• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Real-Life CWP Shooting Eugene OR - Very Interesting Story

Status
Not open for further replies.

OregonPCR

Member
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
2
Location
Oregon
Story Follows. Alot to learn from this story. Tactical issues, post-shooting emotional issues, etc... BTW- the DA and Grand Jury decided NOT to file any charges and determined that the shooting WAS justified.

Another interesting point, this was published by one of the most liberal newspapers in the state of Oregon. From what I know of the story, this is a very accurate and un-biased account of the events. Just sometimes the raw power of the truth of the story is enough to prevent the pundits from playing politics...


http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/01/14/a1.shootingfolo.0114.html

January 14, 2005

Man says he shot neighbor in self-defense

By Rebecca Nolan
The Register-Guard

James Michael Winkelman says he fatally shot a neighbor in self-defense when the other man threatened him with a gun.

He says 43-year-old Todd Alan Hughes pulled a handgun on him Tuesday as Winkelman tried to detain the man for police. Winkelman's daughter believed that Hughes had raped a woman in the street, and Winkelman was trying to make sure he didn't disappear before officers arrived.

Now Winkelman, 48, is struggling to deal with the fact that he took another person's life. It hasn't been easy.

"I don't feel happy and proud," Winkelman said Thursday. "I feel like I killed a human being. I caused a lot of pain for his family, and I caused a lot of pain for my family. We're devastated."

Winkelman decided to tell his story so people would understand that "I'm not some kind of gun-happy nut that my daughter tells me someone's being raped and I just go down there and shoot someone."

It was more complicated than that, he said.

Winkelman looks tough, but his body has been destroyed by a series of violent car wrecks that fractured nearly every bone. He also suffers from Meniere's syndrome, a disease of the inner ear that affects balance and hearing.

Because of these vulnerabilities, he obtained a concealed handgun permit and carries a gun whenever he leaves the house. He was carrying a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun on Tuesday night when he went out to walk one of the two family dogs.

His 13-year-old daughter ran up to him out of breath and hysterical. She said a man with long red hair was raping a woman on the sidewalk at the corner of West 13th Avenue and Garfield Street. She said the woman was screaming for help and for someone to call the police. She said she saw the man run into the house at 2020 W. 13th Ave.

Winkelman doesn't have a cell phone, so he and his daughter ran to a house on Arthur Street and flagged down a neighbor. The girl went to call police, and the neighbor drove Winkelman to the house so he could wait for officers to arrive.

Winkelman said he saw someone peeking out through the window. "I said, `Dude, the police are coming. Stay in the house,' " Winkelman said. Soon, though, Winkelman saw a man stepping out of the backyard onto West 13th.

"I ran over to him and confronted him," Winkelman said. "I told him, `My daughter said you were raping a person. Sit down on the porch and wait for police.' "

The man said he hadn't done anything. He said the woman was his wife; they were drunk; they'd had a fight. The man continued to walk west, away from the house. Winkelman told him over and over to sit down and wait for police.

"He had his back to me," Winkelman said. "He stuck his hands in his pockets and was fumbling around. I said, `Get your ... hands out of your pockets.' "

That's when Winkelman drew his gun from its holster. He had the safety on and his finger was on the frame, not the trigger, he said. He said he ordered the man four times to put his hands where he could see them.

Instead, the man turned around and started to walk back toward the house. "He was looking right at me," Winkelman said. "I showed him I was taking the safety off and putting my finger on the trigger."

He said he ordered the man to stop and show his hands 20 to 25 times. The man did stop, right in front of the house. He and Winkelman were about three feet apart.

Winkelman said the man whipped around and pulled a semiautomatic handgun from his pocket. He remembers it had pearl inlay on the grip.

"It was so close I tried to hit it out of the way with my left hand," Winkelman said. "At the same time, I dropped my gun down toward my waist and started firing.

"I popped off five rounds," he said. "I kept shooting until he dropped the pistol. He fell to the ground and rolled over."

