CCW holder shoots off-duty cop (brother-in-law)

[Firethorn]

Sounds ugly all around. I'd really like to see the follow up to this and whether or not it makes it past the grand jury/prosecuter continues to press charges.

I agree with the police, the tape won't be the sole piece of evidence, for either side.

edit- I think that the relationships are pretty well set:
From a bit later in the tape.
Dispatcher: "Who's hitting who?"
Caller: "My brother is hitting my sister in law"

Thus, The shootee killed his brother in law. The two women aren't genetically related, neither are the men (unless they're otherwise inbreeding).

Oh, and I agree that the neck brace, if true, makes it an even easier decision. The shooter was defending an innocent party the best way he could.

 

[Maxwell]

Seems to me that beating up on a hostage in the presense of an officer is one good way to get shot.
If a man is breaking the law and endangering lives, off duty cop or not, he runs the risk of being dealt with the same as anyone else.

 

[justashooter]

good shoot. a persons life is endangered, and a witness is permitted to save it by application of deadly force.

arrest of the shooter is routine, but 72 hour hearing usually justifies such a shoot. DA chooses to paint the shooter as "drunk", and thereby incompetent to make the shoot, a complicating factor. DA sees the dead guy as a cop, and slams the shooter because of this, likely the case.

any way you paint it, a real mess, but it all comes down to one question. who was the first individual in the circumstance to put another person's life in jeopardy?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

good shoot. a persons life is endangered, and a witness is permitted to save it by application of deadly force.

Once a person sees and reacts, they are no longer a witness, but a player, in this case, a shooter.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

If the cops responded to a domestic call, and a small female officer was placed in a headlock by a rather large man (cutting off her air supply and with the possibility of breaking her neck) and her partner shot the assailant, would there be any question by the DA as to the legitimacy of the shoot?

 

[CNYCacher]

Korach said six children were at the family gathering, but no injuries were reported.

'cause children are bullet-magnets?


Drunken dead wife beater: Cop
Woman getting beaten/choked: Cop's Wife
Shooter: Cop's Wife's Brother
Woman on phone w/ 911: Shooter's Wife
Do I have this right?

 

[KnightHawk67]

Bah,

If there is anyway possible to screw this good defensive shooting up, Ohio will figure it out. This state drives me nuts sometimes. Just because the drunken, violent, enraged, out of control, homicidal freak with a history of violence (and lets' not mention the fact only about 1% of domestic violence is seen/reported) was a cop when he was sober, the poor guy defending the woman is now royally screwed & I am betting the State of Ohio & the DA have a field day with this justifiable defence action.

:banghead: :banghead:

 

[Ezekiel]

I'm 6' and weigh 230 lbs. I assure you, I could have gotten this split-focus drunk guy to release a victim in a headlock in under 5 seconds: and he would not be dead. :banghead:

After that? "You deal with things as they come."

But to immediately callously inject some hardball when there are other adults near -- at least one, right? -- or when there are a myriad of other options is shameless and stupid.

This guy [shooter] was drunk and he wanted to kill a man. He just used a, he hopes, legally justifiable (yet to be determined) reason.

"Gun Mentality(tm)."

I'm tired of John Q.'s lack of judgment.

 

[KnightHawk67]

Ezekiel,

Your kung-fu is greater than the defenders kung-fu , he used what he had.

 

[Ezekiel]

Your kung-fu is greater than the defenders kung-fu , he used what he had.

I don't know. It appears to me that he completely discounted his mind.

300 lbs, psuedo-training or no, is not impressive when drunk and restraining another human.

90% of the people on this board could have gotten the girl away from him, without shooting him, in a very minimal amount of time.

"Seems simple." Shooting this guy was motivated by desire, not need (legal or otherwise).

That's murder.

 

[Phetro]

The antis can go right ahead and try to touch this one, it will burn them good.

