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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Name 1 other option that would have worked 99+% of the time, and in the time constraint.

What was the time constraint? Four minutes until unconsciousness? I could have (and so could you) tried a lot of non-lethal things that work 90+% of the time, especially in sequence, before pulling a trigger.

Just a verbal pre-action threat.

I wonder if the DA will dismiss such as easily.

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?

I think his clarity of thought is very much in question. When does rational judgment leave? "When you cannot rationalize." Having multiple options and choosing GUN seems quite irrational. Finally, "he wasn't defending himself."

As for defending others in an irrational, knee-jerk, and inebriated state, we can wait on a trial, no?
 
Some background. I didn't see this link anywhere on the thread; sorry if I missed it.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/community/15169835.htm

Yeah, it sounds like the late cop was a real prince.
:rolleyes:

Ezekiel,
I realize you were refuting a point that specified defending oneself, but I had thought SD included defending the lives of others.

I feel the desparity of force issue, compounded by Beitko's apparent level of intoxication justified the use of the firearm rather than some other option.


B.

edited to add: Do we know the shooter's level of intoxication yet?
 
I hope this guy's "Problem #2" is short lived. Northern OH is full of Lefties, but I doubt they are very sympathetic to a big drunk guy (cop or otherwise) choking his wife at a family gathering.
 
Ok, when I wrestled in high school you were required to have an arm included in a headlock. Pretty obvious as to why you would be required to,and I doubt such was the case if she was having trouble breathing. Now what pray tell would happen if you decided to play Chuck Norris and start gouging eyes? Might not the perp flex, and maybe flail about? Bad things tend to happen to vertebrae in such situations. But that is besides the point. It really sounds like he was going after the woman calling 911 when he was shot.
 
.45, you mean like the big drunk cop could twist and break the woman's neck (intentionally or unintentionally) while Chuck Norris is karahtay kicking and eye gouging?

That was my line of thinking.
 
From what I remember talking to the local 'ninja', the most dangerous part of a head lock is NOT suffacation, it is crushing the neck to the point where the person is unable to take a breath without immediate medical attention.

I would assume that IF you were to poke his eyes out, he would have 1 of 2 reactions, both which I see valid.

1- Releases. Possible, but the effect you are looking for.
2- He flinches and tightens his grip, similar to one clenching his fists when in extreme pain. This would definately cause signifigant damage to the neck, or like others said, damage to the backbone.

Number 1 would be awesome, but I doubt it would be worth taking the risk on number 2.

As for his phrase, I realize it was the wrong thing to say, and perhaps the least PC thing he could have said, but IMHO, is forgivable and shows no 'bloodlust'.
 
.45, you mean like the big drunk cop could twist and break the woman's neck (intentionally or unintentionally) while Chuck Norris is karahtay kicking and eye gouging?

The same thing can happen with a gunshot. There are degrees of risk to any action. :(

Merely another point. "Yours is quite valid."
 
bouis wrote:
I think it's an atrocity that this man has been charged with murder. I really hope the grand jury declines to indict him.

This in the biggest reason that I moved out of Ohio. When I was still living there, as far as I understood it from a long time resident and gun owner who befreinded me, the law was that for any self defense shooting charges MUST be filed. There is no discretion allowed. Of course the state has to prove their case to a jury, but it sound more like, to me anyway, that you have to prove your innocence.
 
err, I don't understand the problem...

Also, someone posted that "Saying I will kill you is stupid and so is having some drinks..." Well, if we could all be so lucky. As long as the guy was not wasted, but even if he was, wasted people can save a life just as well as a sober person, although I think we would all be more comfortable with a sober person. As far as him saying "Let her go, or I will kill you." You can easily see from this statement that the women was still being held in a hostile manner and refused to comply.

Let's say that the roles were reversed, the CCW holder was the one doing the hitting / choking / head locks and the COP had been demanding release, this would be proof positive that it was a good shoot....

It seems to be that civilians are to be held to a higher standard than police, when it should be the other way around.
 
I believe it was a justified shoot. He was in the act of committing a violent crime that could reasonably cause great bodily harm or death.

However, the shooter probably did err in saying "I'll kill you."

Edited -- misread the relation of the victim.
 
Last edited:
We can second guess what happened and what so and so should have done but we really have little idea what the circumstances were. I prefer to take an example like this and try and consider what options I would have in this kind of situation.

If one is available(one always is at my house) spray the garden hose in his face. It leaves you at a distance that you can still draw if you have to. He will let go to protect his eyes. It will take him plenty of time to recover his vision enough to come after you that you will be plenty ready to shoot if needed. Keep spraying at his face until he clams down. Cold water has this effect. This would be a preferred method if you are armed and/or physically unable to compete with him due to injury or superior size. Grappling with someone while carrying would be my last choice as I wouldn't want to chance them getting their hands on my gun.

