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.
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.
I agree that guilt by association may cause problems for the victim but the most reasonable way to proceed is to gather facts and evidence and make decisions based upon that information. I believe that this process is the most effective, even if there is absolute proof that the victim is innocent (assume there was a live stream of the incident for all to see and everyone who saw it was shown that the victim was innocent). We should still jump the hoops and fill out the forms.
I just don’t agree, I don’t see how victimizing someone twice when there’s absolute proof they are innocent is in any way productive or a good thing for society. It’s really shitty and can ruin someones life when they’ve already been through a traumatic event. It’s bordering on being downright evil tbh.