor said Turley was not available to be interviewed Thursday.

KSP detectives hadn't interviewed Morris as of Thursday because he was recovering from surgery, King said, but he believed Morris to be good condition.

"He just had very intrusive surgery," King said. "We certainly want to respect the healing process."

Investigators can't make any determination on what was happening when the shots were fired until they can speak with Morris, King said.

"We don't think (Turley) is a threat," King said. "All we're doing is fact-finding and fact-gathering." Once the investigation is complete, it will be referred to the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, he said.

Cases are presented to the Commonwealth's Attorney so prosecutors can determine if any charges are warranted.
 
That article is written in a very confusing way. It says he was looking over fences, shot at a dog that may have been coming out of a back door, then the homeowner and father shot back. If he really shot a dog while looking over a fence I have a very hard time believing that dog was a threat to him.
Agreed. The information about the story is rather limited and mostly seems to be hero worshipping (white washing the actions of ?) the cop. Makes you wonder what really happened.
 
That article is written in a very confusing way. It says he was looking over fences, shot at a dog that may have been coming out of a back door, then the homeowner and father shot back. If he really shot a dog while looking over a fence I have a very hard time believing that dog was a threat to him.

I think the dog was shot when deputies responded to the officer wounded call. Not much info on what happened when the officer responded. Found a tv news report with an interview of the homeowner (don't know how to embed so see the link below). Basically homeowner saw somebody shining a flashlight in the backyard over the fence, stepped out of his travel trailer where he was living in the backyard of his sons home with a pistol at his side. Heard two shots being fired at him with bullets whizzing overhead and dropped to the ground and returned fire with two shots. The officer then apparently retreated, as the homeowner did not find anybody there when the area was checked. Also, the officer was not equipped with a bodycam and shots had been fired from his weapon. Look like it is going to come down to a he said she said as to who fired first, but the homeowner seemed credible during his interview.

https://www.14news.com/2018/10/10/police-scene-officer-involved-shooting-owensboro/

If the homeowner is to be believed, I don't see how they can charge him with anything, unless they hit him with a BS charge for having a pistol at his side. Plus the police officer will probably not be charged as he saw the homeowner with a gun at his side and given their training about how quickly a situation could develop would probably be able to articulate a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury. Thankfully no one was hurt seriously.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure what the law is in KY, but I don't think you can shoot someone for just being in your yard. They have to at least be attempting to break in to your home.
Most modern castle law covered curtilage. I'm sure it doesn't extend to LEOs IF they identify as such. If no such identification was readily apparent, then LEO effed up and dude will walk.

Get off my lawn indeed. Maybe people should respect others rights, esp. when that person is involuntarily providing funds for their paycheck.

Oh and ask Federal Marshals about shooting a dog in Idaho and how that turned out for them.
 
Last edited:
I used to have a Kentucky Concealed Deadly Weapons Permit when I was stationed at Ft Campbell. No matter what or how the shooting took place it will be investigated and presented to the Grand Jury. KY has doesn't care how many handguns, long guns, shotguns, sub machine guns or frying pans you have under your trench coat. If you're justified in using deadly force the weapon is immaterial.

Would like to know what type of fence ie chain link or privacy (wood) fence. Sounds like a early dawn shooting with not enough light to identify for positive ID.

CD
 
Last edited:
Plus the police officer will probably not be charged as he saw the homeowner with a gun at his side and given their training about how quickly a situation could develop would probably be able to articulate a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury
Excuse me. Are you saying having a gun at your side is grounds for getting shot? Having a gun on your side at your own home is grounds for getting shot? Having a gun on you makes you a threat?
 
Excuse me. Are you saying having a gun at your side is grounds for getting shot? Having a gun on your side at your own home is grounds for getting shot? Having a gun on you makes you a threat?
Do you know he didn't point the gun? I don't.
 
I'm responding to what blewis said and want to know if he means what he said.

Personally, I do not believe that is grounds for being shot. But given the training that the police officers go through, the video with the vietnam vet with the rifle comes to mind, the officer may be able to make a case for reasonably being in fear of his life, especially the situation he was in; searching for a suspect in the dark. Officers have gotten off with less, the female police office who claimed to have seen a gun (don't know the exact particulars off the top of my head) comes to mind.

As far as if he pointed it at the officer. I am assuming the homeowner was truthful when he said it was at his side. But even if it was not. You are at your home, you hear a noise in the back yard and go to investigate, wouldn't you have your weapon at the low ready.

Food for thought.
 
Last edited:
My suspicion, pure speculation, officer enters yard, pet, presumably a dog "attacks". Officer shoots dog as resident comes out. Resident shots at "perp" (officer).
^^^^^ This is exactly what I thought happened. Cop is pursuing BG. BG goes over the fence and through the yard into the next yard. Dog goes bananas. Cop jumps fence. Dog jumps cop. Homeowner awakened when 1st guy goes through the yard. Grabs gun. Hears second guy in yard and hears dog get shot. He goes out and pops cop.
 
^^^^^ This is exactly what I thought happened. Cop is pursuing BG. BG goes over the fence and through the yard into the next yard. Dog goes bananas. Cop jumps fence. Dog jumps cop. Homeowner awakened when 1st guy goes through the yard. Grabs gun. Hears second guy in yard and hears dog get shot. He goes out and pops cop.

Cop deserved it then? I am still having mixed emotions on this as there are too many concerns about the events. I do not think the home owner should be charged at all. Cops shooting your dog because they trespassed is starting to get really old. Yes, I know he was chasing a perp and yes I know cops carry guns and do a dangerous job. I guess part of me says that this police state and intrusive police state at that is not always right in their actions and should be held accountable when they do wrong. I have a right to wear carry, use and wear a gun just like the officers do just as this home owner did.
 