Or grab him by the ears from behind and pull like you're gonna rip them off. People have such a deep seated, instinctive fear of disfigurement that he WILL let go and grab for his ears. Now you control his head and hence the fight. Again this may be a bad idea if you are armed as he may go for your sidearm if he is or becomes aware of it.

Does someone present carry pepper spray that you can get to quickly? You blast him in the eyes with that and he will let go as well.

If I were in this situation I would like to think I am a good enough shot to not hurt the victim. But I would probably prefer to at least try to separate them prior to using deadly force. Hopefully to prevent the need for deadly force. I would have a hard time living with trying to hit him and he moves and I kill her. Especially if I didn't try anything else first.

Be aware of your surroundings and available options. Your gun may be a legally and morally proper answer but not the best answer available with a little awareness.
 
The perp here:

had a huge advantage over both his victim and her defender in terms of size and strength
had training, a badge (and presumably, a gun tucked somewhere on him)
had full mobility, compared to the defender in a neck brace, injured
was drunk, insensitive to pain, in a rage, not responding to reasonable warnings
had the victim in a potentially lethal strangle-hold very possibly on the verge of crushing her windpipe
oblivious to the fact his sister is on 911 calling police

Given those facts, I think that any type of attempt by the defender to use less lethal defenses would have ended badly for either the defender, the victim or both. Sounds like the only option was to get the drop on him with the defender's CCW weapon and hope the perp has enough clarity to stop what he's doing. Apparently he continued the assault after fair warning and at that point the only option is to potentially take one life to try to save another. Sounds defensible to me.
 
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.


Doubtful. Most all of the people I've ever met that were big and talked that level of confident smack usually wet their pants when the first big-buck 250lb drunk got rowdy in any one of the bars that I have bounced in. Most of those big, tough-talking guys had never been in a real fight with a real man, getting by on their size and the intimidation that comes with it. I highly doubt you've ever (or more than once or twice if at all) grappled with an intoxicated person intent on doing you, or someone else harm. I'm 6'2 and go between 220 and 240, and I know better, because I've been there and done that. Even police officers won't grapple with a drunk unless they have other officers as backup. There's a reason for that...


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

Yeah, like dealing with the aggressive law enforcement officer, trained to grapple to an extent, trained to disarm most likely as well...how do you deal with this 300lb officer when he snags your gun from your holster while you play Johnny-hardass and run in to get physical? When you have a firearm, that's the level of force justified if any level of deadly force is. When you grab a baseball bat or a pipe and get into close range of the adversary, you run a huge risk of losing your weapon if you miss the element of surprise. I've taken two full-swing sluggers to the head, one small pipe and a number of brick; I stood standing more times than I went lights-out, and I'm not all that tough.


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.

But your so-called options are fantasy and IMHO, stupid moves. If ANY level of deadly force is justifiable, a firearm is justified. If you have one on you, you cannot go grappling with other folks...I doubt most CCW'ers carry in a retention rig. Would you like to let me drink a 12-pack, then you can come try and grapple me with a water gun in your IWB or whatever holster? Let's see how long you keep that gun on you.


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

I'm tired of a little too much keyboard Rambo and not enough reality.




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.

Doubtful. Even so, if they managed to get his attention off of her (I don't think you can say that 90% of the people here or anywhere else could physically deter a 300lb cop), then what have you done? So, the shooter goes and gouges the guys eye out...then the guy attacks the shooter. Guess what, you ever try to draw when someone was on top of you? Not happening most of the time. Congratulations, you went from selfless hero to stupid victim, and now the enraged, intoxicated cop has your gun...who's stopping him now?


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

Too much Hollywood. :rolleyes:



The shooter did what he felt was right. He was disabled (neck injury), he stopped a felony in progress. Even without the injury, grappling while armed is a stupid move that the novice usually only gets to make once.
 
Sounds like the only option was to get the drop on him with the defender's CCW weapon and hope the perp has enough clarity to stop what he's doing.

I doubt this was the only option.

Apparently he continued the assault after fair warning and at that point the only option is to potentially take one life to try to save another.

And this is complete speculation. :(
 
Quote:
Sounds like the only option was to get the drop on him with the defender's CCW weapon and hope the perp has enough clarity to stop what he's doing.


I doubt this was the only option.


Quote:
Apparently he continued the assault after fair warning and at that point the only option is to potentially take one life to try to save another.


And this is complete speculation.

