The Virginian-Pilot
©
SUFFOLK
The man who was fatally shot by the store's owner during a burglary was hit four times, police said Tuesday.
An autopsy on the body of Ernest Scott Roop, 38, confirmed that the gunshots caused his death, said city spokeswoman Debbie George.
Roop broke into the J&L Food Mart in Whaleyville about 4 a.m. Sunday. A monitor relayed the noise of the disturbance to the owners' home, which is within sight of the store.
James H. Durden Jr. and his wife went to their business and saw Roop inside through a large window. Durden, 46, told police he saw Roop point something at him, George said.
Durden fired a .45-caliber handgun four times through the window. George said someone from his home called police to report the burglary and relayed that shots had been fired about two minutes into the call.
Roop did not have a gun, but the police found a tire iron that they believe Roop used in the burglary, George said. It was not found near his body, she said.
The police are investigating the shooting and will send the case to the commonwealth's attorney to determine whether criminal charges will be pursued.
Commonwealth's Attorney Phil Ferguson said Tuesday that he didn't have the case yet. In general, when the police refer a case for review, his office will determine whether criminal charges are appropriate.
"If we decide it is not, then most of the time it ends there," he said.
If they think it warrants a criminal charge, the prosecutors will usually send the case to a grand jury, which must find probable cause to deliver an indictment, Ferguson said.
A fatal shooting could lead to charges ranging from murder to manslaughter, or no charges at all if the act is deemed justifiable, he said.
The police would not release further details from the autopsy.
Dave Forster, (757) 222-5563, dave.forster@pilotonline.com
- Submit a letter to the editor to The Virginian-Pilot by e-mail at letters@pilotonline.com. Include your full name, street address and daytime telephone number; selected letters are posted to the letters blog.
- Submit feedback to PilotOnline.com producers about comments.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Don't know what happened
As my subject line states, I don't know what happened. Based on my past experience as a member of the SPD for about ten years I can say that it is very possible that the nearest unit to respond to the alarm in Whaleyville may have been 20 minutes or more away. I responded to my share of alarms in Whaleyville and when I needed another unit sometimes it took awhile for them to get there. It is not the fault of the police department it is just the way it is in Virginia's largest city. If Mr. Durdin saw the suspect point something which he reasonably believed to be a gun he would be justified in using deadly force to protect his wife and himself...period. Let's not forget, Mr. Roop put himself in this situation and if he pointed anything, including his finger, and Mr. Durden truly thought it was a gun and reasonably felt his life, or that of his wife, was in danger then he shouldn't be charged even if he mistook a finger for a gun. As the owner he had a right to investigate the alarm before the police arrived. Was he smart for doing so? Mabe maybe not but it doesn't matter, it was his property and he had the right to arm himself and investigate the alarm.
Bad headline
"Man Killed in Suffolk Burglary Shot 4 times"
When I read that I figured it was an innocent victim killed by the burglar. At the very least it should have read "Alleged Burglar Killed ....."
It's a shame that this small business man will likely have to spend his life's savings to keep himself out of jail when the burglar was the one who initiated these "unfortunate" events.
Those who say he wasn't in fear for his life because he was outside don't seem to understand physics. If Durden shot this burglar, the burglar could have just as easily shot him. The window in between them is irrelevant.
The one thing, in my opinion, that Durden did wrong was to investigate a burglary with a handgun. I'd have brought more firepower just in case.
not alleged
buglar killed...should have been shot six times.
Tricky Decision
I decided to ponder this situation awhile before posting. Obviously Durden was doing no wrong so it's easy to side with him. Roop was committing a crime so it's easy to fault him. However, the police had been called, Durden was not in imminent danger of his life... it's simply a property crime. I am the Mother of three sons, now grown, and while thankfully none of them were into this type of trouble, one was involved in a "shenanigan" that could have been quite problematic if not for the professionalism and restraint of an off-duty officer. I am sorry for all involved in this case, but, I think Mr. Durden had no reason to shoot this man, and four shots to the chest is simply bewildering. JMO
What if he was stealing cigarettes?
No reason to shoot? Did you miss the part where Mr Durden thought Roop was pointing something at him? Split second decision. We should give Mr Durden the benefit of the doubt.
To Reedo3000
You wrote "Lets pose a hypothetical then....What if it had been a teenager just being stupid and not a convicted felon. Would everyone here still be up in arms to applaud Mr Durden?"
What's the age or criminal experience of a burglar have to do with anything? Lots of teenagers carry guns. The fact that stands out the most to me is that the store owner shot though his own window. Busting your own window isn't the likely course of action if all you're worried about is your own property. It is, however a perfectly logical response to a threat to your life from the other side of that window.
And to those who say there was no threat to the shopowners life BECAUSE there was a window between them...That's pretty ridiculous. The window certainly wasn't any protection for the burglar. I'd assume that bullets could have just as easily passed through from the other side?
The Charge will be MURDER
According to the law Mr Durden will be charged w/ murder.Even if Mr. Roop was stealing how much could he have possibly stole.I mean lets be honest Mr. Durden"s potential lost was maybe 2-3,000 dollars and I think that is high.Mr. Roop should have been arrested and charged w/ grand larceny, b and e and whatever else law he broke he should not have paid for his mistake w/ his life. Mr.Durden made a decision based on emotion not a threat.The most he could have done is held Mr.Roop at gun point until police arrived.I do not know but maybe even that is breaking the law but I think people would have a hard time disagreeing w/ that action vs murder.Sad case because in the end two lives will be destroyed.
Don I think your full of it.
Hey Donvabeach,
The shooter is entirely justified. He was protecting his livelihood. It was dark and the robber pointed something at him. Split second decision you or them.
Your probably one of those guys that has a shotgun but wouldn't know what to do with it if it came down to it. And I doubt you are a member of the NRA. And your probably not even from VA so I'll paint anyway I like.
"To protect and serve"
Please remove this from police vehicles. Their job is not to protect. Serve, yes, after the bullets are done flying, they try to figure out what happened but "protect"? Maybe in the "old" days when there were beat cops, etc. but not any longer.
Don't wait for the police
From reading some of these posts, I believe many assume the police protection in rural areas is like that of Norfolk or the Beach. Living in IOW, it can take some time for a response, and Whaleyville is quite a ways out. The threat is therefore increased, since "backup" i.e. police can be 30 plus minutes away at times, and if you should be seriously injured, the time it would take to transport to a Trauma Center is going to add another 30 plus minutes. Time and distance relative to assistance is something I would consider if I was faced with a similar situaton. Not knowing all the facts, but if I was in a similar situation, I think I would have done the same thing. For those that argue that deadly force can't be used to protect property, you are generally correct. However, the owner had a legal right to be on his property, had a legal right to investigate a crime being committed on his property, and therefore had a legal right not only to defend himself if he was in fear of his life, but also has a right to apprehend a person committing a felony (burglary is a felony) committed in his presence on his property, and use reasonable force to do so.