# SELF-DEFENSE: Family of gun victim plans to file a lawsuit



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

No charges filed for man who shot, killed teenager

SELF-DEFENSE: Family of gun victim plans to file a lawsuit against shooter.

By MEGAN HOLLAND
Anchorage Daily News

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/st ... 0116c.html

A man who shot and killed a 17-year-old youth while being beaten in the driveway of his home will not be prosecuted, the Anchorage district attorney's office said Friday.

The family of shooting victim James Ifopo said they are shocked and upset at the decision and said they plan to file a lawsuit against the gunman, Matthew Schneider.

The June shooting -- which shook the Anchorage Polynesian community -- was not a crime because Schneider was acting in self-defense, said assistant district attorney Sharon Marshall. Polynesians have been disproportionately affected by the city's rise in youth gun violence over the past several years. Ifopo was the fourth Polynesian youth to be shot and killed in Anchorage in 13 months.

Police investigators concluded that Ifopo, a former senior at East High who had dropped out of school several months prior, and two other teenagers approached Schneider, a 26-year-old airplane mechanic, as he was getting out of his truck in his Mountain View driveway on June 28. Two of the boys were on bicycles. An altercation ensued between the unarmed trio and Schneider, who was carrying a concealed handgun.

Schneider told the youths to get off his property, according to Schneider and Marshall. The boys began beating Schneider. One slammed the truck door on Schneider's head. Schneider reached to a Springfield XD 40 he had hidden in a holster on his pants and fired twice in the direction of his attackers. Ifopo was hit in the chest. Rodney Maatafa, 17, was hit in the shoulder.

Marshall said Schneider committed no crime.

"Before resorting to deadly force, you have a duty to retreat if you can do so safely," she said. "*If you are on your own property, you don't have to get off your own property. You don't have to retreat.* "In this particular situation, not only could he not get away from them because he was trapped between his car door and his car, he was also on his own property."

Initial police reports after the shooting said the youths may have been attempting to rob Schneider. Marshall said, though, that the state found no evidence that that was what started the altercation.

Schneider, contacted at his Mountain View home, which he had purchased a month before the shooting, said he felt he had no choice but to pull the trigger. "It was my only option," he said. "I thought they were going to kill me if I didn't do something."

He says he's been plagued by the memory of that night. On a good day, he sees the image of Ifopo keeling over and dying in his mind about two or three times, he said; on a bad day, though, the image plays on rerun in his head. He hopes to one day make peace with the Ifopo family, he said. He says that after the shots were fired and Ifopo collapsed, he started praying for the boy not to die.

The Ifopo family, though, thinks Schneider did not need to pull the trigger. James Ifopo's father, Faafetai Ifopo, a security guard who moved his family from Hawaii not long before his son died, said he believes there was more to the altercation than what police found out. Above all, though, he said he misses his son and believes the police and district attorney's office have failed him. "I realize I cannot bring back my beloved son," said James's mother, Faatulia Ifopo. "But this decision is not right." The purpose of the yet-to-be-filed lawsuit would be to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else, the family said. Schneider did not have a good enough reason to shoot someone in the chest, Faafetai Ifopo said.

*"Shoot in the air. Shoot in the arm, not here," he said, pointing to his heart.
*
"It hurts," he said. "I miss him."


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

If I were in the plaintiff's situation I believe a countersuit would be in order. The shootee (a minor) attacked the shooter and his folks should be held responsible for any property or physical damage caused by their child.

Without being in the situation I believe it's tough to know how I'd react to the situation. Some folks focus, others freeze, thank god most of us are never put into the situation where we have to find out which we'd do.

The way the whole thing unfolded I'd say the other assailants are very lucky to be alive.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

One of the very first things you learn in a class for a Concealed Carry Permit is this.

If you shoot someone ... justified or not ... YOU WILL BE SUED!

No Ifs Ands or Buts about it.