Winkelman thought he heard the man say something. He leaned closer and realized he was hearing gurgling noises caused by a sucking chest wound. His six years experience in the Army told him that CPR would increase the damage. So he started screaming for an ambulance. He ran to Garfield Street and shouted for passing cars to call 911. Finally, a neighbor walked out with a cell phone, and Winkelman spoke to dispatchers.

An officer arrived and shined a bright light on Winkelman, who slowly set the weapon down in the street. He said he complied with the officer's orders. He noticed that he was shaking violently and hyperventilating. Detectives took him to City Hall, where they interviewed him until about midnight. Winkelman said they believed his story and returned his concealed weapons permit, though they kept the gun for evidence.

"They said, `Look, you're going home tonight,' " Winkelman said. "They said if they had any doubts about what I was telling them, I would not be going home tonight."

Police have said Winkelman is cooperating with the investigation. Police spokeswoman Pam Olshanski said she could not confirm Winkelman's story until the investigation is complete. She said the Lane County district attorney's office will decide whether to file any charges.

Winkelman couldn't explain why Hughes' girlfriend later said Hughes wasn't raping her. She told police he was beating her that night.

He said he empathized with Hughes' family and friends, who have been congregating at the house since the night he died. He said he'd only encountered the man twice before while walking his dog down the street - and those two interactions persuaded him to avoid the area.

Winkelman said he was trying to be a good citizen. "I'm not a police officer, but I'm certainly not going to let someone accused of a crime like that go wandering off," he said. "He may have been a really great person, but he was out there beating the living hell out of that woman on the street."
 
Uh OH!

This is going to be a sticky one... VERY sticky.

The CHL holder is going to have lots of problems with this shoot... though I don't know the specific laws in his state, he may well be viewed as the agressor.

Question to be answered is "did he lose the self defense protections when he became the agressor." The ED may well be the "victim" here who was trying to defend himself.

This one should be interesting to watch.

V/r

Chuck
 
This is going to be interesting. The CCW holder drew his weapon first and in fact initiated the encounter from step one. I hope he REALLY trusts the perceptions of his daughter. If it turns out that she was wrong this guy drew a firearm on a person and murdered them for having an argument with their wife on the street.
 
Personally, I think Winkelman had the absolute moral right and duty to act as he did. HOWEVER- I also believe that in the current political climate, he made a mistake, and I think he is finding out and will continue to find out how big a mistake it was. I am gratified that no charges have been pressed as yet. I will say however that I would not even try to act as he did here in my conservative Texas suburb let alone in a University town on the Left Coast. I say this with a certain feeling of shame but I believe it is a reality.

My take in short? Best to dial 911 before you grab 1911 in a case like this.
 
I am surprised he is not facing charges on this one. I do not think he will beat the civil lawsuit that I am sure is going to come out of this.
 
I am consistenly impressed that the members of this forum have shown themselves to be much tougher on CCW shootings than the actual LEOs and DAs. I sure wouldnt want them on my jury.
I agree that there are a lot of questionable actions here. One important thing: the CCW looked like a victim. If he had been a single 23 yr old guy with a beard and tatoos I suspect the outcome would have been different.
 
He messed up. He wasn't in danger, no one is his family was in danger. He did what we all would want to in a perfect world, and he proves chivalry isn't dead. However, chivalry will get you in a mess of legal trouble. I hope he gets through this ok.
 
It is one thing to stop someone in the act, but he did not see this guy break the law. He approaches someone who matches the description on their property from his daughter’s description. He should have stayed back and been a witness. But no he goes up to the house saying the POLICE ARE ON THE WAY and then the guy tries to leave. If he would not have approached the house and stood back the police would have gotten there to investigate and it would have had another ending. To me he was trying to do the job of the LEO. Had he been an LEO this would be a good shoot IMO because he would have been doing his job investigating a reported crime.
It is easy to armchair quarter back this, but I can say I would not have approached without seeing someone in danger. It is the Police's job to investigate crimes not CCW holders.
 
Bad decision, IMHO.

He didn't see the rape happening.

His life wasn't in danger.

The main problem, though, was that he drew first on an unarmed man who was walking away. A CCW is for defending people, not detaining criminals.
 
