Skip to main content

Man suspected of firing shots at patrol vehicles Monday morning arrested

By Howard B. Owens

A 49-year-old Alabama resident is being held without bail and facing two felony charges in connection with an alleged shots-fired incident at a residence on Bloomingdale Road early Monday morning.

Reuben Lay is charged with criminal possession of a weapon, 3rd, and reckless endangerment, 1st, both Class D felonies. He's also charged with misdemeanor counts of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation and harassment, 2nd.

The incident began at 1:49 a.m. when dispatchers received a call from a woman on Bloomingdale Road saying she had been strangled.

As a deputy and trooper responded, she told dispatchers that her alleged assailant had gone into another room of the house and was trying to get his hands on a gun. She then reported he had the gun and had loaded it.

By the time law enforcement arrived, she was outside, in the driveway.

Shortly after the officers reported being on scene and speaking with the caller, a deputy told dispatchers, "Genesee, he just shot at my car. All units are backing out of the driveway. He just shot at the car."

A trooper then says, "We're out of there. Another gunshot."

An officer then said, "It sounds like a .22 rifle."

"They're close. They're close," said a deputy. "Wherever he's shooting from, get the --- out of there."

Minutes later, the Emergency Response Team was requested to the scene.

Because it was not a hostage situation and there was no signs of immediate danger, the ER team assembled at Batavia PD took some time making preparations to respond. About an hour later, the decision was made by the Sheriff's Office that ERT would not be needed.

We've requested more information from Chief Deputy Gordon Dibble about what happened next, but with the holiday, he has not responded to our request for more information.

Tonight, a press release about the arrest of Lay as the suspected shooter was issued by the Sheriff's Office.

Previously: Active shooter reported on Bloomingdale Road

John Woodworth JR

Which is makes this a domestic involving a firearm and not an active shooter. If he was truly an active shooter the girlfriend would have been shoot.

Nov 11, 2013, 11:54pm Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Ummmm...a .22 is just as deadly as any other rifle of higher power. A pissed off person can do a lot of damage with a .22. Maybe he's a dumbass, maybe he's not. Shooting at police isn't the greatest idea ever, granted, but, shooting at them with a .22 doesn't make him less dangerous than someone firing a 7MM mag at them

Nov 12, 2013, 4:38pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

With the caveat that innocent until proven guilty ...

If this is the right guy, he's exceptionally fortunate to live in a county where law enforcement behaves rationally. There's a lot of jurisdictions where officers would have just charged in guns ablazin' ... in this case, the Sheriff's Office was cool headed enough to realize he ceased to be a threat and that they could just wait until he surfaced in daylight hours and take him into custody.

Nov 12, 2013, 4:47pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

I was thinking the same thing Doug.

Robert F Kennedy was shot with a 22 and died

Ronald Reagan was shot with a 22 and almost died, his press sec James Brady was crippled for life and a Secret Service Agent died in that shooting

So, Caliber isn't at all the issue

Nov 12, 2013, 5:05pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Once again Scanner News at its best and uneducated individuals not taught about active shooter situations. I like to know which patrol car was hit by gun fire? Since, none were hit according to the deputy I talked to about the incident. Second this situation does not fit the active shooter definition. Yes the subject used a SKS 7.62 rifle not a .22 like some of your readers think.

FBI Active Shooter Definition:

An Active Shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.

If, he was actual active shooter like the one last year in Webster, the woman would have been shot. He tried to choke he out and fire shots short of the patrol cars when they responded to the incident and as a precaution forced the patrols to fall back.

I have trained with multiple law enforcement officers from different agencies throughout the US. The number one rule in a ACTIVE SHOOTER situation as a law enforcement is to attempt to neutralized the shooter(s) and not wait for backup. This is because it allows the shooter(s) to barricade, fortify and kill more people.

So, the answer still "No." As I stated, yes he shot at the police but, from what I was told shots were not fired directly at the officers. They did retreat and contained. Besides .22 and SKS are very distinctive in sound and I know that to be fact as I own both. Funny thing when I told the deputy about Howard's article title active shooter he chuckled and agreed with me it was not an active shooter. BTW I do believe there are laws that pertains to a active shooter and I do not recall seeing that charge in this article, funny.

Howard here are your own words, "Sheriff's Office was cool headed enough to realize he ceased to be a threat." Research and review active shooter incidents and you will realize this was not one.

