Concealed Carry Stops Bad Guy

[Skribs]

Kleanbore, with all this said, I do agree that he should have called 911, and that (if he decided to intervene) it would be wise to try and first ascertain who is the aggressor and who is the defender in the situation. As it turns out, he probably did save this person's life. I'm merely advocating stopping to think, because a lot of people would instantly jump in and try to help, only to make a mistake.

If the person is an active shooter, yes he can shoot back, but that's the risk. I'm not advocating stepping in, but I think if you do step in, you have to keep a clear head.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yep.

 

[GunnerShotz]

I do agree that he should have called 911

Absolutely!

and that (if he decided to intervene) it would be wise to try and first ascertain who is the aggressor and who is the defender in the situation. As it turns out, he probably did save this person's life.

Agreed!

I'm merely advocating stopping to think, because a lot of people would instantly jump in and try to help, only to make a mistake.

Exactly! That mistake could be fatal And homicidal.

If the person is an active shooter, yes he can shoot back, but that's the risk.

As in Any situation we may face as a gun carrying citizen.

I'm not advocating stepping in, but I think if you do step in, you have to keep a clear head.

Which IMHO clearly demonstrates the fine line we All walk even simply defending ourselves, let alone someone else we may not know.

Sorry Skribs, I sincerely liked your post so much I simply Had to respond thus. To Both you and Kleanbore: I truly understand where you're coming from gentlemen, and the last thing I want to see (or read about) is a bunch of gun toting 'heros' committing murder or getting themselves killed, or both, in the name of 'helping' someone.

What I want to clarify is that I also don't believe it is wise to pound "Never get involved" into everyones heads (easy gents, I'm not saying either of you did).

I simply believe that if you see someone you think is in danger of their life, and you think you may be able to turn the tide, then Absolutely assess the situation! If you are being clearheaded and honest with yourself about that situation, then (for cryin out loud) Do the right thing!

 

[Kleanbore]

It appears from this news report that the "bad guy" believed that the victim had reached for a weapon. It is likely that he will claim self defense.

If that holds water, it is a darn good thing that our "hero" did not shoot. It also goes a long way toward explaining why our hero was not shot.

Not that it is likely to be relevant, but our "innocent", a large man with tattoos, was reportedly in possession of a stolen cell phone and has a record that includes arrests for disorderly conduct, harassment, trespassing, drugs and fighting in public.

What will prove important, as always, is evidence on the subject of what the shooter reasonably believed at the time of the shooting.

Our hero saw something happening, made some assumptions, and drew a gun. It would seem very doubtful that he will be charged, though he could be.

Attorneys and instructors whom I know do not say to never intervene. They simply advise to not do so unless you know what is happening and what is happening and what has happened before.

 

[JustinJ]

If we lived in a black and white world in which the only possible options in such a scenario are to shoot or not act then yes, intervention would have been the wrong. If the standard for choosing to act is to absolutely know everything then essentially that means never act.

The man in the story chose to limit his intervention based on the fact that there were unknowns. Did he put himself at risk in doing so? Of course. Can we ascertain what that risk level was based on these articles? No, which is partly why i object to calling him foolish. There are people in this world who would rather assume the risk of injury or even death than stand by while an innocent gets murdered. Even if he did not know for certain the shot man was innonecent he obviously thought the right thing was to not take the chance he was. And even if there was legal justification to shoot the man he had obviously surrendered. If that makes one foolish then so are a whole lot of other actions and professions that most consider noble.

The notion that the only reason he did not get shot was the shooter was not such a bad guy is pure speculation. We don't know what advantages he may have had over the shooter such as available cover, position, distance, skill level, etc. None of these things guarantee not being shot but in regards to risk analysis but they are critical factors.

 

[Skribs]

Thanks, Gunnerz, I always like when someone appreciates my posts.

Kleanbore, it looks like its a good thing he didn't go in shooting, then.

JustinJ, skill level isn't a deterrent, because neither of the individuals know the skill level of the other. With that said, I agree with most of your post. Except he still should have called 911, first, so a bit of the "foolish" still applies. I say "foolish" instead of "fool" because it implies an adjective that can be attributed to the action, as opposed to a noun that degrades him.

