This was a Dateline story ran over the last weekend that occured July, 2011 high in the Sierra Mountains somewhere around Quincy, California. The cabin owners there were from Neveda and it was over a 2 hour trip to get to their cabin, but the man, Mr. Reed, had friends camping nearby. This is a story or car chases, gunfire, and murder that I reccommend everybody watch. Here I will just go over the highlights.
Mr. Reed and his family claim that the carload of teens showed up on 2 diferent nights, fired shots at their cabin the 2nd night, and sped away. He followed them with deadly force, claiming they also shot at him, but he eventually called police reluctantly after fatally wounding 2 and shooting others.
The carload of teens claim they were drinking and looking around for a party up by the lake, they had no guns, but they did steal solar flares by a sign at the end of Mr. Reed's long driveway.No evidence of the teens alleged guns were ever found.
Interviews with Mrs. Reed and the 3 children showed that they were all very scared about cars on the road, what to do, and if "daddy would protect them." Mrs. Reed claimed she had her pistol and knew how to use it. I was almost ready to ask how could they possibly be so afraid if they had friends camping on the property nearby? Also, why were the friends never shown or identified and interviewed about anything that happened here?
In the end Mr. Reed, who had claimed fraudulently to have been an Army Ranger, was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison for the murder and the shootings. His wife knew that he was coming home "because god told her he was coming home." His children miss him and cry because he is gone to prison. Internet opinion is about 50/50 on guilt or innocence here, but maybe I noticed something that was not dealt with.
BACK TO THE STOLEN SOLAR LIGHTS. There was a sign there saying that intruders were entering the R. O. C. which was an area of "red blooded christians who had the right to use deadly force if the intruders entered the property."
I'm wondering if anyone on AN watched this show and caught this about the sign? It appears to me that we have too much "god and gun" into this thing, and this is about the mentality of some so called christians. This is just another version of "stand your ground" nonsense, and it might be the best reason yet that Mr. Reed's "camper friends" were never part of the story. Maybe they couldn't back up the original alleged gunfire.
Just more christian delusion? What do you think?
Daniel, I felt that this "off-kilter" thing about Mrs. Reed might be at the bottom of the whole story really. A mother influences what her children do and what they believe. A mother is really at the heart of the entire family in most instances. The odd "christian" sign may have been encouraged by her, or at the least, the husband would erect that sign knowing he had her approval. Now let's examine the idea that the Reeds did not erect the weird christian sign and that it was there when they bought the place. They appeared to agree with it and allow the solar flares to continue lighting it up at night. The husband was openly "the protector" according to Mrs. Reed, and he chased after the intruders doing EXACTLY what the sign said would be done.
Now back to the camper friends. They are only a small mention and never in the story because they cannot backup any of the story, nor do they share the "fear" that the Reeds want you to believe they had that night.
I remember living on my grandparent's place out in the boonies in Missouri, and they had a one mile dirt road to travel to get to the property. In the rare event that somebody we did not know came down that road, I can guarantee you that nobody came out with a gun and started shooting.
There's not one person in ten thousand who can be counted on to size up a potentially dangerous situation and respond appropriately, but there are probably about seven thousand of that number who think they can. What apparently happened is that these young men stole a couple of solar lights worth only a few dollars, then jumped in their car and fled when someone fired a shot. I wouldn't have stolen the lights, but I would have gotten the hell away. So Reed follows them, shooting, then fires into their car as they swing wide through that meadow to get away from him. No evidence they had a gun and no evidence that they fired at him. Instead of going toward help, he goes home, where there is no phone. When the police find him, he starts lying.
Yep, sounds like a victim to me.
Craig I agree with your assessment. Young guys in a small town in the middle of nowhere are going to be up to mischief at times. The adults in the situation should act with maturity, even if they are angry. I think society is safer with Mr. Reed behind bars.
Something odd, IIRC. Reed left his wife alone during the day, and when that Jeep turned up in the driveway, her first response was to get down? (Or should I watch that thing again?) She was going to get her gun? My first thought would be someone was lost or checking for a cell phone signal.
If the Reeds are so afraid of Jeeps and spotlights, maybe they should stay out of the woods.
Paranoia and guns are a bad combination.
I agree fully, Craigart 14.
Law enforcement checked for evidence of the teens having a gun and possibly ditching it. There was simply no evidence of such gun, and the later trial evidence of spent cartridges found 3 feet apart is not consistent with what would happen during a car chase. The spent casings had to have come from another incident, possibly someone shooting out into the lake for some reason. Cans, bottles, etc.
The thing that got me with this story is that Internet bloggers are 50/50 as to who is guilty or innocent. To some people the found shell casings meant that the teens did have a gun. To others Reed had a right to shoot because his family was afraid and he was "standing his ground." Some thought he had a right to shoot because the teens took his property and he had a sign posted that he would use deadly force. It's amazing how many nutjobs we have in this world both in shooters and opinionated people.
I still say that Reeds camper friends were never interviewed nor shown on camera for a reason. That reason is the simple fact that the campers were not in fear of the intruders and therefore could not back up the Reed family story.
Nobody would have planted those casings, would they?
Dennis, Reed must have put up the sign. I recall the property was in his family for 3 generations, and he went there as a child. The sign is not that old.
My family farm was also in rural Missouri. We didn't have guns. My dad hunted, but he didn't want us getting into trouble with the shotgun so he stored it in town. A shotgun isn't an assault weapon, unless you are a covey of quail. That was also before cellphones, but there was a landline.
It seems that, like Zimmerman, Reed is a guy who is making up for his insecure masculinity and failure to perform in military (Reed) or get into police (Zimmerman), and got his panties into a bind because of some young guy(s) somehow threatening his "turf".
You hit it all on the head, Daniel. I totally agree.
In 1954 my grandparents had no phone whatsoever. Grandpa was a crack shot though, and it wasn't uncommon for a deer to be in the smokehouse. Once the sherriff came by because someone suspected deer poaching. Strange how that got reported, but grandpa killed them on his own land and there was one in the shed as him and the sherriff spoke. We all somehow understood that the sherriff knew that, but they talked a while and he left for town again.
As for guns, they were all around. Us kids knew that too, and we knew to leave them alone. Never once did we look at them privately or try and shoot one, or even think about taking one to school. I was 8 years old and the world was much different than today.
Thanks for the link; I had not heard this report before now.