Teen Gunned Down by Police for Answering Door with WiiMote

[Ifreann]

As I said, your country has 50 states, each with at least one police force, probably more. What you have seen officers carrying tells us nothing about what this Euhralee Police Department officer was carrying.


She could have, but that would have been stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Less_lethal_weapons

"Another less lethal weapon that police officers often carry is an electroshock gun, also known as a Taser." Note "often" is not a synonym for "always".

And why would it have been stupid?

Because, as noted on that Wikipedia page, tasers can incapacitate one person temporarily, and that's it. If there had been two or more people on the other side of the door, which isn't exactly unlikely, the officer would have had to drop the taser and draw her gun.

[Ifreann]

Would it be fair to summarize the issue being debated (by Ifreann and Shemiki) as whether or not police officers are, by dint of their position, subject to an equivalent of the stand-your-ground laws when performing their duties?

No. I'm arguing that we cannot simply write the officer off as guilty, because it is entirely possible that she did nothing wrong.

---

If you don't like my posts, click my name, then "Add foe" and they'll all be blocked.

I think you bring up good points in your posts (while I do disagree with you here, I'm staying out of the discussion on this one) I just don't want to have to keep scrolling past all your posts in this specific thread, although if there's a way to not see someone's posts in a single thread then please point me to it

I'm not aware of any such function existing.

[Farnhamia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Less_lethal_weapons

"Another less lethal weapon that police officers often carry is an electroshock gun, also known as a Taser." Note "often" is not a synonym for "always".

And why would it have been stupid?

Because, as noted on that Wikipedia page, tasers can incapacitate one person temporarily, and that's it. If there had been two or more people on the other side of the door, which isn't exactly unlikely, the officer would have had to drop the taser and draw her gun.

Or the town could hire only ambidextrous people to be police officers. Problem solved.

[Lincolnocracy]

Would it be fair to summarize the issue being debated (by Ifreann and Shemiki) as whether or not police officers are, by dint of their position, subject to an equivalent of the stand-your-ground laws when performing their duties?

No. I'm arguing that we cannot simply write the officer off as guilty, because it is entirely possible that she did nothing wrong.

Ah, maybe I read too much into:

Which doesn't justify shooting the kid as soon as the door opened.

If the officer reasonably believed that she was in danger, it does.

To me that sounded as though police officers were automatically subject to an equivalent of stand-your-ground legislation.

In any case, I agree with yourself and Starving Is Fun that you're also disagreeing about something factual, and I thank you both for the clarification.

[Viritica]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Less_lethal_weapons

"Another less lethal weapon that police officers often carry is an electroshock gun, also known as a Taser." Note "often" is not a synonym for "always".

And why would it have been stupid?

Because, as noted on that Wikipedia page, tasers can incapacitate one person temporarily, and that's it. If there had been two or more people on the other side of the door, which isn't exactly unlikely, the officer would have had to drop the taser and draw her gun.

I'm just trying to point out that there's a good chance she had a taser. Had she tasered him, she could have quickly got down and cuffed him or at least taken the gun. As stated, this was just a probation check up. It wasn't likely she was storming the apartment of a known drug dealer.

[Starvation Is Fun]

I know I said I was staying out of this but I felt like poking my head out of the realm of the lurker once more to say that I agree with Viritica, the odds are very good that the officer had a Taser. However, we don't know currently if she DID in fact have a taser, so I suggest waiting for more information to surface before jumping to conclusions. You can never go wrong with more information

[Evil the Great]

If I was the boy's father, I would have no rest until this dumb fucking bitch is dead and buried

[Starvation Is Fun]

If I was the boy's father, I would have no rest until this dumb fucking bitch is dead and buried

You're posting with a good deal of emotion here, friend. Never let emotion cloud your judgement

[Tekania]

So these people are deliberately lying that a kid was shot holding a WiiMote, or they all pretended to see something different than what they really saw? It's been established that the kid was holding a WiiMote. That's a fact.

No, it has not been established. It's still under investigation and is very much disputed.

While some outlets have reported Roupe was holding anything from a can of roach spray to a Nintendo Wii remote to a BB gun, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation maintains Roupe was holding a handgun.