Nov 12, 2013, 8:27pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Howard I know you were an SP at one time but, you should go through Active Shooter Training and if I get permission from my Commander. Would you like to attend our Active Shooter Training? Maybe you can be Op4 or a victim. We use sim rounds. Howard you will learn and see what a real Active Shooter scenario is and I promise you will love the training. Beware some training material will bring tears to your eyes, it is gut wrenching. Some even worst or as bad as the Connecticut Active Shooter Incident.

Active Shooter training teaches law enforcement to engage active shooters and make it difficult for such to barricade, fortify or kill more people. We are taught to confine the subject movements and neutralize. Active Shooters tend to kill them self before police do. They do not surrender. I cannot remember ever reading about an Active Shooter surrendering. They kill them self or are incapacitated by law enforcement.

So, Doug, Raymond, Howard and to my obivious fans out there, sorry I am right on this one. Domestic involving a firearm and a subject that rather scare than kill. Those Police were close enough to be tagged by an SKS. THANK GOD, no Police or people were killed.

Nov 12, 2013, 8:04pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Hey Doug, how have you been? Anyway it is called, "Reality and training." I have taken numerous Active Shooter Courses and have engaged in several dozen training exercises. Fortunately, I have not taken part in a live active shooter incident. I have reviewed dozens and dozens of active shooter incidents worldwide and reviewed live photos and videos of such. I know quite a bit about this subject. I continue to train as a civilian law enforcement officer. There always new tactics beinging develop. One thing that remains the same is, you do not retreat and wait for backup in an Active Shooter situation. You take cover, confine, engage and neutralize the threat to prevent the shooters from barricading, fortifying and killing more people.

Doug, show me in the article where he is being charged with anything associated with an Active Shooter (Murderer, attempted murder, terrorism, etc...)

Nov 12, 2013, 8:23pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

John, you really shouldn't worry so much what laymen call it. Yes it was technically a domestic, But you are way too deep into the symantics. I listened to the entire incident last night, the Deputy wasn't giggling at the time. As for 22 vs SKS well listen to the incident for yourself, I put the entire first hour up (Edited to eliminate dead space. Pay particular attention at 8 ,minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I0AIGOhNHk

Nov 12, 2013, 10:44pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

John, you're being pedantic, and that's never a becoming trait.

At the time I posted, there was a person actively engaged in shooting at law enforcement, or at the least, it was the case so soon after the last shot was fired there wasn't any reason to believe more shots wouldn't be fired.

I really don't give a damn what pedantic definition you want to throw out. I needed a quick, descriptive phrase for a headline and I picked what made the most sense under the circumstances at the time. If you don't like it, that's your right, but at the same time, if you don't like it, tough. I'd do it again and I may do it again under the same circumstances. The vast, vast majority of our readers aren't going to be mislead by the use of the phrase for this particular post.

And, fwiw, last night the deputy made a point of flagging me down to thank me for my coverage of the incident.

Look at it this way, John, my descriptive use of the phrase gave you an opportunity to thump your chest and prove your superiority. You should be happy.

Don't even bother to ask your commander for me to come to training or even visit your base because I'm not interested. It's not necessary. It's irrelevant.

Nov 12, 2013, 11:12pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Howard well since, you thought my comment was comedical I figure I set you straight on the definition and meaning of Active Shooter. Your use of the term "active shooter" was incorrect. In my eyes it is just another way for the media (you) making something sound worst or more than it is.

"I really don't give a damn what pedantic definition you want to throw out. I needed a quick, descriptive phrase for a headline"

Here is a quick thought, Police Involved in a shootout. The problem I have is I hate how the media blows things out of proportion. You thought my comment was inaccurate but, in truth was more appropriate than yours. So, yes, I have the right to correct you. Active shooter incidents have recently been a common issue here the U.S. and by you claiming an active shooter was on Bloomingdale Road, when in reality was not, could have placed unnecessary worry upon the community.

This is not about me being finicky but, setting the record straight. How about you stop over dramitizing/exaggerating incidents?

Really Howard? "Look at it this way, John, my descriptive use of the phrase gave you an opportunity to thump your chest and prove your superiority. You should be happy." Not close! I was merely defending my comment, which you had to show the world my comment was a joke.

Okay, I figured you would not be interested. It is not news. Keep to the scanners though.

