John E. Ulmschneider always wanted to be the first firefighter at the scene in an emergency. On Friday, his desire to help cost him his life.
Ulmschneider was among the Prince George’s County rescuers who rushed to a Temple Hills-Camp Springs-area house after a call from a man who had been unable to reach his diabetic brother. The caller told firefighters that he feared his brother had suffered a blackout or seizure.
When knocks on the door went unanswered and there was no response as rescuers announced that they were outside, the emergency workers decided to break through the door, officials said. As they did, gunshots erupted from inside, mortally wounding Ulmschneider and injuring another firefighter and the man’s brother.
Authorities said Saturday that they are still working to determine why the 61-year-old man allegedly opened fire. But a county fire spokesman said it may have been a tragic mistake — the man possibly thought that the rescuers were intruders seeking to break into his house.
The man was released from police custody Saturday evening, officials said, and no charges have been filed. Officials did not say whether the man had suffered a medical emergency.
Is this a case of castle doctrine gone bad? Why didn’t this man open the door? Was he not given adequate identification? Why was the shooter released? He sounds to me like he is a danger to the community.
Is it legal to just open fire on people who try to enter your home? Something is very screwed up here.
This returns us to the question that we have been asking a lot lately. Why would anyone want to be a public servant? Cops and firefighters are routinely shot by the very people they set out to help. There is a huge divide between some members of the community, those who need help, and public servants, namely first responders.
RIP John E. Umschneiden! You should not have died. Speedy recovery to Kevin Swain, 19, a volunteer at the Morningside station. We expect normal dangers associated with fire and rescue. We don’t expect these first responders to be gunned down.
As long as gun owners greatly inflate the risk of violence in order to terrorize people into believing that a gun is necessary for protection and then espouse a use-it-or-lose-it approach, we are going to have these kinds of mistakes. The blood is on their hands.
The firemen were white. I don’t know the ethnicity of the shooter.
The shooter was released. I certainly think that he has demonstrated his unfitness to own a gun. My question, can his guns be removed from the home?
That’s a pretty serious mistake to make. 3 people down. 1 dead, 1 seriously wounded, the other his own brother.
There is something more wrong here. I expect there are some mental issues.
Stay tuned.
@MoonHowler
How has he demonstrated that he’s not fit to own a gun? 3 people attempted to enter his home, without the legal right to do so. Were there flames or smoke or some clear sign that something was amiss? No. They were conducting a “welfare check”, knocked, and didn’t receive a reply. Was the home-owner sleeping? Was he hard-of-hearing, like I am? Did he just not want to be bothered? He was alone in the home. He is elderly, but there’s nothing to indicate that he is mentally deficient. All he knew was strangers were attempting to enter his home, and he fired his gun.
What rights do firefighters have to enter an occupied dwelling, based on a call from a “concerned person” be they a relative, a neighbor, or someone else, for a “welfare check”? Barring any obvious signs of distress (ie. they can see a person laid out on the floor, hear a carbon-monoxide or smoke detector going off, see visible smoke, or there’s an obvious smell of gas), they have no right to enter, regardless of how honorable their intentions.
Someone who is not a ward of the state, has every right not to be disturbed in their own home. Just because they don’t answer the door, doesn’t give anyone probable cause to enter. The correct thing to do would have been to call the police, who have a better understanding of “exigent circumstances”.
Look, being a firefighter is a family business; There are 3 generations of firefighters in my family, numbering over a dozen uncles, 1st and 2nd cousins. Whenever I hear about a firefighter or paramedic dying in the line-of-duty, it hits close to home. However, I don’t see this as a line-of-duty death, because the responders didn’t have a right, or the legal authority to enter the home. Even sworn law-enforcement officers would have lacked the legal authority to enter the home, without a warrant.
I believe this is why the home-owner was released, as obviously, his perception at the time of the shooting was that he was facing a potential threat of death or serious bodily injury from multiple unknown individuals, who id not have his permission to enter the home. Should he have fired? That is a different question, one that cannot be answered by anyone but him. Not me. Not you, Moon. Not you, Ed.