In a statement released Sunday, GBI spokesperson Sherry Lang stated Roupe “opened the door with a handgun pointed at the officer.” When asked Wednesday as to the type of handgun Roupe was holding, Lang said, “I do not [know].”

http://www.daily-tribune.com/view/full_story/24620087/article-Rumors-circulate-around-Euharlee-shooting?instance=most_recommended

So we know at least now that at least two pieces of information being allegedly circulated through the family lawyer is fraudulent. Really brings to question anything else from that source.

Part of it is kinda funny too, because when I first read the article I noticed the "ROTC" thing in there and just assumed it was a misspeak and assumed they likely just meant JROTC. Which just goes to show you.... you really can't just take this stuff at face value and proceed with no investigation.

[Tekania]

If I was the boy's father, I would have no rest until this dumb fucking bitch is dead and buried

If you were the father you would be in jail right now, as the warrant on him was served later that night.

[Ifreann]

"Another less lethal weapon that police officers often carry is an electroshock gun, also known as a Taser." Note "often" is not a synonym for "always".


Because, as noted on that Wikipedia page, tasers can incapacitate one person temporarily, and that's it. If there had been two or more people on the other side of the door, which isn't exactly unlikely, the officer would have had to drop the taser and draw her gun.

Or the town could hire only ambidextrous people to be police officers. Problem solved.

Simple and cost effective.

---

"Another less lethal weapon that police officers often carry is an electroshock gun, also known as a Taser." Note "often" is not a synonym for "always".


Because, as noted on that Wikipedia page, tasers can incapacitate one person temporarily, and that's it. If there had been two or more people on the other side of the door, which isn't exactly unlikely, the officer would have had to drop the taser and draw her gun.

I'm just trying to point out that there's a good chance she had a taser. Had she tasered him, she could have quickly got down and cuffed him or at least taken the gun.

Which is east to say with the benefit of hindsight, but people don't have that before a situation happens.

As stated, this was just a probation check up. It wasn't likely she was storming the apartment of a known drug dealer.

Wasn't it also stated that this was an arrest of someone on probation and known to be armed?

[Shemiki]

Can Ifreann and whats-his-face please stop it with these mile-long posts? They're just restating the same points over and over again like little kids going "He poked me!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!"

Sure. I'll keep it to a nice short paragraph.

Which doesn't justify shooting the kid as soon as the door opened.

If the officer reasonably believed that she was in danger, it does.

Which would then lead to reasonable action and reasonable follow of protocol.

Which is what? Do you know? Or are you going to assume some more?

You're right, I'm simply going by what we already know.

As are we all. But you seem to take this limited information for a complete and accurate description of the situation when it really, really isn't.

Except for common sense, which dictates he was behind the door and asked the question clearly.

That isn't common sense. That is a convenient assumption on your part.

I don't know that for absolute 100% sure, but when was the last time you whispered for who it was from down in the basement?

I don't have a basement, so never.

Even if there was a noise, or he was too quiet, it doesn't give the officer an excuse to shoot him as soon as the door opens.

Who said it did?

Or maybe it just doesn't matter whether it was one bullet or thirty, considering the kid died either way.

Again, of course it matters. Many shots would suggest recklessness or a determination to kill beyond self defence, especially if it were more shots than one would expect of the capacity of a police issue weapon. Few shots, or one shot, as apparently was the case, suggests sufficient awareness of the situation to recognise when the threat(perceived or actual) had been neutralised.

But that's the entire point I've been making

At the current moment, the GBI knows nothing.

Don't be ridiculous. I expect they know more than any other party involved. They just haven't released all that information to the public. And why would they when there could well be a court case off the back of this?

All we have to go on are the family lawyer and eyewitness accounts and eyewitness accounts of eyewitness accounts.

And the GBI spokesperson.

When the GBI comes up with with something that establishes that the officer acted in the right, I'll switch my judgment. In the meantime, going on what we have, it seems that the officer is guilty.

Something like a handgun in Christopher Roupe's hand?

Yes, actually yes.

Maybe with the benefit of hindsight.

No, it doesn't (other options); I've already posted this; which is why I await your GBI findings; it's also a very reasonable assumption; exactly; hey, your right, this is irrelevant; it's also irrelevant as he was already dead; see "haven't released info to public;" who hasn't released all info to the public, as you so succinctly pointed out; sure, why not; actually, I'd expect them to know these things beforehand.