Nov 13, 2013, 2:19am Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Mark, I will have to check out later. BTW, when police are involved in any type of shooting incident I do not know anyone who giggles or laughs about it. After the fact police sometime joke about it but, bullets flying is not a joking matter. As for me pointing out the .22 vs SKS. An SKS is extremely distinctive in sound (Higher in explosive noise and way more powerful). If the officer was hearing what he thought was a .22 it is possible the shooter was not directly firing at the officers. Maybe in the general area. The difference in indirect and direct fire. I also believe if the arsehole had the intentions to shoot the officers he could have done so easily. Since, there was actually no bullet strikes on the patrol cars or officers I believe (My opinion) he was trying to scare off the officers. If, he actually wanted to kill he could have done so easily. Like I stated to Howard, the media has the tendancies to blow things out of proportion in which Howard did with his title. I merely disagreed and defended my reasoning since, so many were amused by me calling it what it was. Active Shooter incidents are not domestic in nature. Sometimes they start off involving love ones but, there is a deeper desire to kill within. As you pointed out it was a domestic. The great thing about this incident was "NO ONE WAS KILLED."

You should read the book "On Killing" author, Retired LTC David Grossman. This arsehole did the same thing 85% combat soldiers do and not what 15% of combat soldiers did. Should go to one of his seminars very informative and factual.

Nov 13, 2013, 2:24am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Nothing was blown out of proportion, John. And that's why your pedantic reaction on this is misplaced. There's nothing to correct because there was nothing wrong with the original use. If I were writing something after the fact, a more in-depth report, then perhaps you would have a point. But in this instance, you have nothing. And your snide remarks about using he scanner as a reporting tool are also misplaced. If you think that's all we do, clearly you don't pay as close attention to The Batavian as you think you do.

Nov 13, 2013, 8:22am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

LOL Thanks for using the word pedantic Howard. This commentary really drove the definition of the word home in a much clearer way for me. So when you mention my being pedantic in some of my comments it'll give me a reference point more understandable to me when writing my opinions and the ability to recognize it creeping in :)

Nov 13, 2013, 9:07am Permalink
Mark Brudz

John

1) NO ONE WAS KILLED, that I know that we are all thankful for.

2) you said <strong> "The difference in indirect and direct fire. I also believe if the arsehole had the intentions to shoot the officers he could have done so easily. Since, there was actually no bullet strikes on the patrol cars or officers I believe (My opinion) he was trying to scare off the officers. "</Strong>

In a driveway 500 yards off the road, in the dark with the Victim at your side, answering a Domestic Call (And most know that can be the most dangerous call to respond to) are going to react to protect the civilian, yourself and fellow officers FIRST and worry if he was just trying to scare you off later. Which is exactly what the responding officers did.

I was up that night listening as it happened, you could tell that the situation was tense as anyone would expect that it would be.

3) My point is that the way you jumped in with the minutia at Howard over semantics came off a bit condescending. Again, technically it was a domestic incident involving a firearm, but to the average person hearing it live over the scanner, it was a drunken moron shooting at law enforcement, in other words someone actively shooting at police officers

The most important takeaway IMHO is that Howard reported on an incident that could have easily escalated into serious injury or death, handled professionally and bravely to protect a woman in fear of her life. Howard's headline brought immediate attention to this and your comment appeared more to be a one up to Howard than anything else. I know that technically you are correct, however you made it personal.

Here are the facts,

The Batavian was the FIRST to report on the incident

The report was based on what transpired in real time

Howard will, as he always does update the information based on what information the Law Enforcement releases

And the two Deputies and the Trooper involved reacted to a situation and probably saved the woman, themselves and even the suspect from harm

It was a job well done by law enforcement, and a job well done by Howard letting the public know our citizens have such brave young men out there to handle the situation. It doesn't matter what weapon, what caliber, what the technical definition of the incident was. As you obviously agree, what is important is everyone walked away unharmed.

Nov 13, 2013, 9:28am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

FWIW, the thing that's not apparent here is it's not like I just sat at home on this one. I spent about an hour at BPD waiting for the ER team to head out ... for a while there, this sure seemed like a situation that could escalate. Thankfully, we have level headed law enforcement officials around here and it didn't, but this was a very serious situation that could have gone a lot worse ... I know for those involved, they weren't worrying about some pedantic definition of "active shooter" ... they were being shot at, or had every reason to worry they were being shot at, and that's hardly a walk in the park ... we should be thankful that in hindsight we can call it a domestic now.

Nov 13, 2013, 9:49am Permalink
Michael Bishop

Thanks for the info Howard, and the recording Mark.

I'm glad everything ended okay and nobody was hurt.
I'm also very happy to see that our PD in the area is fairly level headed and not like the police you hear about on the news so often.

Nov 13, 2013, 5:41pm Permalink

Authentically Local