The guy is choking his wife in front of onlookers?! And he got a warning? And he kept choking her, to the point that witnesses confirm she couldn't breathe?

This is a clean shoot. I don't care if the shooter had a gallon of vodka, he did the right thing in saving someone's life from a violent drunk.

This is also exactly why alcohol should not be a factor in carry laws--the intoxicated have every right and responsibility as anyone else to protect themselves and others from great bodily harm or death.

It may have been absolutely the right thing to do. In anything other than a family situation, I would be 100% on board with shooting the jerk. But I would not want to be in the brother-in-law's position of explaining to his nieces why he blew their daddy away.

"Well, your daddy tried to kill your mommy...so I had to stop him..." seems like a good explanation to me. Don't shelter them. In the old days, kids were told the truth, and the nation was a lot stronger. All this "shelter the children" nonsense has destroyed the moral and emotional fortitude of America.

 

[Ezekiel]

This is also exactly why alcohol should not be a factor in carry laws--the intoxicated have every right and responsibility as anyone else to protect themselves and others from great bodily harm or death.

"You cannot be serious."

They clearly do not have the capacity to judiciously exercise said "right."

As if someone who cannot find their BED, for example, needs to be waving a handcannon...

Alcohol, and other intoxicating substances, should be one of the primary lines codified in carry laws.

Unbelievable...

 

[Phetro]

I don't know. It appears to me that he completely discounted his mind.

300 lbs, psuedo-training or no, is not impressive when drunk and restraining another human.

90% of the people on this board could have gotten the girl away from him, without shooting him, in a very minimal amount of time.

You first, tough guy.

"Seems simple." Shooting this guy was motivated by desire, not need (legal or otherwise).

That's murder.

BS. Not all people could have restrained him. Most probably would have stood petrified. Personally, I would have gone with your approach...but no way can you justify holding the shooter to your high physical standards.

 

[pax]

90% of the people on this board could have gotten the girl away from him, without shooting him, in a very minimal amount of time.

90% of the people on this board are not wearing a neck brace because of a serious injury.

pax

 

[Keaner]

I don't know. It appears to me that he completely discounted his mind.

300 lbs, psuedo-training or no, is not impressive when drunk and restraining another human.

90% of the people on this board could have gotten the girl away from him, without shooting him, in a very minimal amount of time.

You know, I HIGHLY doubt that. There is a difference between a blubbering drunk, and a very angry drunk.

Angry drunks are like someone on meth, they feel no pain, and have incredible strength.

Heck, watch Cops sometime, it often enough takes multiple large police officers to restrain some drunk that is only ~150 lbs! Heck, I only weigh ~120, and the 200lb black belt sometimes has a hard time with me while drunk!

There is no way someone without training could take down someone of that size. It is a pure defense of others situation. I am sure that he wanted to 'murder' a relative. Yeah, right. I gotta think that either you are taking the 'cops are always right' thing, or just dont completely grasp the situation.

If you can sufficiently tell me how a guy with a neck injury was supposed to restrain someone twice his size, I'll take it back.

 

[LaVere]

The story refered to the shooter as CCW but that does not indicate that he WAS carrying. Maybe the gun was just in the house. In any case he should not be in jail or have bail, maybe the most a tracking leg iron and do not leave the city until Wed.

Just my views

 

[Ezekiel]

If you can sufficiently tell me how a guy with a neck injury was supposed to restrain someone twice his size, I'll take it back.

We're not talking restrain, are we? I'm specifically detailing seperation between the aggressor and the girl in a headlock.

In such a case, walk up and place your index and middle finger in one of his eye sockets -- one of many options -- and watch him drop that girl like a hot rock.

It's not difficult, it's just more "personal."

 

[rbernie]

Shooting this guy was motivated by desire, not need (legal or otherwise).

And you intuited the shooters intentions and desires, based on, um, exactly what?

The fact that he verbalized that he saw one choice open to him does not make that choice his DESIRE - only that he perceived that to be his sole remaining choice.

