Concealed Carry Stops Bad Guy

[cyclopsshooter]

Can't say that the man used sound judgement in his "discussion" with the bad guy, but good on him for preventing a death.

http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2012/06/14/man-shot-at-fifth-avenue-safeway-parking-lot

"YAKIMA, Wash. -- The wounded man was down, screaming for help, and the man with the gun looked like he might not be done shooting.

That’s when Andrew Schilperoort, who had just pulled into the parking lot of the Safeway store on Yakima’s North Fifth Avenue, put his pistol and concealed-weapons permit to good use."

 

[MachIVshooter]

He got lucky in a lot of ways, not the least of which is that it turned out he correctly assessed who was victim and who was perpetrator. But it could very easily have been the other way around, and he also could have been wounded/killed himself.

I'm glad it worked out, but from what we know based on the article, I have to put this one in the "lucky but foolish" column.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

^this^

I would never jump into a situation unless I knew what was what

 

[dprice3844444]

dial 911 take pics(be nice to id the perp)

 

[JustinJ]

dial 911 take pics

It doens't sound like that would have done much for the guy about to be executed.

He may not have known what was what but it is pretty obvious that a person about to execute another is or has become the bad guy. Lets also not forget that he did not just open fire wildly but instead armed himself before confronting the shooter.

Yeah, he put himself at some degree of risk to do what he believed was the right thing, help a person in need. I won't call him foolish anymore than i'll call a person foolish for joining the military, a police dept, fire dept, etc. given the fact that said people are putting themself at risk.

 

[Skribs]

If I saw two people arguing, I wouldn't intervene. If I saw one person standing over a wounded person, I might intervene.

However, the alleged perp was so obsessed with his CWP; I don't care if the guy is legally carrying or not. I'm not the ATF. I care if he is intending to cause harm to someone who is not a threat. Even if the first shot was in self defense, if the other guy is down, he is no longer attacking. In that situation, I'd still keep my gun ready, but make a point that I'm not going to shoot again unless the attacker continues the assault.

In this situation, though, it sounds like he had a pretty clear idea of who was the victim. He probably should have called 911 first, though.

 

[GunnerShotz]

Alright, my rediculously humble 2 cents, but yes... In that situation, I'm going to dial 911 And I'm going to shout at the shooter Just as Andrew did with my gun drawn from a defendable position. He Will know I'm calling him out, And he Will know I also have a gun.

Yes, I agree you had better Know what you are getting into before you do... but what's all the Training and Awareness and Planning ahead and just talking about situations like these on forums like THR for then?

The 'hero' in this scenario turned out to be exactly that... he most certainly (based on the facts provided) saved a life and caused no one elses death. Though you or I would have done it a bit differently (after the fact) with a bit more self preservation in mind, the bottom line is that someone Did something to Successfully save another.

 

[Nordeste]

In a situation where there is one person bleeding on the floor from two shot wounds, and another one standing next about to finish him off, is there any doubt who's who?. There isn't, IMHO. Any law abiding person, legaly carrying a firearm for self-defense, wouldn't do that. You're supposed to stop shooting once the threat is over. Keep shooting your attacker when he's on the floor and it becomes murder.

 

[Kleanbore]

If I read that right, one man shot another and appeared to be about to shoot him again.

Another person arrived at the scene and drew his firearm--and then somehow allowed himself to be drawn into a conversation about the concealed carry permit possessed by the still armed shooter.

If he "stopped" a "bad guy", it is because the "bad guy" was willing to be "stopped" and elected to not shoot him.

"Lucky but foolish" is a pretty good description.

If he had reason to believe that intervention was necessary and lawful, and we cannot determine that with certainty with what we know, he should have fired. If not, he should not have made himself the target of a shooter.

The man who intervened is extremely lucky that he was not shot. Had he been shot, the only question would be whether the shooting was justified for some reason that was not mentioned in the report; unlikely, of course.

 

[Skribs]

In a situation where there is one person bleeding on the floor from two shot wounds, and another one standing next about to finish him off, is there any doubt who's who?. There isn't, IMHO. Any law abiding person, legaly carrying a firearm for self-defense, wouldn't do that. You're supposed to stop shooting once the threat is over. Keep shooting your attacker when he's on the floor and it becomes murder.