He didn't see the rape happening.
Not sure about the law in Oregon, but in Arizona, it is not required to witness a felony in order to lawfully make an arrest by private person, only that "a felony has been in fact committed" and the person making the arrest "has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it."

ARS 13-3884 Arrest By Private Person

His life wasn't in danger. The main problem, though, was that he drew first on an unarmed man who was walking away. A CCW is for defending people, not detaining criminals.
Agreed. The threat of deadly physical force before any threat from the suspect he was trying to detain was the main problem with this man's actions:

ARS 13-410. Justification; use of deadly physical force in law enforcement

B. The use of deadly physical force by a person other than a peace officer against another is justified pursuant to section 13-409 [Justification; use of physical force in law enforcement] only if a reasonable person effecting the arrest or preventing the escape would believe the suspect or escapee is actually resisting the discharge of a legal duty with physical force or with the apparent capacity to use deadly physical force.

However, the fact that the suspect did actually have the capacity to use deadly physical force might work in his favor.

Still, I wouldn't want to have to defend actions like that in court.
 
Winkelman said he was trying to be a good citizen. "I'm not a police officer, but I'm certainly not going to let someone accused of a crime like that go wandering off," he said. "He may have been a really great person, but he was out there beating the living hell out of that woman on the street."

Well Winky, the person accused of a crime, at the time, was accused by a 13 year old child who was a witness, not a victim. You thought he was a rapist, went over to his place and tipped him off that the cops were on the way, and then realized what a blunder you had made and tried to stop him.

----

As near as I can tell, Winkelman drew a gun on a person that fled from the location where his daughter said a rape suspect went earlier in the evening. He neither saw the crime or knew who exactly the suspect was. All he knew is that the suspect had gone to the address and had long red hair. He had NO way of knowing that the person he confronted was the actual suspect. It would have been a friend or male relative of the suspect, also with red hair, but Winkelman drew on him.

I liked the reversed sensationalism by the author. He mentioned that the deceased drew on Winkelman as Winkelman was trying to detain him. What the author casually left out in the statement was that Winkelman already had the gun out on the guy.

Boo hoo Winkelman has a messed up body and inner ear troubles. Those facts are of no relevance to the story and are nothing but sensationalized garbage. They played no role in the actual event.

If not for the shooting, the cops should get him on obstruction of justice for tellling the suspect the cops were on the way.

He messed up, no doubt.
 
Well Winky, the person accused of a crime, at the time, was accused by a 13 year old child who was a witness, not a victim. You thought he was a rapist, went over to his place and tipped him off that the cops were on the way, and then realized what a blunder you had made and tried to stop him.
Apparently the teenager did see something horrendous going on. Of course the girlfriend claims it was only aggravated assault and battery, not rape. Not sure if there is a significant difference between the felonies under Oregon law:

Hughes' girlfriend later said Hughes wasn't raping her. She told police he was beating her that night.
 
Interesing story. I'm going to hand this one out in my next CCW class for the students and I to kick around.
 
"He had his back to me," Winkelman said. "He stuck his hands in his pockets and was fumbling around. I said, `Get your ... hands out of your pockets.' "

That's when Winkelman drew his gun from its holster.

Hmmm-the man drew his weapon when he confronted a man whom he believed to be the same man who was beating/raping a woman in the bloody street, and when confronted and told to stand by, proceeded to fumble with something in his pocket, an act that rightfully he considered a threat (as would any police officer as well for that matter).

Whether it was a good idea or not to confront the man instead of just following him from a distance to lead police to him is moot at that point (though a much better course of action IMO).

Of course we know now that he was right in assuming that was some kind of threat-the man did have a pistol and did draw it after all that fumbling in a clear attempt to shoot him with it; there was simply no other course of action but to defned himself at that point.

Among others, one thing we can learn about it is that in all likelyhood the man drew on the shooter with the thinking that he could have gotten away with it vs. a confrontation with police with thier relative overwhelming display of force. While the streets are safer in Oregon at the end of the day regardless, I suspect that the shooter now would have preferred to have let the local police department have made it that way instead of him directly.

