I went to Dyersville on Saturday evening when we first heard about the shooting at 511 Ninth St. SE. I spoke to the next door neighbors, where David Herman and Jen Fauver left their children before getting that last fateful load of belongings from their apartment. They didn’t want to talk to me because the children — one they had together and two of Jen’s — didn’t know Herman was dead yet.
Gutwrenching situations like this always present a problem for people on both sides of the fence on self-defense.
Here’s what we DO know about what happened: That afternoon, Herman confronted Christopher Leppert, a Dubuque man hired to change the locks after Herman and Fauver were evicted. They punched and shoved each other. The Dubuque Times-Herald reports that Leppert was able to retreat to his car, where his .32-caliber pistol was hidden. Herman, who was not carrying a weapon, jumped into the locksmith’s car. Another fight broke out, and sometime during the second altercation the locksmith shot Herman in the chest, according to the sheriff’s department.
There is at least one more crucial question that still need to be answered in my mind – Did Leppert warn Herman that he would shoot him if he didn’t back off? Situations like this one can be Monday morning quarterbacked to death, but that warning is the real key. Whether you’re pro- or anti-gun, I’m sure this case will turn out to be an interesting one, legally.
In the meantime, read a story about whether self-defense laws have gone too far here. Personally, I would have done the same thing as Mitch Morelli. Who threatens my kid and gets away with it? Not that I have one…
December 3, 2008 at 3:58 am
There is no requirement to warn someone when they enter your private vehicle after just assaulting you, and try assaulting you again. He deserves everything he got.
January 13, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I’ve held off commenting on this for some time because I’ve wanted to see what further information would be released that might shed more perspective on the event. I feel to prematurely comment on such a situation would be unconscionable.
It’s a shame our local media haven’t taken the same tack. By pumping out uneducated opinion without basis (geez, where have I heard that before?) that results in little more than a human interest story, they end up trying the case in the court of public opinion based purely on emotive reasoning well before any actual evidence has been collected or proper, factual deductions have been made. Indeed, the dead man’s family have been interviewed and their personal impact statements recounted but ALL legitimate sources of information have been silent because the on-going investigation demands it. This is a short-circuiting of our justice system that needs to be addressed and abated with dispatch. We see it every single day. An event occurs and all but the principle players are interviewed and broadcast by a corrupt, self-serving, often politically motivated media. That’s right, a 24/7/365 media that cares more about filling space and time than justice, due process or the public good. I firmly believe that such actions of our media are nothing short of criminal in and of themselves and we let them get away with it because of some macabre need to rubber-neck the incident virtually through our televisions and newspapers. We should all give thanks to our media outlet pimps for enabling our perversion. It’s sick and wrong and unjust and unfair to all the parties involved. In fact, it’s nothing short of lynch mob mentality. You want to do something for the “public good” that you constantly whine about, Alicia? Write a story about that.
“Physician, heal thyself.”
January 15, 2009 at 1:01 pm
When you wrote “but ALL legitimate sources of information have been silent because the on-going investigation demands it,” you pretty much answered your own question as to why we haven’t printed Christopher Leppert’s side of the story. I called him, and I wrote in a previous story that he felt he better not talk about it because it could have an impact on the investigation. I don’t feel hounding the man is going to make his side of the story come out any faster.
January 16, 2009 at 12:39 am
I have so little respect for your intelligence right now that I have trouble even knowing where to begin. I swear, you’re going to give me an aneurysm.
I didn’t ask why you haven’t printed Christopher Leppert’s side of the story. I KNOW why you haven’t printed Christopher Leppert’s side of the story – which is why I wrote what I did – and that’s not what I’m criticizing. Did you even bother to read what I wrote or are you still sounding out the words?
Let me drop it down a notch to the Reader’s Digest version for you. I think the media should shut their big, fat, stupid, flapping mouths until they can provide a complete, unbiased, factual account of this case rather than publishing what the dead man’s mother, fiance and neighbor thought about the guy who apparently provoked the fight and continued the fight that led to his death.
Do you know what a personal impact statement is in a court of law? Do you have any idea when it’s presented? It’s presented AFTER guilt has been determined right before sentencing. Do you know why? Because to do so sooner would likely unfairly emotionally impact the jury’s decision. Have you ever heard of the “court of public opinion”? Do you know why they call it that? Do you understand how public opinion is formed? Do you think that our justice system which is led by elected officials is at all influenced by public opinion? To clarify, this is the same public opinion that elected them and may or may not RE-ELECT them. Still with me?
So, if you’re still following along, if what the media presents affects public opinion and public opinion affects our justice system do you think it’s fair, just or moral to present an emotionally biased, one-sided view of this case to the public? Might it not be better – from a “public good” standpoint – to limit coverage of this event to the factual statements released by the officials involved until they can resolve whether or not they have a case against Mr. Leppert? Can you see how not waiting for that outcome might hurt Mr. Leppert?
Sorry, Alicia, but I have a very difficult time relating to someone who requires a bouncing ball to follow along with the discourse. Honestly!
January 16, 2009 at 11:28 am
Sounds like someone needs a hug…
If we were going to wait until all the facts were known about any event to print anyone’s input on anything, there would be no public impact to the news. You would only know rumors about things. And you’d never have anything to complain about.
If you’ve ever taken any law classes or been to jury duty, you’d know the peer jury system is built to weed out those who cannot be impartial and weigh all the facts.
I hope you never have an aneurysm. Your diatribes give me such joy to read. I swear, if I said the sky was blue you’d find a way to claim it was pink just to spite me. A man after my own heart!
January 19, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Once again… I didn’t say wait until all the facts are known. I said, “limit coverage of this event to the factual statements released by the officials involved…” The emotional, one-sided wimperings of the guy’s mother, fiance, and neighbor are completely extraneous and irrelevant and are harmful to the principle parties actually involved who are not able to comment or defend themselves. I hate having to repeat myself.
I’ve taken law classes and I know the way it’s supposed to work. But jurists aren’t robots and juries generally consist of people who aren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty. Heck, I’ll bet you’ve been on a jury once or twice, haven’t you? I mean, really, if it worked as you say, they’d never have to relocate a trial due to contamination of the jury pool. And whose fault is that? Hmm, who could it be? Could it be … SATAN? Uh, I mean, the media?
I’m pleased my writing brings you joy. But, there’s no way – NO WAY – the sky in your world is the same color as mine.