; are what divide up the individual responses to each point, by the way, and hey, the post was a lot shorter

[Ifreann]

Can Ifreann and whats-his-face please stop it with these mile-long posts? They're just restating the same points over and over again like little kids going "He poked me!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!"

Sure. I'll keep it to a nice short paragraph.

If the officer reasonably believed that she was in danger, it does.


Which is what? Do you know? Or are you going to assume some more?


As are we all. But you seem to take this limited information for a complete and accurate description of the situation when it really, really isn't.


That isn't common sense. That is a convenient assumption on your part.

I don't have a basement, so never.


Who said it did?


Again, of course it matters. Many shots would suggest recklessness or a determination to kill beyond self defence, especially if it were more shots than one would expect of the capacity of a police issue weapon. Few shots, or one shot, as apparently was the case, suggests sufficient awareness of the situation to recognise when the threat(perceived or actual) had been neutralised.


Don't be ridiculous. I expect they know more than any other party involved. They just haven't released all that information to the public. And why would they when there could well be a court case off the back of this?

And the GBI spokesperson.

Something like a handgun in Christopher Roupe's hand?


Maybe with the benefit of hindsight.

No, it doesn't (other options);

She didn't realistically have other options unless she also had the power to see the future.

I've already posted this;

And somehow I don't expect you know what you're talking about.

which is why I await your GBI findings;

...I'm not in the GBI...

it's also a very reasonable assumption;

No, it's not.

exactly;

So because I don't have a basement, this guy was right behind the door when he asked who was there? In fact, how do we even know he did that?

it's also irrelevant as he was already dead;

Your characterisation of the officer's behaviour is entirely relevant to how you're prejudging the officer for no good reason.

see "haven't released info to public;"

What about it?

who hasn't released all info to the public, as you so succinctly pointed out;

And?

sure, why not;

Like the handgun the GBI say he had?

actually, I'd expect them to know these things beforehand.

How on Earth could the officer know how the situation was going to play out beforehand? Magic?

[Arkinesia]

Oh great. The GBI is investigating? The same GBI that shot a dude for no goddamned reason? Whose local officer trainer was later revealed to be unqualified to handle a firearm in any capacity?

[Tekania]

Oh great. The GBI is investigating? The same GBI that shot a dude for no goddamned reason? Whose local officer trainer was later revealed to be unqualified to handle a firearm in any capacity?

It was Stephens County PD which shot him.... the GBI is a state bureau which was given the task of investigating the shooting.
Here we have a Euharlee PD officer involved in the shooting death and the GBI (the state bureau) called in to investigate.

I suggest being familiar with the details of articles before posting them.

[Gravlen]

Right. However, what we also know that many eyewitnesses confirmed that it clearly looked like a WiiMote.

No, we don't know that. We have sporadic media reports suggesting that they observed what looked like a WiiMote nearby.

We've already discussed the reliability of witnesses, but it's still another bit of evidence we have to support that the WiiMote didn't look like a gun. This thread has also pointed out that the officer had other options besides shooting the kid even if she did think it was a gun.

Still speculation, since we don't know the details of what went down. How did he open the door, how did he act, what did he have in his hands, when did she shoot, did she say something etc.

The standard usage of "alleged" does not imply dishonesty or deception.

True, but when using it in the case of a crime it seems to make the accusers dishonest in their accusations.

No, it absolutely does not. At least, that doesn't seem to apply to anyone but you.

Except for multiple witness statements, but everyone here besides me seems to be unanimous in that they're all unreliable. When witnesses are the main device used to solve court cases, I don't know what you'd determine reliable to be.

As someone pointed out before, this isn't a court of law. We're not looking at testimony given under oath, we're looking at media reports of witness statements which in some cases are given in the heat of passion, and in some cases by people who weren't directly involved. We're assuming they're accurately quoted, which they may not be, and no follow-up questions are asked.

Hence, our position is that we should wait for a proper investigation to take place before calling for punishment, including extralegal execution.

That's great for the US justice system. Meanwhile, in my eyes, she's guilty of shooting and killing a kid for holding a WiiMote.

And that's fine. We're just pointing out that you're jumping to conclusion and basing your rationale on speculation, not fact.