In the heat of the moment people do unlikely things. Joseph Wambaugh wrote of an incident exactly like this in one of his novels. This happened decades ago. A federal officer went to question a woman in the Hayti section of Durham. She was much larger than the guy. The fed got about two sentences out of his mouth and she took off going right over the fed and knocking him on his ass. The chase was on. She ran down this hill and at the bottom of the hill were two guys standing in front of a store. As she ran past she said something to them and they both got in front of the fed. He shouted, "Out of the way! Federal officer!" The guy said, "How do we know that? You look like a raper to us." I'm told the fed was really, really pissed at that point. He pulled his gun and said, "You're right. I'm a rapist and I'm going to blow you're Fn head off and then I'm going to rape him." I'm told they got out of the way Who knows what would have happened if they hadn't. Fed never did catch that woman.
 
^^^^^ This is exactly what I thought happened. Cop is pursuing BG. BG goes over the fence and through the yard into the next yard. Dog goes bananas. Cop jumps fence. Dog jumps cop. Homeowner awakened when 1st guy goes through the yard. Grabs gun. Hears second guy in yard and hears dog get shot. He goes out and pops cop.
This certainly seems plausible given the sequence of events. Assuming this is what happened, it is certainly a case that raises a lot of philosophical questions regarding the nature of the relationship between the People and government. Specifically regarding sovereignty of citizens from government intrusion.

On one hand, it could be argued that you had an agent of the State engaging in their official State duties attempting to apprehend someone who was suspected of committing a crime. On the other hand, you have a person intentionally invading the privatized areas of another person's property, (from a legal standpoint) destroying their property (from a personal perspective killing a family member) that was responding to the invasion. You have a person who is also responding to an obviously armed intruder who by all reasonable appearances is there with violent and malicious intent defending their property and possibly their life and that of their family.

The issue as I see it is that the State has granted itself, or believes it has granted itself, excessive authority with respect to the rights of the People to where it will claim that it has a right to wantonly violate people and their property when there is a conflict with the rights of said people when engaged in the pursuit of State interests. It is a matter of the extents or limitations placed upon the state with respect to it having authority over the People.

This is where I have argued in the past that the idea of the State or it's agents having authority beyond that of the People is irrational. If the People don't have such authority (to commit these acts) then it is impossible for them to bestow this upon others. This is also a case of where I would go back to the model of justice in the colonial eras, not because it was idealistic, but to attempt to comprehend the reasoning and thinking of the people who founded the nation and their ideas on the limitations of government. Let's start with the 4th amendment that I think makes pretty clear the notion of "due process" required for government agents to intrude upon other people. I have also argued that a case can be made that the verbiage against standing armies was not a prohibition on the military alone, but also one on that of a standing police force as the British troops were there for State Law Enforcement functions. Rather, in colonial periods, when someone had been wronged they could plead their case to a grand jury which in turn would issue the warrants for the apprehension of the alleged criminal. The point that I am making here is that in the original intents it would have been very rare (or impossible) for a State officer would have been in this situation.

Even if we were to assume, or allow, that the State has such authority, and admittedly it believes it does and that upon "identifying" as an agent of the state, as BudE raises above, there is the issue of what qualifies as "identifying". Unfortunately, this is an all too common question. Saying "police" doesn't make you so. Wearing a costume or uniform doesn't make you so. The acts of the individual in this case were not anything that a proverbial reasonable person would be expecting from an "official", rather they were those of a brigand. In the more colonial style era, in order to enter the person's private property they would have had to present such warrants declaring their actions as official and sanctioned. This would have also addressed the "identifying" issue rather clearly.
 
Last edited:
The issue as I see it is that the State has granted itself, or believes it has granted itself, excessive authority with respect to the rights of the People to where it will claim that it has a right to wantonly violate people and their property when there is a conflict with the rights of said people when engaged in the pursuit of State interests. It is a matter of the extents or limitations placed upon the state with respect to it having authority over the People.
.

This right here is the main reason I refuse to buy into any of the thin blue line shit.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
I have also argued that a case can be made that the verbiage against standing armies was not a prohibition on the military alone, but also one on that of a standing police force as the British troops were there for State Law Enforcement functions. Rather, in colonial periods, when someone had been wronged they could plead their case to a grand jury which in turn would issue the warrants for the apprehension of the alleged criminal.

Nailed it!

Paid to carry a government gun = standing army.

Also note the provision where an individual could bring a charge directly to the Grand Jury without an intermediary beholden to your adversary. Now they just investigate themselves and always measure actions against their precious procedures and not against the law.
 
I do not think the dog was shot by the injured officer. First, in one of the news articles it states the dog was shot by a sheriffs deputy whereas the injured officer was a city cop. Second, in the interview with the homeowner, he did not mention the dog getting shot, only that he heard two shots directed toward him before returning fire. While it is possible that he omitted that information, I think it is highly unlikely as it would be a major part of the narrative.
 
I do not think the dog was shot by the injured officer. First, in one of the news articles it states the dog was shot by a sheriffs deputy whereas the injured officer was a city cop. Second, in the interview with the homeowner, he did not mention the dog getting shot, only that he heard two shots directed toward him before returning fire. While it is possible that he omitted that information, I think it is highly unlikely as it would be a major part of the narrative.
The dog was shot by the Deputies who responded to the officer down call.
 
Back
Top Bottom