Yes, but if I had shot a guy in self defense and he is still alive, you bet I'm keeping my gun trained on him, or at least in his general direction. Just in case he suddenly decides to get up and fight (just because he's bleeding doesn't mean he's given up yet) or pull his own weapon. To the bystander, it might look like I'm about to finish him off, but I wouldn't pull the trigger again unless I felt I had the need to.

 

[Kleanbore]

^^^^
Excellent point.

 

[JustinJ]

If he had reason to believe that intervention was necessary and lawful, and we cannot determine that with certainty with what we know, he should have fired. If not, he should not have made himself the target of a shooter.

He decided to put himself at risk to save a life. He obviously felt the tactical risk was worth the reward of potentially saving an innocent. In the real world truly noble acts do often come with risk to one's self. As was pointed out by Skribs he could not be sure of the scenario so a challenge to the shooter was the only way to avoid killing the wrong guy.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

The bad guy has turned himself into the police.

 

[2005 Vette]

I was trained to ask the question is stepping in and getting involved worth going to jail over? If my life or a loved ons life is not being threatened I'm calling 911.

 

[JPG19]

The responses in this thread about "I wouldn't intervene" are precisely why I choose to arm myself every day rather than HOPE someone else will save me. Yes, calling 911 and not doing anything else may be smart, but it's also selfish and cowardly. Interesting to find this sentiment on TheHighRoad...

 

[Skribs]

I believe I have the responsibility to protect myself and those close to me (i.e. friends, family). I do not have the responsibility to protect anyone else, especially not knowing the situation beforehand. Protecting others isn't even the job of the police, so it is definitely not my job. That's not to say I wouldn't help (and that statement doesn't say that I will), just that there is no obligation to.

Calling it selfish and cowardly is a low blow. It is somewhat selfish, but its not about cowardice, its about assessing the situation. If you don't have enough information to act, you shouldn't act.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: He decided to put himself at risk to save a life.

In a naive way, apparently so. Pointing a gun at someone who is holding a gun invites gunfire that may even be lawfully justified, and if he was not justified in using deadly force it generally constitutes a criminal act in all states but two.

As was pointed out by Skribs he could not be sure of the scenario so a challenge to the shooter was the only way to avoid killing the wrong guy.

And for the same reason, not drawing attention to himself was the only sure way of avoiding getting shot, either as a crime victim or in lawful self defense, and the only sure way to avoid becoming criminal by interfering with what could have been a lawful act.

It worked out OK--this time. He was foolish but lucky.

 

[Kleanbore]

Some Things One Needs to Know

First and foremost, you need to have really good knowledge of what is going on. Who is who, what happened before, and so on.

And then you need to know the law.

Marty Hayes posted this on TFL some back.

For all of you pontificating on this subject, answer this question please.

Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?

If you cannot answer this question, then I submit you had better spend some time researching this topic, because to get the answer wrong, means perhaps a long time in prison.

In most if not all jurisdictions, one may not lawfully use deadly force to defend a third party if one does not have reason to believe that said third party would have been lawfully justified in using deadly force to protect himself or herself.

And there's at least one state in which the defender will have committed a crime even if he or she believed that, if it turned out not to be true.

A further complicating factor, one which police officers encounter rather often, is that the person whom one defends sometimes, and not infrequently, ends up testifying against the defender.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
Posted by JustinJ: He decided to put himself at risk to save a life.

In a naive way, apparently so. Pointing a gun at someone who is holding a gun invites gunfire that may even be lawfully justified, and if he was not justified in using deadly force it generally constitutes a criminal act in all states but two.

Thats completely presumptuous. I sort of doubt he was under the assumption that there was no way he could be shot. Not to mention we do not know what sort of position he was in relative to the shooter, what cover was available or other variables existed to give him an advantage if the gunman spun towards him. Not to mention that he did in fact witness enough of the altercation to make a much more informed decision than has been alluded to:

"As he pulled his SUV into a parking slot on the north side of the store, he noticed two men arguing closer to the entrance, then saw one of the men pull out a pistol and start shooting."

And for the same reason, not drawing attention to himself was the only sure way of avoiding getting shot, either as a crime victim or in lawful self defense, and the only sure way to avoid becoming criminal by interfering with what could have been a lawful act.

Of course it was the only way to avoid getting shot. So is not joining the military or police. Personally i'm glad everybody in the world does not share in your notion that assuming risk to stop a wrong or do a right must be foolish.

 

[Kleanbore]

Personally i'm glad everybody in the world does not share in your notion that assuming risk to stop a wrong or do a right must be foolish.