That was me. In all honesty, I mostly wrote that in the anger at seeing what she did, though I'm still frustrated that my tax dollars have to go to providing her three meals a day and a warm bed while its determined whether she's guilty of something everyone including her knows she did.

Wrong again.

Now, what happens if, over the course of the investigation, it is determined, whether through new evidence, retraction of witness statements, et cetera, that she is innocent, and it was a mistake? Would you still consider her to be "guilty"?

Considering the kid's still dead and never coming back, I'd say she's still guilty. Maybe not of murder, but manslaughter for sure.

And there we go from "she's guilty of something everyone including her knows she did" to "eeeh, maybe she isn't actually guilty of something everyone including her knows she did". Well played.

In all honesty, though, she did shoot a kill a kid who was simply holding a WiiMote.

Unconfirmed.

She can defend herself with mistaking it for a gun or whatever, but she was responsible for that kid's death. Libel specifically means a false statement. Her being responsible for the death of a kid isn't false.

This is true. It' also something different from the claim you made before.

If she could not clearly see it, how would she know it was a gun? Even if she thought it was, she could have ducked out of the way, yelled for him to drop what he was holding, ask him to show her what he was holding, fire a warning shot, use something nonlethal like a taser,or anything that didn't involve shooting him as soon as she saw him.

Ducking out of the way? Seriously? So you were expecting this to go down like you'd see it in an action movie?

In reality, we don't know if she had any of these options because what actually happened is still unclear.

Perhaps she didn't believe that it was a WiiMote.

So she shot a kid for holding something that wasn't a WiiMote.

Perhaps. Some reports still claim he held a gun. That's still not confirmed, but...

How do you know he was on the other side of the door when it happened? How do you know that he said it loud enough for her to hear, even if it was only through the door? Again, this is what investigations are for.

Common sense, that's how.

i.e. speculation.

How do you know that it happened like that? Again, an investigation needs to confirm this.

Witness statements from the sister

Which we don't have direct access to.

Not necessarily, no.

Your right, it's just shooting somebody without warning, provocation or cause.

Not necessarily, no.

No, it has not been established. It's still under investigation and is very much disputed.

Yes, because only everybody save the cop has said it was clearly a WiiMote.

The media reports you've read doesn't provide the entire picture.

While some outlets have reported Roupe was holding anything from a can of roach spray to a Nintendo Wii remote to a BB gun, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation maintains Roupe was holding a handgun.

In a statement released Sunday, GBI spokesperson Sherry Lang stated Roupe “opened the door with a handgun pointed at the officer.” When asked Wednesday as to the type of handgun Roupe was holding, Lang said, “I do not [know].”

http://www.daily-tribune.com/view/full_story/24620087/article-Rumors-circulate-around-Euharlee-shooting?instance=most_recommended

When asked Wednesday as to the type of handgun Roupe was holding, Lang said, “I do not [know].”

"I do not know." Real convincing.

You may not be convinced that she doesn't know the type of handgun he allegedly was holding, but the point remains: The facts are in dispute.

Speculation.

Yeah, I'm speculating. It's not like the body exists or anything.

A body exist. "Without provocation" is pure speculation.

Still no.

Yeah, only a ton of eyewitnes-oh wait, you guys don't like eyewitnesses. Never mind.

Still haven't established any facts.

Maybe so, but let's wait for the facts.

OK, I agree.

Good.

Speculation.

Because it's not like there's set protocol for these situations.

Source?

So even if he had a gun and she was justified in shooting him, she should still be shot?

Notice how I said "without provocation." Wielding a gun in her face would definitely be provocation, except that most evidence points to a WiiMote

I notice how you said "even if it did, the officer should still be shot".

That all depends on what actually went down. Something I trust the investigation will uncover.

I await the results just as eagerly as you, though it would have to have gone down in a very extreme way to narrow her options to ending a life within a few seconds of the door being opened.

I don't rule that out, nor do I see that a "very extreme way" is needed in order to create an unfortunate set of circumstances leading to the killing.

This is incorrect.

Interpret it how you will, I already addressed this in response to Hindenburgia above.

And you've been shown to be wrong.

Ongoing invstigation etc.

Invstigation?

Yes. I do hope you're able to comprehend the word even if a letter is missing? Or do I need to start worry on your behalf?

