What would you do in this situation? Woman murdered in broad daylight

[Duke of Doubt]

JT1Jt1: "This is not to disparage those whose first inclination is to render aid in unusual situations. I admire that."

I don't. And this isn't to quarrel with JT1JT1. I just ... I dunno. A guy gets hit, and your instinct is to help him. I don't have a problem with that, really I don't, and I'm not such an unordinary fellow but -- all you know is it's a person that got shot. For whatever reason. You could be saving the life of a monster. Consider?

 

[JT1JT1]

Sorry, Duke. I wasn't being clear. I would have no problem rendering aid to a likely victim (or even combatant) who is out of the fight. I'm saying I wouldn't immediately shoot the original gunman in this scenario because of the ambiguity. Sure, if he clearly left the scene and I was still in the vicinity, I would hope to render first aid to the person shot.

 

[Peakbagger46]

In Response to Jeff White's Comment

Jeff,

I did not learn this from a movie, but rather training from the CO POST academy and on-going firearms training via my agency.

In such a situation, I would have fear of serious bodily injury to myself, or if I let the suspect go, to civilians. I WOULD NOT have the luxury of knowing the suspect would not go and kill other people, especially in the light of increased random mass shootings we have experience out west.

If that suspect attempted attempted to leave the scene after committing a murder, I have every right here in CO (probably not in Obama's land of ILL though) to effect an arrest using deadly physical force.

Depending on the situation, I may or may not take the time to give verbal commands for the suspect to drop the weapon; I would NOT do so if I believed at the time this would jepordize my element of surprize and possibley get me killed.

 

[Kleanbore]

I WOULD NOT have the luxury of knowing the suspect would not go and kill other people, especially in the light of increased random mass shootings we have experience out west.

What does that have to do with how you as a civilian can act?

If that suspect attempted attempted to leave the scene after committing a murder, I have every right here in CO (probably not in Obama's land of ILL though) to effect an arrest using deadly physical force.

Think so? If you are a civilian, see posts 4 and 93.

 

[adorable_harree]

I would try to get a detailed look at the BG, memorize everything needed to help him get caught someday. Then I would run to the victim while calling for an ambulance then render first aid if possible to the woman.

That is what I would do if i was still living in the States. But since I know live here in the Philippines where this sort of criminal activity concerning a woman automatically puts you on society's lowest rung...you can bet that after doing such in plain view, other people will chase after him, and...a corpse will be turned over to authorities.

My funeral parlor has been witness to victims of lynch mob justice. It ain't pretty and the crimes done was even less than murdering a woman. Sometimes you gotta love this country.

 

[Mp7]

...seems i rather wanna carry concealed body armor - than a concelaed weapon
in your very sick judicial system.

Case law - i believe - makes your democracy a dictatorship
of bureaucracy.

Sad.

 

[Jeff White]

I did not learn this from a movie, but rather training from the CO POST academy and on-going firearms training via my agency.

They taught you to start a verbal challenge, fire on the suspect, then complete the verbal challenge? I took the movie reference from an episode of the 1970s TV show, Police Story in which the character did precisely what you posted, started to give a verbal challenge, shot and killed the suspect, then completed the verbal challenge.

Now I can see starting the verbal challenge and firing when the suspect raised his weapon before it was completed. I can see the suspect raising his weapon when he sees you and you shooting without ever giving a challenge, but I don't see the point in starting a challenge, then shooting if the suspect was just standing there making no hostile move.

If that suspect attempted attempted to leave the scene after committing a murder, I have every right here in CO (probably not in Obama's land of ILL though) to effect an arrest using deadly physical force.

Obama had no input into the Illinois criminal code. His time in the state senate was unremarkable, basically he didn't do much. This is what the Illinois Compiled Statutes has to say about used of force in making an arrest:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...&SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using 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 such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)

So the issue in Illinois is if you could convince a reasonable man that you reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm of yourself or another or that your arrest would be defeated by resistance or escape; or that the offense was a forcible felony.

You can't reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to another in this case as the witness says the shooter barely acknowledged him. You can't say he was trying to defeat your arrest by resistance or escape because you haven't challenged him yet or in the case of your example, completed the challenge.

Lastly you can't say for certain the suspect committed a forcible felony. It appeared to the witness that he he did, but without further investigation you have no way of knowing what really went down. You may have just shot an undercover officer from another agency who had to shoot in the line of duty. From the witnesses vantage point you would have no idea what actually happened.

A private citizen in Illinois has the same restrictions on the use of force when making an arrest:

(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.)

Let's contrast that with Colorado law:

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=

18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a peace officer is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary:

(a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or

(b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect such an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape.