If not for the shooting, the cops should get him on obstruction of justice for tellling the suspect the cops were on the way.

That's just a bit silly :rolleyes:

Cruc
 
Rabbi - I'll probably be in trouble if I ever have to use my CW. I'm 24 and have a beard! No tats though.

I'd have to say that if all the things said in the article are correct, the guy acted absolutely morally. I place a higher value on morals than laws. Hopefully the shooter won't get screwed too bad in civil court.
 
As has already been pointed out, it's one thing to intervene when you happen upon a crime in progress, it's another thing to try and play cop on your own after the fact when you're not an actual witness. Based only on the newspaper account (are we sure it has ALL the pertinent info?) IMHO Winkleman is incredibly lucky to avoid indictment.

Things like this are why even LEOs hate to get involved in domestic disputes.

I have a CHL, and I would NOT repeat NOT have pursued Winkleman's course of action. For one thing, with the uncertainty as to the BG's location (assuming there WAS a BG - and ONLY ONE BG) I would have stayed with my daughter while calling police.
 
Last edited:
As has already been pointed out, it's one thing to intervene when you happen upon a crime in progress, it's another thing to try and play cop on your own after the fact when you're not an actual witness.

I agree!

If not for the shooting, the cops should get him on obstruction of justice for tellling the suspect the cops were on the way.
That's just a bit silly

I agree!
 
I'm sorry but this is a text book example of somone with a ccw playing cop.

The police should have been called, and were, then Mr. Winkleman should have waited with his daughter for them to arrive and acted as a witness, not tried to play cop himself.

He confronted an unarmed man Mr. Huges on the man's property and pulled a gun on him.
He's luck the guy didnt shoot him dead. If he had it would have been justified self defense.

Lets recap Mr. Winkleman the "hero" here went to another mans house, yelled at him, and then threatened him with a loaded gun on his own property.
Then when the Alleged rapist pulled his own gun to defend himself from an armed intruder, Mr Winkleman shot him in his own yard. Not a righteous shoot, Mr. winkleman should lose his CCW and probably should be arrested for manslaughter.
 
the DA and Grand Jury decided NOT to file any charges and determined that the shooting WAS justified.

There are many things that go into a decison not to file charges. Was information filed before the Grand Jury? The story doesn't say. I can point out a case here where a trucking company owner shot two people in the back, who were fleeing his storage yard and had no charges filed. The people he shot were stealing anhydrous ammonia (used in the production of meth) and the States Attorney wanted to send a message to the tweakers....It could be that Todd Hughes had a long record of domestic violence and other crimes and the DA didn't want to spend money on a trial over the death of a dirtbag. My point is, that there are any number of reasons that no charges were filed besides the shooting being justified. The fact that a crime isn't prosecuted in one instance, doesn't mean that the same action isn't a crime the next time.

I don't know what the law is there regarding the making of a citizen's arrest, but here in Illinois a citizen can use the same amout of force to effect an arrest that a peace officer can.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...0&SeqEnd=15180&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
(720 ILCS 5/7‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑6)
Sec. 7‑6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

So if that's the case there as well, we have to look at under what circumstances a private person can make an arrest. Here in Illinois the law says:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...2&ActName=Code+of+Criminal+Procedure+of+1963.
(725 ILCS 5/107‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 107‑3)
Sec. 107‑3. Arrest by private person.
Any person may arrest another when he has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.
(Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

Note the use of the word is. In this case the CCW holder had reasonable grounds to believe an offense had been committed. I don't believe he would have had the right to go onto the suspects property and detain him. Let's change the situation a little and say that Hughes wasn't armed and that he allowed Winkleman to detain him until the police arrived. The police arrive on the scene, and Hughes' girlfriend refused to cooperate and give any statement. In that case our hero would most likely be facing charges of criminal tresspass, unlawful use of weapons and unlawful restraint. Instead of being the subject of a newspaper account that makes him out to be a good guy trying to do the right thing, we could be seeing an editorial about how CCW holders are cop wannabes and that that's a good example of why we need to restrict them. Maybe the law is different in Oregon, but every place I'm aware of requires you to see the crime being committed before you can effect a citizens arrest.