The sister made some reference to him being ill. He had plenty of notification, according to the interview with the chief. All procedure was followed. Plus there were emergency vehicles all over the place.
At what point is first responder life more important than the shooter’s?
@MoonHowler
The first responder, not posessing a warrant or legal authority to enter, absent the previously mentioned exigent circumstances, not only lacks the authority to force entry, but is also under no legal obligation to force entry either. He was likely acting with the best of intentions, no doubt. However in forcing entry, he risked his life. I’m not saying he deserved to be shot. What I am saying is the home owner was perfectly within his rights to shoot, if he, in the moment believed someone was attempting to break and enter with intent to do him harm. What matters is what the homeowner thought at the time, not what all of the 2nd guessing points to today. Tbis is why he hasn’t been charged. He didn’t break any laws. The right to self-defense is especially strong, when a person is in their domicile. Absent an exigent circumstance, only one law was broken, and it was broken by the fire department. Just because someone is an agent of the state, doesn’t exempt them from the law. Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
Then let’s just not have fire departments or rescue squad. If someone is overcome with smoke inhalation, tough. Fallen and can’t get up…oh well.
This discussion is becoming unrealistic.
I think the guy is a nut case and shouldn’t be permitted to have weapons unless I find out something totally different.
The FD announced itself plus there were probably 4 or so rescue vehicles outside, lights blazing.
If someone can’t respond to all of that is a way that doesn’t involve killing someone, then perhaps their judgement is marred. I think the homeowners thoughts probably also involved armed tree-frogs wearing alien helmets.
I think you are giving nut jobs a license to shoot.
I also think Ed is way off base.
@MoonHowler
Moon,
I’m guessing that you don’t make a regular practice of reading about legitimate DGUs (Defensive Gun Use) cases. I do. You would be surprised as to how many burglaries/home invasions start out as someone banging on your door, claiming a need to access your property, or how many times a person is home, asleep during daylight hours, and is confronted with someone breaking in.
I am not giving a nut or a criminal license to shoot every person who knocks on your door. However, the law is decidedly on my side of the argument with regards to the right to self-defense against a real or perceived threat. Believe me, I’ve had use of force classes galore. I’ve spoken with prosecutors and defense attorneys. I know what the law is, and why it is the way it is…and I am perfectly satisfied with it. Apparently, MD has similar laws, and the authorities were at least sufficiently satisfied with the apparent facts to release the homeowner without charges…now read between those lines there.
This is MD…PG county. Hardly a bastion of conservatism, 2nd Amendment support and constitutional purists, especially in the government. This has been called a “tragic accident” by the authorities…not a crime. You are reading “mental illness” or “gun nut” or “anti-authority”. What I am reading here, and I think I’m much closer to “ground truth” is…the EMS did not have the authority to break and enter the home…and they aren’t making a huge case out of this, because they know that if they tried to charge the shooter, not only would they likely lose, they’d probably get sued for the unlawful entry.
You are right. I am shooting from the hip, rather than from an 2A vantage point. I don’t think this kind of logic settles well with the rank and file person, however.
@MoonHowler
I am also looking at this from a 4th Amendment perspective. Barring an exigent circumstance (and the bar on what constitutes an exigent circumstance if fairly high) and agent of the state must obtain a warrant before entering the property, and if the agent fails to do so prior to entering, they are committing both a crime, and a civil-rights violation. It doesn’t matter the intent of the one breaking in. It only matters how the intent is perceived by the resident of the home.
Can DSS just break into a person’s home because someone called and said they are concerned for the welfare of a child, and there was no answer at the door, or do they need to show up with the police and a warrant?
Can a police officer looking for a kid skipping school, kick the door in and search for the kid, if he failed to receive an answer when he knocked on the door?
The answer is “No”. They don’t have the legal authority to break and enter, without a warrant, or tangible facts that some emergency or danger exists. Mere suspicion is a low bar that can be abused greatly.
If I were fire and rescue, I would just not enter anyone’s home then. I guess it would just be a screw it attitude.