(2) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary:

(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) To effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes:

(I) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon; or

(II) Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or

(III) Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle violation, that he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) (b) of this section shall be deemed to constitute justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

(4) For purposes of this section, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody. A peace officer who is effecting an arrest pursuant to a warrant is justified in using the physical force prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless the warrant is invalid and is known by the officer to be invalid.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist him to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officer's direction, unless he knows that the arrest or prospective arrest is not authorized.

(6) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (5) of this section may use deadly physical force to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape only when:

(a) He reasonably believes that force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) He is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force and does not know, if that happens to be the case, that the peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances.

(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

(8) A guard or peace officer employed in a detention facility is justified:

(a) In using deadly physical force when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner convicted of, charged with, or held for a felony or confined under the maximum security rules of any detention facility as such facility is defined in subsection (9) of this section;

(b) In using reasonable and appropriate physical force, but not deadly physical force, in all other circumstances when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be the escape of a prisoner from a detention facility.

(9) "Detention facility" as used in subsection (8) of this section means any place maintained for the confinement, pursuant to law, of persons charged with or convicted of an offense, held pursuant to the "Colorado Children's Code", held for extradition, or otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court.

(4) would cover your shooting criminally. But what about civilly? What's the case law in regards to civil actions for excessive force like out there?

 

[Mainsail]

I will reiterate that I boil this whole situation down to this: Someone who just shot another and still has the gun is now turning towards me.

…the witness says the shooter barely acknowledged him.

The word ‘acknowledged’ is the past tense of the word acknowledge. To me this indicates that it was NOT something that occurred to him as the shooter was turning towards him, but something he realized after it happened. At the moment of the shooting, the witness had no idea what the intentions of the shooter were.

You may have just shot an undercover officer from another agency who had to shoot in the line of duty.

Ok, enough of that nonsense. No police officer is going to rush up to a car which has just crashed into a fence and murder the driver in cold blood. There is no possible scenario of which I can conceive that would justify such a shooting.

Let’s entertain your whimsical scenario, ok? The witness and the shooter arrive at the scene and the shooter, who according to your theory is a police officer, shoots the woman slumped against the steering wheel or airbag. Now, this officer turns and shoots you (it makes as much sense as him shooting an accident victim), what can you do? Are you allowed to return fire? You seem to be saying no. At no point did the shooter identify himself (as would be required) as a police officer. He might be a police officer, but then again, he might be the Pope or your own father in disguise. It seems a tad silly to speculate about what or who the shooter might be when he’s less than one second away from killing you.

C’mon Jeff, I’m not in the group that believes in shooting someone first and trying to look for justification afterward, and I’m the first to admit there’s a lot of information that we don’t have here, but you cannot say that someone with a loaded gun in their hand and turning toward you requires hours of contemplation before you may act to defend yourself.

The shooter had motive, means, and opportunity to kill the witness. That he didn’t was as miraculous as it was unexpected.

 

[Jeff White]

Ok, enough of that nonsense. No police officer is going to rush up to a car which has just crashed into a fence and murder the driver in cold blood. There is no possible scenario of which I can conceive that would justify such a shooting.

Real simple, officer, ccw holder whoever approaches the car to render aid and faces driver with gun in hand. Not as improbable as you think.

C’mon Jeff, I’m not in the group that believes in shooting someone first and trying to look for justification afterward, and I’m the first to admit there’s a lot of information that we don’t have here, but you cannot say that someone with a loaded gun in their hand and turning toward you requires hours of contemplation before you may act to defend yourself.

I'm not saying it requires hours of contemplation. The fact that the witness never stated he felt threatened and that the shooter acted as if he wasn't there tells me all I need to know. This guy, while he turned out to be a murderer was not a threat to the witness no matter how much the shoot first and ask questions later crowd tries to make it out to be.

My point is, the witness doesn't have a clue what happened. He knew what he saw, and that was enough to make a reasonable person believe he witnessed a crime. But the shooter did not threaten the witness. And that removes self defense from the equation if the witness shoots him.

The smart person moves to cover as soon as the shooting starts and acts from there. The witness arrived by car, that provided him with plenty of steel and cast aluminum (engine block) to put between himself and the shooters handgun. There is no reason to shoot someone who is not a threat. Do you shoot everyone at the range who turns toward you with a gun in his hand? Of course not. Why not, because you feel safe on the range and don't expect the guy on the firing point next to you to shoot you. However you might shoot him if he began screaming at you for some perceived wrong and then turned toward you raising his gun.

Everyone who has never had to try to sort out what happened in a violent situation thinks that it will be immediately obvious what has happened. The truth is much different and it isn't a good idea to go around shooting people who aren't a threat to you. The shooter was not a threat to the witness.