Winkleman made a lot of tactical mistakes.

Winkelman doesn't have a cell phone, so he and his daughter ran to a house on Arthur Street and flagged down a neighbor. The girl went to call police, and the neighbor drove Winkelman to the house so he could wait for officers to arrive.

First off, he inserted himself into an obvious domestic situation to prevent the escape of a suspect. He didn't approach the house tactically, stopping down the road and observing what was going on there. As a uniformed officer, I always park down the street and walk up on the house as quietly as possible. Unless there is a very serious crime being committed in front of me, the kind where immediate intervention is required to save someone from great bodily harm or save their life, I wait there for my backup to arrive. Winkleman could have done that too. He knew backup, in the form of the police was on the way.

Winkelman said he saw someone peeking out through the window. "I said, `Dude, the police are coming. Stay in the house,' " Winkelman said. Soon, though, Winkelman saw a man stepping out of the backyard onto West 13th.

Again, why did he choose to confront Hughes? If he was spotted, he could have just walked by and moved to a more concealed position to watch the house from. Why tip him off?

"I ran over to him and confronted him," Winkelman said. "I told him, `My daughter said you were raping a person. Sit down on the porch and wait for police.' "

Again, why? Was the public in danger if Hughes left his house? Did Winkleman even know for sure that a crime had been committed at this point? Winkleman probably provoked Hughes' flight by yelling at him through the window. How close was he to Hughes? Was he behind cover or did he at least have something between him and Hughes so that he was relatively safe if Hughes turned to charge him? The article doesn't say, but I would bet he wasn't behind anything.

The man said he hadn't done anything. He said the woman was his wife; they were drunk; they'd had a fight. The man continued to walk west, away from the house. Winkelman told him over and over to sit down and wait for police.

"He had his back to me," Winkelman said. "He stuck his hands in his pockets and was fumbling around. I said, `Get your ... hands out of your pockets.' "

That's when Winkelman drew his gun from its holster. He had the safety on and his finger was on the frame, not the trigger, he said. He said he ordered the man four times to put his hands where he could see them.

Instead, the man turned around and started to walk back toward the house. "He was looking right at me," Winkelman said. "I showed him I was taking the safety off and putting my finger on the trigger."

He said he ordered the man to stop and show his hands 20 to 25 times. The man did stop, right in front of the house. He and Winkelman were about three feet apart.

So Winkleman stood his ground and let Hughes get within 3 feet of him? Whatever happened to opening enough distance to give yourself time to react?

Winkelman said the man whipped around and pulled a semiautomatic handgun from his pocket. He remembers it had pearl inlay on the grip.

"It was so close I tried to hit it out of the way with my left hand," Winkelman said. "At the same time, I dropped my gun down toward my waist and started firing.

Well at this point he had no choice but to shoot. Unfortunately his actions, even with the best intentions, escalated the situation to the point where he had to kill a man in self defense. I hope that he has good insurance coverage, because the inevitable civil suit will likely bankrupt him.

I wonder if he would have forced a confrontation if he hadn't been armed? IMHO, he did good up to the point he confronted Hughes. Hughes probably would have stayed in the house had Winkleman not confronted him when he saw him watching him from the window. Then the police could have responded, the girlfriend either could have or could not have told her story to police and Hughes would most likely still be alive.

Jeff
 
I can't carry in WI, but do carry in MN. In the state of MN you can use lethal force to stop someone who you believe has commited a felony. I personally would just let the bg go in all but a few situations.

While Mr. Winkelmans actions were less then smart it does sound like he must have been within the law on this one. I imagine that they are considering this a lawful citizens arrest.
 
Relevant Oregon Statutes:

ORS 133.225 Arrest by a private person.

(1) A private person may arrest another person for any crime committed in the presence of the private person if the private person has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime. A private person making such an arrest shall, without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested person to a peace officer.

(2) In order to make the arrest a private person may use physical force as is justifiable under ORS 161.255. [1973 c.836 §74]


161.255 Use of physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the person’s own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225.

(2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top