I guarantee though, if some man died after his relatives alerted authorities, the relatives would be howling like stuck pigs. it happens all the time.
@MoonHowler
I agree that relatives would be upset if EMS refused to enter a home, because they lacked the discretionary authority to do so, but if EMS does enter without the exigent circumstances present to satisfy the legal criteria, they would forfeit their civil and criminal immunity.
We are a society of laws. These laws, while imperfect, attempt to balance the rights of the individual against the state’s desire to ensue the “public good”. Here’s a bit of case law that might help you understand better: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2011_11th_roberts.shtml
Those kinds of articles give me eye migraines.
It might not be against the law to commit suicide but the legality around it certainly are a slippery slope.
You are talking to the person who thinks Jack Kavorkian should have been a national hero.
There are too many reasons why someone might lawfully need to enter a home to say that because someone tried to enter that the occupant should rightfully feel endangered and can shoot to kill. In a rural area with homes more than several hundred yards from each other maybe the castle doctrine is an OK idea. But in a urban area a gas leak, a foul smell, water leaks and dangerous animal all have implications and dangers to the community that require prompt entry to a house, without permission. Before shooting a homeowner must call 911 and retreat if possible. Also announcing that one is armed and planning to shoot in self defense (e.g. a warning shot) should also be required before society accepts a shooters excuse that killing was justified as self defense.
@ed myers
Ed,
You don’t have a duty to retreat or call 911…especially if the person is in immediate danger. A gas leak, water leak in a townhouse or condo, or some other exigent circumstance may be justifiable, a welfare check is not an exigent circumstance, barring the examples (smoke detector, seeing a body laid out) A gas leak or a foul smell, combined with the relatives concern, may rise to the level of exigent circumstance. However, the fact that the individual in question was alive and well, coupled with the fact that he’s been released with no charges, indicates that the exigent circumstance (concerned relative, no answer to the knock) did not exist.
Let’s say he was a victim of a crime. Now you’ve got 2 EMS and a relative tramping around a crime scene. Or, let’s say he was actually engaged in some criminal activity. Now you’ve just poisoned the whole evidence chain.
The 4th amendment doesn’t read differently for “city folk” and “country folk”. People can’t just enter an occupied dwelling, without permission or compelling reason…and this holds especially true for agents of the state. That’s why we have these things called “warrants”. There’s a reason why cops have to get warrants, before they can enter a place where the courts have ruled the individual has a right to the expectation of privacy. This is why Land Lords can’t enter their own property without giving notice to the tenant, except in cases such as a water leak.
As far as “warning shots” go, you are out of your freaking mind. They are ILLEGAL, and for good reason. You are accountable for every bullet that leaves the barrel. Brandishing and warning shots are both prohibited by law. When you draw, you either have justification for deadly force, or you don’t. You either have justification to shoot with the expectation that the shot could result in death, or you don’t. There is no “warning shot” or “shoot to wound”. Any criminal defense attorney will tell you exactly that. Doesn’t matter if you are on the street, or in your home, although the bar for fearing for one’s life is a bit lower in the home. Specifically, Bruce v. State, supra, 218 Md. at 97, 145 A.2d at 433 ruled that there is no duty to retreat in ones home unless there is a 100% certainty that it can be done safely…and where under the law is anything 100% certain?
I’m advocating changing the law so that homeowners have a duty to retreat or else, if they want to stand their ground, not be permitted to use deadly force. This would deescalated situations like this and prevent police from always entering a home with shock and awe, killing dogs and generally making a mess.. All evidence obtained by a non-warrant entry would be inadmissible in court which de-incentivizes police from entering except for welfare checks. This would make it a lot easier to consider a welfare check as a compelling state reason to enter a dwelling making it safer for people in fragile health to remain in their homes instead of moving to expensive health care facilities and lose even more freedom.
The alternatives are not pretty. Let elderly people who have fallen and can’t get up die a slow painful death on the floor. Or, allow homeowners who are hard of hearing or cantankerous shoot holes in first responders who are just there to check if they are OK. Or, lock sick people up in a medical facility with no privacy at all.
