In this shooting, police have not charged him. Does his language reveal another Oscar P, or did he shoot his ex girlfriend accidentally? Statement Analysis is in bold type.
A Florida man says he accidentally shot his ex-girlfriend after she broke into his house to collect her things post break-up.
T.J. Schaus said he mistook his ex, who had recently moved out of his Mount Dora home, for a burglar when he opened fire Thursday. The woman survived the shooting, and Schaus has not been charged, deupties said.
"If I knew it was her I would have never grabbed the pistol," he told WESH.
It is interesting to hear him say he never would have "grabbed" the pistol, rather than saying "never would have shot her." The grabbing of the pistol comes before the shooting. This is one step away from a deliberate shooting. He removes a step away from "shooting her"; not only would he have not shot her, but he would not have had opportunity to shoot her, since he would not have even grabbed the pistol. Not grabbing it: "the" pistol. What of when he does grab it? It becomes "my pistol" showing ownership. We do not know the order of which these statements are made since WESH did the editing.
Schaus dated the woman, who has not been identified, for two and a half years before they broke up and she moved out.
She returned Thursday to pick up her stuff. She texted Schaus to tell him she'd be there soon, but the U.S. military veteran said he was sleeping and never got the message.
He was still napping when she tried to open the locked front door around 12:30 p.m., he said.
She beat down the door to get inside, he said, and then went into his bedroom.
That's when Schaus woke up.
"I rolled out of bed, grabbedmy pistol that was on my night stand, said, 'Who the f--- is in my house?'" he told the TV station. "Didn't get a reply so I shot her."
In the actual "grabbing", he takes ownership with "my" pistol.
Being asleep (we do not have the quote, but only "napping" above) may have the startling effect. The dropped pronoun "didn't get a reply" but reduce commitment. Why? possibilities:
a. he got a reply but reacted anyway---this could turn the case against him. It will be interesting to hear her side of the story.
b. he can't recall if he got a reply or not and feels guilty
c. the reply wasn't clear
d. guilty feeling that she did not reply, as he is hesitant to blame her.
"so I shot her" takes ownership.
That is was on "my nightstand" and not "the nightstand" shows consistency with the break up. Notice that he does not say "didn't get a reply so I fired..." instead saying "I shot her."
He realized who the intruder was after she screamed, he said.
He only fired a single shot and immediately rushed to her side to help, he said.
"She was like, 'I'm going to die. I'm going to die.' I'm like, 'You're not going to die. Lay down, be still and breathe,'" Schaus told the TV station.
When someone uses the expression "like", it reduces the commitment to what was actually said. Like all habits of speech, we note when it arises, and when it does not. It may be a summary of what they said to each other, but it is reduced reliability, as it violates past tense commitment.
The victim was airlifted to a local hospital and underwent surgery. On Friday morning, she was stable, awake and talking to authorities, Lake County Sgt. Jim Vachon told the Daily News.
Officers are still investigating the incident, but so far, no charges against Schaus have been filed.
"I'm upset it happened. I never in 10 million years thought I'd have to shoot somebody else," Schaus said.
He has thought of shooting others. This may be military related. We need a full statement for the complete information.