They may not win the law suit

It might even be tossed out of court ... but

YOU WILL BE SUED!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

The press also left out the fact that these two boys are gang members with records of similar behavior in the past. 
Maybe some of these punks will realize that we here in Alaska don't play!
If the SO CALLED "parents" cared anything about their son, why wasn't the kid in school were he belongs instead of engauging criminal activity?
Horsager is correct, the "parents" should be sued for failing to control their dependent, among other things.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 42433.html


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

As far as holding parents accountable ...

I see instances where (for instance) a female raising a boy (or boys) can easily have things turn bad once the boy reaches teenage years. The Kid gets to hanging with a bad crowd ... doesn't want to be seen as a "momma's boy" and when discipline is administered the kid is able to simply rebel since he is now capable of administering physical harm to the mother.

Who do you hold responsible ...

The physically incapable Mother? A mother's love can deny an awful lot.

Maybe the "non-existent" Father? In the case I refer too an "off and on again" Jail House resident. Maybe the Dad actually has the kid (at 12 years old) delivering drugs for him when the Kid does visit Dad.

And don't take this wrong in thinking I am talking about parents who truely don't give a damn and only consider the kids to be a hinderence to their own personal fun in life ...

I am saying there are many instances where a decent upstanding parent (usually a single mother) lands in a situation where the choices of a child can make that child uncontrollable.

My two kids are doing wonderful ... but as I say, I have seen it very clearly become an issue that is pretty tough to explain ...

I firmly believe there are times when it is "The Kids Fault Period" ... and the Kid should get whatever results from his/her actions.

OH ... and if you were to sue those parents who really don't give a damn to begin with ... in many/most cases they have nothing for you to take ... since you can't squeeze blood from a turnip ... you have zero resolution.

Life in America isn't always pretty and it surely isn't always fun ...

Every so often reality sets in and folks start to see it as it really is ... and very case is different.

Just a thought, from where I sit


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

Both parents seem to be interrested/involved enough to threaten a lawsuit. If I were the shooter in this case and I were sued, I'd file a counter-suit for physical and property damage. If the parents recind their suit or choose not to file, I would respond likewise.

There is an important lesson between right and wrong that can be learned from this situation. I am just guessing, but I bet the other two assailants have learned it, it might not stick with them for long, but they certainly understand it right now.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Horsager

In this case you definately have a point ... they sued first, so a counter sounds reasonable to me as well.

I suppose it refers back to my first post ... If someone shoots someone ... law suits will become the order of the day ... form every angle possible.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

If Mr. Ifopo would have spent more time teaching his beloved son it's not polite to slam a man's head in a truck door, his son would still be alive today...for him to ignore, most likely.

DecoyDummy, it looks to me like you answered your own question. You hold the 17yr old who did the door slamming accountable, as cold as that may sound. I don't care how bad a kid was raised or how badly he was treated, by 17 he knows he wouldn't want his head slammed in a truck door, so consequently he also knows doing it to someone else is BAD.

We are ALL less safe if anything bad happens to the shooter.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

This sounds like a drug deal gone bad, could be this guy was their supplier and the kids found out they were being ripped off. Then after spinning some Puff Daddy CD's they felt real tought and tryed to strong arm this guy?

Of course this is purley speculation buy why else would a 26 year old be dealing with 17 year olds?

Outside of that It sure looks like Self Defence!


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

DecoyDummy said:


> One of the very first things you learn in a class for a Concealed Carry Permit is this.
> 
> If you shoot someone ... justified or not ... YOU WILL BE SUED!
> 
> ...


YUP!!!!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> If you shoot someone ... justified or not ... YOU WILL BE SUED!


Not in my state of Oklahoma or Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, Georgia, and Florida. These states have what is called the Castle doctrine which means if the DA or a jury finds you acted in self defense you cannot be sued. Oklahoma calls it "Stand Your Ground" legislation. Texas and Wyoming are on the verge of passing similar legislation. Essentially, these laws legally establish the assumption that someone criminally entering a person's home, business or vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm and would allow potential victims to use any force - including deadly force - in retaliation. Any of you in states that don't have this law may want to start pushing your legislators to get it into law.


----------