Expectations of privacy have to be reasonable and what is reasonable changes with different communities. Gun owners have forced legal rules that arguably make sense in rural situations where individualism is most important and family members live in close proximity onto urban situations where individualism needs to be tempered by the needs of the densely populated community cheek and jowl with strangers. Our community is less safe if police have to always go into a welfare check expecting an armed response.
As for a warning, this shooter gave none. He didn’t even wait after killing the first guy to let the others retreat. He wanted to kill them all. That attitude (training?) is what is dangerously wrong about having a gun for self defense. There is no respect for the lives of others. Someone who has already lived well past his prime was willing to mow down young people with families because he had an over active fear imagination. There is something wrong with the law if emptying one’s gun without warning at a wrongly perceived threat is considered lawfully better than brandishing a gun or firing a warning shot.
Of course none of this would be an issue if all self defense was non-lethal force.
@Ed Myers
Ed, good luck with that. I speak to the way things are and the very real and rational reasons things are this way. You speak to the way you think things should be, based on some view of humanity that has never existed…ever.
I don’t get how anti-abortion and pro-gun activists live in harmony in one party. Strange bedfellows. One faction is extremely protective of his castle and demands the ability to kill anything that invades while the other wants to prevent women from having the same right to kill that which invades her uterus. Both issues revolve around balancing an individual right to privacy versus the need to protect the collective from individuals wantonly killing others. How the Republican party has managed to get people on polar opposites of the privacy versus community spectrum to align politically (or in Steve’s case even align personally as he is both strongly anti-abortion and strongly pro-gun as self defense) is an amazing example of how incongruent views of the worth of humanity can coexist as long as no one digs below the superficial slogans.
@Ed Myers
Ed,
My position is simple: The only time it is morally justifiable to take a life, is to preserve a life. This may be in a collective sense (a just war) or an individual sense (defending one’s own life, or the life of an innocent), or in the case of a pregnancy, when the life of the mother is truly threatened. This has also made me reconsider my views on the ultimate sanction: The Death Penalty. I have arrived at the conclusion that if a person is found guilty of a capital crime, and can be put away so they never threaten a human life again, than the death-penalty serves no legitimate societal purpose beyond eliminating some incarceration costs. However, when you consider the auto-appeals process costs in death-penalty cases, I don’t believe having to wait 10-15 years before execution, expending tax-money for both the prosecution and defense, that death-penalty saves any money. If the only justification to take life is to protect life from imminent danger, the state shouldn’t be killing people when the imminent threat no longer exists.
Your “invading her uterus” comment makes me think of a bit of scripture: Luke 6:45 “The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”
A sperm and ovum join, a fetus forms, and if natural progression is not interrupted, a sentient being will join humanity. I may disagree with the pro-choice crowd as to when “life begins” or “persons under the law” occurs, but viewing a natural process essential to the survival of our species as an “invasion” speaks volumes about your sate of mind. While you are trying to understand how “pro-lifers” and “pro-2A” people can co-exist within the same party, I am trying to figure out how you continue to function in society with such a warped view of reality: If we got rid of all guns, you would be safer. Cops shouldn’t have guns. There’s no natural right to self-defense. The collective is everything.
Pandering to someone’s obvious fantasy is not constructive. I will not pander to yours.
Abortion in cases of rape is not self defense?
A right to self defense is not the preemptive right to kill someone and then afterwards claim the only recourse one had was to kill first or be killed. I reject that the best [self] defense is a good murderous offense. Self defense methods must not have death of the opponent be the objective. That doesn’t mean that self defense doesn’t result in the death of the opponent, but the tools used should always be designed to stop the attacker from harming the victim rather than killing the attacker.
I guess as a pro-choice woman, I am not comfortable using the topic of abortion to offset any 2A arguments.
The common ground between the pro choice community and 2A-ers is the attack on constitutionally guaranteed rights, if there is a common ground. Many would argue with me also.