"He was very nonchalant about it," he said. "I saw him turn toward me after he shot her. He looked right at me and he had no interest at all."

What part of "He looked right at me and he had no interest at all." constitutes a threat?

 

[Kleanbore]

(4) would cover your shooting criminally.

I don't think so, Jeff. See (7):

A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

The shooter had motive, means, and opportunity to kill the witness.

Mainsail, the man had a gun, but I've seen nothing establishing motive.

My point is, the witness doesn't have a clue what happened.

Yep, wouldn't it be great if the witness inoccently made some reasonable assumptions stepped into the middle of a drug bust or an arrest that had turned violent....

 

[Mainsail]

The motive is the most obvious motive; the "witness" was a witness.

From the follow up story:

The witness stopped to get out and see if the woman was OK, but that's when a man stopped and got out of his dark colored sedan and fired a gun into the driver's side of the Dodge, according to police.

No, nobody in his or her right mind observing that would think for one second that it was a drug bust going down. If it were a cop he would have awaited backup before approaching the car, and he would have identified himself as a police officer for precisely the reasons you mention; he doesn’t want to get shot. Do you think the police are inanely unaware that there are armed citizens about? Maybe not in Jeff’s neighborhood, but in most places they know people are packing, it’s no secret.

Address the issue: A man who just shot a woman who has just crashed her car is turning towards you with a loaded gun. Feel free to call a time-out to check his credentials.

 

[Jeff White]

No, nobody in his or her right mind observing that would think for one second that it was a drug bust going down.

How many drug busts have you personally participated in? How many years on the street do you have? You obviously have never seen officers do things with their adrenalin flowing that might be against all of their training and even common sense. Anyone in his right mind would believe they had just witnessed a shooting. Anyone with a lick of common sense would also realize that in the absence of a clear threat, they had no reason to act, because they had no idea what they had actually witnessed. Blue on blue shootings happen all too frequently despite all kinds of procedures designed to prevent them.

Address the issue: A man who just shot a woman who has just crashed her car is turning towards you with a loaded gun. Feel free to call a time-out to check his credentials.

That's exactly correct. Where is the threat to the witness?

Tell me where the threat to the witness is?

Quote:
"He was very nonchalant about it," he said. "I saw him turn toward me after he shot her. He looked right at me and he had no interest at all."

What part of "He looked right at me and he had no interest at all." constitutes a threat?

I ask again, what part of he looked right at me and had no interest at all makes him a threat to the witness?

From the followup story:

Authorities say the man got back in his car and drove off.

Yep, looked right at the witness and showed no interest, and got back into his car and drove off. Pretty threatening behavior there. By all means shoot him. Are you so sure a jury once properly instructed by the judge on Colorado deadly force law would rule justifiable homicide - self defense that you are willing to bet your freedom on it or spend every penny you have made in your life keeping your freedom.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let's apply some risk management techniques here. We'll start by identifying the risks. How about the following:

1. The shooter sees the witness, and although he first appeared nonchallant, the shooter raises his gun and fires, wounding or killing the witness. What's the best mitigation strategy? How about getting out of harm's way?

The smart person moves to cover as soon as the shooting starts and acts from there. The witness arrived by car, that provided him with plenty of steel and cast aluminum (engine block) to put between himself and the shooters handgun.

Alternative mitigation strategies? Well, the witness could stay and aim his gun at the witness, intending to shoot. That creates two more risks:

2. The shooter, who had not intended to shoot the witness, realizes that the witness has now become a threat and shoots first, killing or maiming the witness. How would you mitigate that one? Avoid the situation:

Again,

The smart person moves to cover as soon as the shooting starts and acts from there. The witness arrived by car, that provided him with plenty of steel and cast aluminum (engine block) to put between himself and the shooters handgun.

By the way, wouldn't it be the a revoltin' development if the witness were to lose his lower jaw or be paralyzed, and as Duke of Doubt suggested, the shooter were to be found to have been justified in using deadly force for self defense?

Finally,

3. The witness fires and hits the shooter. Based on witness testimony, forensic evidence, security camera evidence, or whatever, the witness is charged, perhaps convicted, and/or sued. Best case outcome? Very high legal costs. Worst? Imprisonment and/or high civil judgements. Mitigation strategy? Again,

The smart person moves to cover as soon as the shooting starts and acts from there. The witness arrived by car, that provided him with plenty of steel and cast aluminum (engine block) to put between himself and the shooters handgun.

From this analysis, I conclude the following:

The smart person moves to cover as soon as the shooting starts and acts from there. The witness arrived by car, that provided him with plenty of steel and cast aluminum (engine block) to put between himself and the shooters handgun.