 

[Yowza]

I'm 6' and weigh 230 lbs. I assure you, I could have gotten this split-focus drunk guy to release a victim in a headlock in under 5 seconds: and he would not be dead.

This guy [shooter] was drunk and he wanted to kill a man. He just used a, he hopes, legally justifiable (yet to be determined) reason.

"Gun Mentality(tm)."

I'm tired of John Q.'s lack of judgment.

I don't think I've ever seen such an unbelievable load of armchair QBing BS on this board before. And I've seen a lot.

Rick

 

[Keaner]

Ezekiel, I apologize, I misread a previous message, and for some reason, the word restrain was stuck in my head.

I would highly doubt that even that would work properly. As a college student, I see a bunch of 'bad drunks' that are fairly impossible to make stop.

As I mentioned earlier, I just recently saw a very small kid get multiple broken bones before he would stop what he was doing. His arm was hanging off weird (dislocated break), with blood all over his now-deformed face, and a bunch of broken ribs, and he was still trying to swing at the other individual.

In this case, there is only 1 way to definately stop the agressor, stop the brain from sending the signals to his muscles. If you can find another way to do that other than killing him...

 

[Ezekiel]

And you intuited the shooters intentions and desires, based on, um, exactly what?

The fact that he pulled a trigger with a ton of other options.

The fact that he said he was going to (active, present tense) kill.

The -- presumed -- fact of inebriation, discounting his ability to legally wield, use or make rational judgments regarding the use of a firarm.

"He wanted this guy dead."

Require anything else?

 

[Ezekiel]

Ezekiel, I apologize, I misread a previous message, and for some reason, the word restrain was stuck in my head.

No need to ever apologize to me, man.

and he was still trying to swing at the other individual.

Ah, but was he effective at this juncture? Was he truly "dangerous?"

I see your point, though. Anything certainly can happen.

 

[Keaner]

The fact that he pulled a trigger with a ton of other options.

Name 1 other option that would have worked 99+% of the time, and in the time constraint. The ONLY one I can think of would be to slit the guys throat, but that would be difficult seeing size, time constraint, and difficulty of attacking someone that much bigger than yourself.

The fact that he said he was going to (active, present tense) kill.

Just a verbal pre-action threat. Similar to 'drop it or I'll shoot', just with a slightly different phrase. Under the amount of pressure, adrenaline, and surrounding circumstances, I have to think that there is no difference.

On that same note, how is "I will shoot you" different from "I will kill you"? Guns are lethal weapons, and getting shot has a darn good chance of killing you. To me, they mean pretty much the same thing.

The -- presumed -- fact of inebriation, discounting his ability to legally wield, use or make rational judgments regarding the use of a firarm.

A- level of inebriation is unknown at this point. Seeing as he was thinking fairly clearly, and was able to make the shot as accurately as he did, I doubt he was 'too' drunk.
B- At what point of inebriation does rational judgement leave one?
C- At what point of inebriation does one lose the right to defend one self?

 

[Keaner]

Ah, but was he effective at this juncture? Was he truly "dangerous?"

I see your point, though. Anything certainly can happen.

He wasn't dangerous from the get go, he was a small kid who could do almost no damage with a punch from the start

The point I was making is that severely drunk individuals can stand a TON of pain without flinching.

 

[El Tejon]

Just because other options were available does not mean one must do them instead.

I know its the media, but everything here looks like a good defensible shoot. The shooter had a reasonable belief that the woman faced death or serious bodily injury so he stopped the attempted murder in progress.

He could have used a chair leg, a taser, a cricket bat, qin na, but he did not need to. Shooting the would-be murdering cop is just fine if the shooter believed the woman faced death or serious bodily injury.

Vocalizing "or I'll kill you" can cut both ways, but I agree it was not a wise thing to say.

Interesting to see this one turns out. Darn that Problem #2, which only exists in the mind of El Tejon, anywho!