Sorry I meant "based on the available evidence, the only REASONABLE option available without considering things like psychokinetically drawing down a meteor on top of the guy". I also ruled out the possibility of lightning strikes and a plauge of locusts. But maybe we should include those along with the remote possibility of distracting a raging 300 lb drunk with a woman in a neck hold on the verge of crushing her windpipe, breaking her neck, or both, by throwing a dinner plate at him. All the other options I've seen discussed involve far to much risk, an UNREASONABLE amount of risk to the victim and her defender. And a SMALL POSSIBILITY for success when compared to the amount of risk involved. The defender here no doubt realized he was gambling with not only his own life, but the victims as well, whether he acted or not. I can't fault him for making the best bet, with the highest odds of success, under the circumstances. Between this rock and that hard place, I would like to think I would do the same.

Speculation, yes, based on the available facts. Sounds like the most REASONABLE and JUSTIFIABLE course of action from where I sit.
 
I highly doubt you've ever (or more than once or twice if at all) grappled with an intoxicated person intent on doing you, or someone else harm.

Do you mean the sweaty mass of grit-infested humanity whose clothes and skin move apart from his skeleton while you grapple? Where the reek of Pabst and Johnny Walker is enough to make you gag, but you cannot take your hands off of him because to do so is to turn the hog loose in the store?

Yeah, whatever. Doubt what you like.

Yeah, like dealing with the aggressive law enforcement officer, trained to grapple to an extent, trained to disarm most likely as well...

Who I have just caused great pain? Negating that "size/bully effect" you seem so in love with, and who has just lost all functional control of the situation? He's going to run or bezerk, either of which is easily countered by space, time, numbers or guile.

When you have a firearm, that's the level of force justified if any level of deadly force is.

Which is, of course, why a firearm should have never been brandished until alternative methods -- short of escalating the event into an immediate deadly force encounter -- were tried. A headlock is not deadly force.

If you have one [gun] on you, you cannot go grappling with other folks...

Then don't introduce it. Ths isn't difficult. You are the one talking all "Rambo." Apply force as necessary to create the release of the headlock. Blowing someone away is overkill.

I'm tired of a little too much keyboard Rambo and not enough reality.

Then cease typing.

Even so, if they managed to get his attention off of her (I don't think you can say that 90% of the people here or anywhere else could physically deter a 300lb cop), then what have you done?

Neutralized the immediate assault. Isn't that the point? Then you deal with things as they occur.

So, the shooter goes and gouges the guys eye out...then the guy attacks the shooter.

If he can stop screaming enough to focus, while partially blinded, and if the "shooter" introduces a deadly weapon into a situation -- the girl, remember? -- that has just been redefined. (sigh) Anything to justify just gunning him down, right?

"Gun Mentality(tm)."

The shooter did what he felt was right.

And he will be judged.

Even without the injury, grappling while armed is a stupid move that the novice usually only gets to make once.

Which is why you do not brandish the gun.

Why is this so hard? :confused:
 
(sigh) Anything to justify just gunning him down, right?

"Gun Mentality(tm)."

I'm with you there Ezekiel. Some people on this board seem quite eager to just shoot if they think they can justify shooting. Or at least say they would. Myself I try and maintain a level of awareness of my surroundings that another solution may present itself. Some people seem to give this big tough cop superhuman abilities that can only be stopped by shooting him. You gouge someone's eyes and they are going to go totally defensive and completely retreat from whatever is going on.

#1 He's drunk, hence not as coordinated as he should be.
#2 Cops get some training, but being a cop doesn't make him Bruce Lee.
#3 Do something to his eyes and his ability to successfully fight just took a major nosedive.

Just because shooting would be legally and maybe even morally justifiable doesn't make it the only thing you can do.
 
Four minutes until unconsciousness?

Ezekiel,

I've been choked until unconsciousness. I've choked others until they were unconscious. While I have not had the experience of having a finger poked into my eye socket, I have had the experience of poking my finger into opponents' eyes.

It doesn't take four minutes, friend. Unless, of course, you don't know what you're doing. A carotid choke, properly applied, will render one unconscious in less than eight seconds. And completely helpless in about half that. As in feet drumming on the floor.

I don't know about the cop's "pseudo-training." I don't know about your training. Or experience. I've more experience than I want and it doesn't match up with what you're saying.

You, and others, are making assumptions and presumptions that cannot be supported by the facts we know. You maintain a head lock is not deadly force. Sorry, it very well can be and can certainly be the agency for severe bodily injury which is also included under most self defense laws. How? How strong is the man? What is the strength of the woman's cervical vertebrae and ligaments? A very strong man or a very weak cervical vertebrae and ligaments...guess what? One quadraplegic coming up. Now that counts as imminent grave bodily injury in my book but your opinion may differ. A forearm in a headlock can also block both carotid arteries. This will result in unconsciousness in a matter of seconds and permanent brain injury or brain death in a matter of two or three minutes.

Gun mentality? I think not. I've been in several situations where, by the laws of the state of Georgia, I would have been legally justified in shooting. I didn't even draw my gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top