Local News

Deliveryman in Gates Four shooting surrenders

Posted March 17, 2014

Gates Four community in Cumberland County

— A deliveryman involved in a shooting incident with an 18-year-old inside the Gates Four neighborhood last week surrendered to deputies Monday after he was released from Womack Army Medical Center.

Gerald Hilton Lord, 48, of the 6800 block of Cinnamon Creek Circle, was delivering a carry-out order when he pulled into the wrong driveway on the 6800 block of Towbridge Road on March 10. Words were exchanged between Lord and Thomas Earl Jacobs, who lived at the home, before the deliveryman drove away.

The shouting match may have included some racial slurs, said Ronnie Mitchell, attorney for the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office. Lord is black; Jacobs is white.

Lord later returned to the residence and the men scuffled in the front yard. Lord pulled out a gun during the scuffle, Mitchell said, and the weapon fired after Jacobs body-slammed him.

Lord was shot in the arm. Jacobs was grazed in the neck.

Deputies were originally scrutinized for not filing charges in the incident. Mitchell said last week that no charges were filed because the gun went off accidentally and the injuries were not serious.

"In this circumstance, the only serious injury that appears to have occurred is to the perpetrator and not to the victim," he said. "That, of course, created some degree of confusion about what charges may be brought."

Lord is now charged with assault with a deadly weapon, trespassing and assault by pointing a gun.

He received a $3,000 bond Monday evening and is expected to be released from the Cumberland County Detention Center. 


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • dwr1964 Mar 18, 2014

    The homeowner is always right, on his or her own property. Being that the driver was told to leave, even IF the homeowner called him a bad name, that driver returning, is where the law was first broken. The driver bringing a firearm with him and pulling it out, is the second broken law, Brandishing a Firearm, (even though he is not charged with this). The firearm actually firing, even if accidental, is the third broken law, assault with a deadly weapon with the intent of causing great bodily harm. He could also be charged with conspiracy, since he had to think about and decide, what he wanted to accomplish.

  • A person Mar 18, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Nothing wrong with it, until he was told to move. After that, he had better move, or yes, there is a reason to get physical. He was told to get off the property. If you are ever told to leave someone's property, best thing to do is start moving and fast. the homeowner does not have to get permission to defend his property from you

  • A person Mar 18, 2014

    View quoted thread

    It does not matter why he was told to leave. There is no reason to give a reason for why he wanted the trespasser to leave. He wanted it, he was the homeowner, enough said about that

  • A person Mar 18, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Even then, racial slurs are no reason to break out the guns. Seems too easy to make the accusation these days, and no one really cares anymore. The race card has been played way too many times to be legit

  • Obamacare rises again Mar 18, 2014

    I doubt the racial slurs actually occured and that part was embellished by the delivery man to support his reason for coming back with a weapon.

  • Lightfoot3 Mar 18, 2014

    "I'm speaking on why the initial argument transpired. Why the resident of the home felt the need to walk outside and tell him to leave. Was it that serious?" - SmileAndNod

    Oh, I was thinking you were saying that should be a mitigating circumstance. Actually, it could have been at the beginning, where a racial insult could be called "fighting words" and thus a provocation of some sort. The dude coming back erased all that. But you're right in that the teen probably shouldn't have done what he did. You never know who you're dealing with and the teen is lucky he didn't get more seriously wounded, or dead. His initial lack of civility is probably what caused all of this. Both of them seem to have issues. One of them crossed the line of the law.

  • Veronica Hammond Mar 18, 2014
    user avatar

    LIGHTFOOT: I've already acknowledged that, the drive is guilty of what he's been arrested for. I'm speaking on why the initial argument transpired. Why the resident of the home felt the need to walk outside and tell him to leave. Was it that serious?

  • Lightfoot3 Mar 18, 2014

    "How dare a delivery truck sit in someone's driveway to get his bearings...the nerve of him!" - SmileAndNod

    He returned after being told to leave, and was in the FRONT YARD, with a GUN. I don't think he was just trying to "get his bearings". If someone tells you to get off their property, you do it. You don't come up with excuses of why you think you're entitled to be there, and you certainly don't return to attack them with a deadly weapon. HUGE FAILURE on the cops for not arresting this guy.

    "do we know who slurred whom?" - Viewer

    Doesn't matter and don't care. It wouldn't change my vote of guilty (based on what is reported).

    "Why call him a racial slur? Why get nasty bc a UPS or FedEx guy had the wrong door? Again, the homeowner lacks class" - SmileAndNod

    You may be right, but the delivery guy is still guilty of the crimes.

  • Veronica Hammond Mar 18, 2014
    user avatar

    How dare a delivery truck sit in someone's driveway to get his bearings...the nerve of him!

  • same ole story Mar 18, 2014

    Mike H Mar 18, 9:48 a.m.

    These two don't sound like the brightest bulbs in the box.
    Correction ONLY the deliveryman fits that description. The home owner was totally in his rights!!!!!!!!!