But I think we're almost always foolish when it comes to these kinds of things. Hence why so many people post "it happened to me" and then their decisions get disected like roadkill in homeschool science class.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: If the standard for choosing to act is to absolutely know everything then essentially that means never act.

If one has to decide on whether to act in self defense or in defense of someone whom he or she knows, one must simply have a basis for a reasonable belief that action is immediately necessary for self preservation.

When it comes to deciding whether to intervene in a third party situation, one must be able to evaluate other information, such as....

• Who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?
• Would it be lawful for the good guy himself to do what you are contemplating?
• Is it lawful in your jurisdiction to act on the basis of the knowledge you have at the time?

...because if you decide wrong, you are going to end up charged and tried and probably convicted.

Three are several other things you need to decide, such as...

• Is it really worth exposing oneself to limitless liability to civil suits, including suits from innocent bystanders, to defend somone other than yourself or a loved one?
• How about the risk of crippling injury?
• Are you sure the two participants in the melee and their friends will not end up testifying against you in civil court and in criminal court, making your defense untenable?
• Can you afford your own defense?

I have a friend who served in a senior capacity in a major metropolitan police department. He and his associates were involved in numerous very costly civil trials over the years. Now that he is no longer indemnified, he states that the only time his gun is ever coming out is when he or his is about to die.

I place less stringent limits upon myself*. He contends that that is because I just do not understand.

The man in the story chose to limit his intervention based on the fact that there were unknowns.

That's one possibility. I see no basis for assuming that, however.

It is also possible that he had some kind of notion that drawing a gun was not only necessary (and therefore lawful) but generally sufficient to diffuse a really bad situation involving a shooting incident.

It is also quite possible that he had absolutely no idea that when one points a gun at an armed man good or bad one is very likely to get shot, and that the shooting may well have been justified.

I tend to believe that he based his actions on 'education' obtained from screen fiction or other fantasy, and that he had no idea what he was doing.

And even if there was legal justification to shoot the man he had obviously surrendered.

What? If he had surrendered, and he did not, there would be no legal justification for shooting. To draw, however, there must have been justification. Was there?

The notion that the only reason he did not get shot was the shooter was not such a bad guy is pure speculation.

I think that a very good assessment of the reason he was not shot is that the man was willing to risk being shot rather than shoot; that does lead one to conclude that he was not a violent criminal actor.

If one approaches someone who is involved in a deadly force incident with gun in hand, one gives that someone a very good basis for a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to defend himself or herself--whether that act would be justified or, because that someone had committed a crime, not justified.

Off duty police officers with guns in hand have been lawfully shot down by uniformed officers when coming upon a crime scene, and they are told to not do that. I can tell you that I will not approach a man who has just shot someone else without shooting. I can also tell you that if I have just been involved in a defensive encounter and someone other than a uniformed officer comes at me with a gun, he is most probably in serious trouble. I won't take time to have a discussion.

That's common sense.
________
*I would defend someone I know if necessary. And about a year ago. I came upon a robbery about to happen. I was able to stop it by showing a cell phone to the getaway car driver (I was inside), but had the inside man, obviously alone, drawn a gun, I had decided to engage him. I know the intended victims, I had a clear shot, and there was a good backstop with no one in the background. My friend the former officer considers my decision ill advised.

 

[Skribs]

It is also quite possible that he had absolutely no idea that when one points a gun at an armed man good or bad one is very likely to get shot, and that the shooting may well have been justified.

So what you're saying is if you have Adam, Ben, and Charlie. Adam and Ben got in the scuffle, and Ben shoots Adam. Charlie sees Ben shooting and draws his gun. Because Charlie is pointing the gun at been, if Ben shoots Charlie, he can claim self defense?
Just making sure I'm getting the who with the what correctly in what you're saying.

I tend to believe that he based his actions on 'education' obtained from screen fiction or other fantasy, and that he had no idea what he was doing.

I don't think that's fair to say based on the information available, but you qualified it with "I tend to believe."