How did he know that he was doing either one?

Did you read Post 18?

Do you think that, based on what the 'hero' saw, he had reason to believe that he was justified in the use of deadly force?

One man with a gun and one on the ground after what appears to be an argument doesn't cut it. He may have just witnessed a lawful act of self defense.

 

[JustinJ]

Did you read Post 18?

Actually no because you were probably posting it as i was typing.

Do you think that, based on what the 'hero' saw, he had reason to believe that he was justified in the use of deadly force?

One man with a gun and one on the ground after what appears to be an argument doesn't cut it. He may have just witnessed a lawful act of self defense.

In what jurisdiction is it not illegal to shoot somebody over an argument? Did you read the part of the story i quoted?

"As he pulled his SUV into a parking slot on the north side of the store, he noticed two men arguing closer to the entrance, then saw one of the men pull out a pistol and start shooting."

 

[JustinJ]

How did he know that he was doing either one?

It seems safe to assume that stopping an execution is the right thing. It also seems safe to assume that if the shot man had a gun to begin with it would have been drawn a long time before the actor interceded.

 

[Skribs]

If he noticed the argument occuring, then the guy on the ground may not have had time to draw yet before the defender put himself into the fray.
The MOG (man on ground) could have attacked the other person in the argument in a manner not seen by the defender. For example, he may have pulled a knife, which prompted the man with the gun to open fire. Unless you can see everything clearly, it is hard to determine who is attacking and who is defending.

Granted, we don't have a whole lot of information to go on from the article. It could be that they were within trapping distance, or it could mean they were twenty feet apart, shouting at each other, and the gunman got upset and fired. Had we been there or seen it, we might have a better understanding of what was going on. From the way it reads, though, we have no way of knowing whether the gunman was defending himself or attacking up until he starts on his CCW ramble and leaves.

Like I said in post 10, if I had shot someone and he was on the ground, I'd keep my pistol on him. If he looks to be a threat again, I'd shoot until he stops again. That might look, to you, like I was preparing to execute him.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: It seems safe to assume that stopping an execution is the right thing.

Sure. What is not safe to assume is that he was stopping an execution. See Post #10. Skribs reiterated the same thing in Post #23:

Like I said in post 10, if I had shot someone and he was on the ground, I'd keep my pistol on him. If he looks to be a threat again, I'd shoot until he stops again. That might look, to you, like I was preparing to execute him.

It also seems safe to assume that if the shot man had a gun to begin with it would have been drawn a long time before the actor interceded.

No, not even remotely.

"As he pulled his SUV into a parking slot on the north side of the store, he noticed two men arguing closer to the entrance, then saw one of the men pull out a pistol and start shooting."

That's what he "saw". That may not have been what happened. Did he have knowledge of what had led up to the apparent argument? Could he have missed a furtive movement that the shooter reasonably interpreted as reaching for a weapon?

Obviously, he thought he saw a criminal act. He could just as easily have seen a lawful act of self defense. Similar witness testimony from persons who were convinced about what they saw and heard have proved problematical in cases involving defense of justification.*

Skribs put it this way in Post #23:

The MOG (man on ground) could have attacked the other person in the argument in a manner not seen by the defender. For example, he may have pulled a knife, which prompted the man with the gun to open fire. Unless you can see everything clearly, it is hard to determine who is attacking and who is defending.

Granted, we don't have a whole lot of information to go on from the article. ... From the way it reads, though, we have no way of knowing whether the gunman was defending himself or attacking up until he starts on his CCW ramble and leaves.

That's all reason to not intervene, and to not risk committing a felony by drawing a firearm when deadly force is not justified.

But for the sake of discussion, let's assume for a moment that our hero somehow did possess sufficient knowledge to reasonably believe that he was intervening to protect an innocent victim from a violent criminal actor.

What in the world would lead him to think for even a moment that standing there with gun in hand would do anything other than get him shot?

In risk management, there are risks, and there are issues. The near certainty that a criminal who has shot someone will shoot any other immediate threats makes this one an issue.

And stepping away from our momentary assumption of complete knowledge, if it turns out that what was seen was not a criminal act, we still have a very high risk of defensive fire (most probably lawful, by the way), and the fact that drawing the gun would constitute a crime.
________
*If you want to learn more about that, there is an incident in the witness psychology section of MAG-20 in which just such a case is described and analyzed.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

All I know is I would not have done what the fellow did.