Sorry, I have not one single bit of sympathy for this guy at all. Former Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives from Ohio, Paul Hackett, chased down the car that had hit a fence on Hackett's property. He then ordered the men out of their car and to lie down on the ground.
He just happened to have a loaded AR-15 with him at the time.
The incident happened around 4:30 a.m. Nov. 19. Police were called to Hackett's Indian Hill house after Fee failed to make a curve and ran into a fence at the home on Given Road, according to the police report.
When White arrived at the house, Hackett's wife, Suzi, told him that her husband had called her to say he had stopped the men on Keller Road.
White called for backup. He arrived at a driveway in the 8700 block of Keller Road to find the three men lying face down near their small, black car and Hackett's pickup truck. With a flashlight, White saw a strap on Hackett's right shoulder and "what appeared to be an assault rifle hanging along his right side," White's report said.
White told Hackett to put away the rifle and "not take things into his own hands."
Fee was the only person charged. He is scheduled to plead to the charges Jan. 24, according to court records.
During the investigation, Hackett told police Nov. 30 that he was carrying an AR-15. He said one round was in the chamber and that he usually has 28 rounds in the magazine. He also told police that he did not point the weapon at the three men, the safety was on and he never put his finger on the trigger.
Hackett said he had followed a trail of fluid left by the car, and the vehicle stopped in a driveway. Hackett told police that he hopped out of his truck and that he was armed.
"He told the boys to 'Get the —- out of the car and get on the ground.' … He said he did not touch the vehicle with the rifle and maintained his distance. 'I knew they saw I was armed,' he said. He said he had done this about 200 times in Iraq, but this time there was not a translation problem," the Indian Hill police report said.
Moore said Hackett was woken up by "criminal activity" and "took affirmative action to protect his wife and family from an unknown disturbance at his house." He then "attempted to bring the perpetrators to justice who had fled from the scene," according to Moore.
Hackett is upset that word has leaked out that a grand jury is looking at his actions. Let me put this quite clearly. Hackett deserves to be prosecuted for his actions. Period. Longtime readers know that I am legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon. If I did exactly what Hackett did in my state – which, I think – has more liberal firearms laws than Ohio, I would no longer have that permit and would be facing criminal charges. The law is very, very clear on this. If I provoke a confrontation (which chasing someone down and ordering them out of a car would be a classic example of) I am absolutely, and criminally, at fault under state law. Ohio allows the use of a firearm to counter deadly force. Hitting one's fence does not meet that standard.
Following them and getting a license number, fine. Menacing them with a loaded rifle, not in the least acceptable. (I have no idea if Ohio has a "menacing" law, but under that kind of statute, even showing a gun to imply a threat, loaded or not, is criminal.)
I concur in this case.
Tracking the perps to gather information and Intel is one thing, but chasing them down is another. He might could have possibly justified it had he thought they were dangerous to other civilians, such as drunk or on drugs, (Fee was driving under suspension) and he might have. Still if he could have followed them closely enough to overtake them he could have followed at leisure and had police meet him as he tailed the perps.
However apparently from the story the police considered them boys, not men. Hackett could not have known that until the overtake, but still, it seems more likely to me that it was a bunch of irresponsible or negligent teens, maybe simply driving poorly since they weren’t charged with DUI. True they were all legally men but the police classified them as “boys,” showing what they thought of the probable situation and likely motives.
But it should not be overlooked that the boys did not necessarily know who Hackett was or what his motives were for stopping them. They could have assumed that they were under attack and therefore make a legal argument that had they attacked Hackett they did so only in their own defense because they didn’t know who he was. Unless one has good reason it is best not to provoke others to react unless they also know the exact circumstances of a confrontation.
It seems an overreaction on the part of Hackett in this case.