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by skribs: So what you're saying is if you have Adam, Ben, and Charlie. Adam and Ben got in the scuffle, and Ben shoots Adam. Charlie sees Ben shooting and draws his gun. Because Charlie is pointing the gun at been, if Ben shoots Charlie, he can claim self defense?

Not necessarily. I am saying that if Ben sees Charlie pointing his gun a him in such a circumstance, he is highly likely to shoot Charlie, if not almost certain to do so.

If he cannot deny having done the deed, he is probably likely to try to claim self defense.

Depending upon the circumstances of the first shooting, it is conceivably possible, if not likely, that Ben's use of deadly force against Adam was in fact justifiable. If so, two things: (1) Charlie will likely have no way of knowing that; and (2) yes, Ben would have a very strong case in a defense of justification.

I don't think that [I tend to believe that he based his actions on 'education' obtained from screen fiction or other fantasy, and that he had no idea what he was doing]'s fair to say based on the information available, but you qualified it with "I tend to believe."

One can only speculate on his source of knowledge, but in the light of everything that good instructors and qualified attorneys say on the subject, I think it's pretty clear that he did not know what he was doing. A person who is not in uniform does not approach a shooter with gun drawn.

I have found that much of what people I know think they know about handling trespassers, detaining suspects, SD shooting, clearing houses, and many other things can be traced to fictional sources. You will only hear "freeze" and "get on the ground" in fiction or from the uninformed.

This class presents a wonderful opportunity for anyone who can make it to Memphis next month to learn more. The tuition plus travel and per diem will pale in comparison to a couple of preliminary sessions with a defense attorney, and the investment can help prevent the need.

The section on witness psychology alone will prove very enlightening to anyone reading about what the CCW carrier and one of the witnesses said about what they saw here.

 

[Skribs]

Thanks for the clarification, Klean. I just named them A, B, and C so I could remember who we're talking about (I'm terrible with names).

 

[MisterMike]

It seems like there's a boatload of speculation going on here, on both sides of the argument. I fully agree with the notion that one happening on the scene of an altercation, even with one of the parties down from a gunshot wound, needs to exercise prudence. But, it seems to me that there's an excessive parsing of words, with little attention being paid to the core facts that are reported: a verbal altercation that led to one individual shooting another unarmed person and presenting a clear visual threat to finish off the downed party.

Having worked in law enforcement and as a prosecutor for a long time, I know better than to take any news report entirely at face value . . . I've never been involved in a case where the news media didn't screw up at least one key fact in their reporting. However, they generally get the basic outlines of the story right. I suppose this Monday morning quarterbacking serves some purpose in getting us to focus on the legal and moral standards that should guide our decisions, but the loud proclamations of approbation and condemnation are, truthfully, goofy.

Those who were there, as the events unfolded, having the benefit of seeing and hearing what really happened, were in a vastly superior position to judge the reasonableness of the parties' conduct. It seems pretty clear that they judged the intervention of the gent who happened on the scene to have been entirely reasonable.

 

[Kleanbore]

...the core facts that are reported: a verbal altercation that led to one individual shooting another unarmed person and presenting a clear visual threat to finish off the downed party.

That's what two people said that they thought they saw.

The other side of the story is that the shooter said that he thought the other one of the persons had reached for a weapon and that he fired in self defense.

He didn't help himself by leaving and turning himself later, of course.

 

[Nordeste]

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.

You made a good point here, and I agree with you, but you nailed it with the "at least in his general direction" thing. Once he's on the floor, you can keep your gun in a low-ready position that will enable you to shoot again if the need comes, but still appear as non-threatening to a third party.

 

[Eb1]

Bad idea, and not to smart. This is just the wild, wild west setting that people are looking for to bash CCW.

The CCW is not a badge. You have zero responsibility other than protecting yourself and your loved ones. Yes, you can stop a felony, but I neither judge nor jury.
What if you had to shoot someone, and he is down, but you have your gun on him because he is not out. Then a guy comes running up with a gun drawn at you? Is he this guys backup coming to shoot you? Now you have to get into a gun fight with an innocent guy pointing a gun at you because he thinks he is the law.
Not very smart.