The thread doesn't establish these facts. The thread shows that these facts are being disputed, and that an investigation is necessary.

You guys really don't like eyewitnesses, do you? Can't trust the people who saw it with their own eyes?

I've explained above why selected eyewitnesses as quoted by media reports aren't grounds for establishing facts.

Unconfirmed.

Witn-oh, screw it.

You were going to say eyewitness statements, but tha's something we don't have.

Of course she can.

Not from killing a kid. That happened. It's the circumstances we're debating, not the main event.

I'm happy you understand that.

Still unconfirmed.

...Really?

Yes. It has not been confirmed that he was holding a WiiMote, nor that he was shot because of it. We actually can't dismiss the possibility that he was shot for other reasons.

If it's dark, and all you see is a person with something in their hand pointing at you, you might mistake it for a gun. If she mistook it for a gun, she didn't intend to kill an innocent teenager. She intended to defend herself.

Or you could duck out of the way, yell to drop it, fire a warning shot, etc.

IF someone is pointing a gun at you, do you seriously imagine you can duck out of the way? Do you think it's always reasonable to take the time to yell "Drop it!"? Would you really fire a warning shot in the direction of someone pointing a gun at you and not expect them to start shooting back?

Do you think that's the protocol the police follow if they see someone pointing a gun at them?

That's the one thing in this situation that she did right. The kid isn't a paramedic; there's nothing she could have done on her own. She could have made his injuries worse by (accidentally) jostling him while she was crying. Her choice of words is abominable, but a crying, screaming child is not what you want near you when you've just shot an innocent bystander, or been attacked or whatever. I can understand why she said that, even if I don't approve. That said, she should have told the kid to go get a bandage or a shirt or something she could have used to try to stop the bleeding. Instead she told her to get away from the corpse. Bad bad bad.

True enough, though as Zarkanians also said, the language and not telling her to get medical attention was bad bad bad.

Speculation. And you don't have a 13-year old girl "get medical attention" [sic].

Because you, presumably, aren't aware that one need not be in actual danger to use force in self defence. You just need a reasonable belief that you are in danger.

Which doesn't justify shooting the kid as soon as the door opened.

Depends on the situation.

Yes, because a WiiMote is so dangerous.

A WiiMote isn't. A gun is. A reasonable belief that Christopher was holding a gun means a reasonable belief by the officer that she was in danger.[/quote]

Which would then lead to reasonable action and reasonable follow of protocol.[/quote]
And what do you imagine protocol is, if he opened the door and pointed a gun at them?

No, you don't. How could you? You weren't there. You have no conclusive evidence.

You're right, I'm simply going by what we already know.

No, you're speculating.

I don't know where he was when he asked who it was. I don't know the layout of the house. I don't know how loud he was. I don't know how thick any walls and doors between the two are. I don't know what other noises there were in the area at the time.

See? It's easy to admit that you don't know what happened. You should try it some time.

Except for common sense, which dictates he was behind the door and asked the question clearly. I don't know that for absolute 100% sure, but when was the last time you whispered for who it was from down in the basement?

Even if there was a noise, or he was too quiet, it doesn't give the officer an excuse to shoot him as soon as the door opens.

We lack the facts and can't say with any certainty what happened, and your "common sense" is naught but speculation at this point.

At the current moment, the GBI knows nothing.

A week of investigating, and they know nothing? I don't believe that.

When the GBI comes up with with something that establishes that the officer acted in the right, I'll switch my judgment. In the meantime, going on what we have, it seems that the officer is guilty.

And in the meantime, you'll call for her extrajudicial execution.

[Gravlen]

No, it has not been established. It's still under investigation and is very much disputed.

While some outlets have reported Roupe was holding anything from a can of roach spray to a Nintendo Wii remote to a BB gun, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation maintains Roupe was holding a handgun.

In a statement released Sunday, GBI spokesperson Sherry Lang stated Roupe “opened the door with a handgun pointed at the officer.” When asked Wednesday as to the type of handgun Roupe was holding, Lang said, “I do not [know].”

http://www.daily-tribune.com/view/full_story/24620087/article-Rumors-circulate-around-Euharlee-shooting?instance=most_recommended

Rather changes things.