Now, I've never been in such a situation The limited training I have says simply to try to first attempt to avoidance, disengage,, escape or evade before firing. As in move to cover....

Where's the upside for doing anything else?

 

[Jeff White]

Where's the upside for doing anything else?

There isn't any upside to doing anything else, the witness is not sworn and has no duty to act. Any other action is fraught with additional risk, physical and financial.

To suggest that any further action is required or desirable or worth the risk takes us into the emotional and philosophical discussion that isn't on topic here.

 

[Peakbagger46]

In Response to Jeff White

Jeff,
Thank you for your well thought-out response. I don't mean to say that shooting without verbal commands is the norm, it it not; there are situations when this is absolutly appropriate, but not most of the time.

My posts in this thread were more of a gut reaction against the attitude of liablity I see prevelant here. My gut tells me THINKING ABOUT LIABLITLY WHEN THE CHIPS ARE DOWN WILL GET YOU AND POSSIBLY SOME OTHER INNOCENT KILLED.

At the end of the day, we are all second guessing/drawing conclusions from, an event to which we were not privy to experience first hand. In all honesty I can't say what I would have done in this situation. As other have said, depending on what was observed at the scene it could have appeared as a accident, drug deal, self defense shooting.

I don't want to appear "trigger happy". There have been several times on patrol when I was legally justified in shooting a suspect but refrained from doing so because I saw another way out; neither I nor my fellow officers have a blood lust where we look for a reason to shoot "bad guys".

At the end of the day, I really believed 99.9% of citizens who visit sights such as this are good people who carry guns with the best of intentions. Cops CANNOT protect you from a dynamic situation most of the time. I will bust my butt getting to where a citizen needs help, but the sad truth is violent encounters are over most of the time before I get on scene. It is up to you, the gun-bearing Americans, to protect yourselves and your family from evil. The best of you may be called to protect strangers in very rare situations.

I can't stress enough, however, that thinking about civil liability at the time when TSHTF WILL GET YOU KILLED. Train to the point where you have predetermined survival responses. Unfortunatly, as civilians, you won't likely have enough actual situations to enable this to come easly, but I truly believed in CCW holder's ablities to defend themselves.

Lastly, I am glad to see honest debate over scenarious such as this, thinking about such matters and forming a game plan prior to an encounter will help to keep you and yours safe.

God Bless,
Josh

 

[Jeff White]

Hi Josh,
I don't think we're fostering an attitude of liability as much as we are trying to make people think about how serious a deadly force encounter is. I don't know what the POST requirement for firearms/use of deadly force training is in Colorado, but it's 40 hours here. (It was only 24 when I went through training years ago). Now contrast that to what most states require for a CCW permit. Many states require no training and it's minimal in the rest. So your average CCW holder gets a bare minimum introduction into a complex subject and then straps on his gun and goes on with his life. There are no requirements for continuing education, as far as I know, no state sends out an update when a court decision changes use of force criteria. Granted most of those court decisions don't affect the armed citizen because the armed citizen isn't doing the state's business. Except when they might decide to intervene in a crime in progress. Then things get a bit more complicated.

The issue here is if the shooter did present a threat to the witness. From the news reports we have to go on, it doesn't look that way. I'm sure that if you or I had happened on the scene on duty we would have attempted to take the shooter into custody. A verbal challenge and shooting the subject if he didn't follow our commands. Again a course of action not really applicable to the armed citizen.

This would be totally different if the witness had said, "He turned towards me, glared and started to raise his gun, I ducked behind my car and breathed easy when he got in his car and drove way." That would have been a shooting situation had the witness been armed. But the situation we are faced with is; "He looked right at me and he had no interest at all."

That tells me that the witness didn't feel threatened. So once you've made that statement, how do you justify shooting the subject?

No one is saying, don't shoot if you are faced with a threat. All anyone here is saying is, make sure it really is a threat before you shoot.

I don't think there is an officer working who hasn't been in a situation where he could have legally shot someone, but didn't because there was another way to do what needs to be done.

When an armed citizen is confronted with that situation, his best answer might well be to leave and avoid the sticky situation completely. It's not unusual to have daydreams about breaking up a robbery by being the armed person on the scene. Every cop I know had them. I did. The thing is, the officer soon has enough experience with violence and the courts that those daydreams are tempered with reality. The private citizen doesn't usually get that dose of reality. The private citizen most likely has never shown up on the scene of a violent act and had his initial thoughts about what really happened totally turned upside down by a little investigation.

No one says don't shoot if you are truly in danger because you might get sued or might go to jail. Just make sure that you are actually facing a threat first.