Actually, I don't think it does. Not yet, not before it's confirmed by someone with more authority or based on something more than this spokesperson seems to have to go on. But it is an important piece of information we need to not loose sight of.

So we know at least now that at least two pieces of information being allegedly circulated through the family lawyer is fraudulent. Really brings to question anything else from that source.

I think that's going a step too far. We don't know what version is the truth, not yet. The GBI may change their statements as the investigation goes forward. New evidence may shed new light on things etc.

Part of it is kinda funny too, because when I first read the article I noticed the "ROTC" thing in there and just assumed it was a misspeak and assumed they likely just meant JROTC. Which just goes to show you.... you really can't just take this stuff at face value and proceed with no investigation.

I agree. An investigation is absolutely necessary.

[Gravlen]

Your personal confidence means little to me, I'm afraid.

And if she had superhuman reflexes that would have provided her with another option.

Here in 'Murica I've never seen an officer without a taser.

And she could have always had her taser drawn instead of her gun.

You don't use a taser on someone who's pointing a deadly weapon on you.

[Viritica]

Or the town could hire only ambidextrous people to be police officers. Problem solved.

Simple and cost effective.

---

I'm just trying to point out that there's a good chance she had a taser. Had she tasered him, she could have quickly got down and cuffed him or at least taken the gun.

Which is east to say with the benefit of hindsight, but people don't have that before a situation happens.

As stated, this was just a probation check up. It wasn't likely she was storming the apartment of a known drug dealer.

Wasn't it also stated that this was an arrest of someone on probation and known to be armed?

Officers are trained in using nonlethal methods.

And where was that stated?

[Gravlen]

"Another less lethal weapon that police officers often carry is an electroshock gun, also known as a Taser." Note "often" is not a synonym for "always".


Because, as noted on that Wikipedia page, tasers can incapacitate one person temporarily, and that's it. If there had been two or more people on the other side of the door, which isn't exactly unlikely, the officer would have had to drop the taser and draw her gun.

I'm just trying to point out that there's a good chance she had a taser. Had she tasered him, she could have quickly got down and cuffed him or at least taken the gun. As stated, this was just a probation check up. It wasn't likely she was storming the apartment of a known drug dealer.

What was his father on probation for then? I haven't seen any sources talking about it, so please, do tell.

[Ifreann]

Rather changes things.

Actually, I don't think it does. Not yet, not before it's confirmed by someone with more authority or based on something more than this spokesperson seems to have to go on. But it is an important piece of information we need to not loose sight of.

Well I'd been under the impression that the whole "WiiMote in his hand" was true, which this contradicts.

---

Simple and cost effective.

---

Which is east to say with the benefit of hindsight, but people don't have that before a situation happens.

Wasn't it also stated that this was an arrest of someone on probation and known to be armed?

Officers are trained in using nonlethal methods.

No amount of training with a taser can allow one to view the future and know how many people you'll need to deal with when the door opens.

And where was that stated?

Same place your one was, somewhere in the thread.

[Saruhan]

Amazing the amount of people who were screaming about Zimmerman talking the side of the officer in this case. I guess race really is the greatest issue in cases like this

[Ifreann]

Amazing the amount of people who were screaming about Zimmerman talking the side of the officer in this case.

Do please point them out.

I guess race really is the greatest issue in cases like this

I fail to see how. Has the officer involved been identified yet?

[Viritica]

I'm just trying to point out that there's a good chance she had a taser. Had she tasered him, she could have quickly got down and cuffed him or at least taken the gun. As stated, this was just a probation check up. It wasn't likely she was storming the apartment of a known drug dealer.

What was his father on probation for then? I haven't seen any sources talking about it, so please, do tell.

You assume that I know.

[Viritica]

Actually, I don't think it does. Not yet, not before it's confirmed by someone with more authority or based on something more than this spokesperson seems to have to go on. But it is an important piece of information we need to not loose sight of.

Well I'd been under the impression that the whole "WiiMote in his hand" was true, which this contradicts.

---

Officers are trained in using nonlethal methods.

No amount of training with a taser can allow one to view the future and know how many people you'll need to deal with when the door opens.

And where was that stated?

Same place your one was, somewhere in the thread.

There wasn't any army beyond that door. If anything it was a father and son.