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

Status
Not open for further replies.
You see a traffic accident. You and another motorist stop at the scene. You stopped to help so its reasonable to assume that the other motorist is trying help as well. You are most likely focused on the driver of the accident car and may not even notice that the other motorist has a gun in his hand until he starts shooting. At that point it's likely too late to save anyone but yourself. It takes time for your mind to switch gears from "this guy stopped to help" to "this guy is about to kill someone". The way the witness described the attack, I'm not sure he would have had time to do anything if he was armed. And I'm not sure a well trained LEO would have done much better.

I want to have a firm grasp on the situation if I am about to pull the trigger to save someone I don't know. If I were the witness, I doubt I could have or would have opened fire on the guy before he shot the woman. However, after shooting her, I would have my gun out and trained on him while taking cover. I would have told him to drop the gun and raise the hands. If he tried to flee, I might let him. But if took one step towards me, I'd let him have it. That's my $.02.
 
The law is not based on facts, only beliefs at the moment.

If at the time of the act resulting in use of deadly force against an idiot wielding a bb gun, you felt that it was a real weapon that could cause you injury or death, you are justified in the use of deadly force. I had a guy reveal to me a chrome and black 9mm Beretta. I was already pulling out the slack on my glock but lucky for him he dropped the weapon immediately. When it hit the ground it broke into two pieces. It was a bb gun. If he would have pointed it at me and I would have dropped him I would have felt no remorse for at that moment I was making a decision that would keep me alive. Dont bring and air gun to a firefight.
 
According to the newspaper, the shooting was over before our unnamed witness had any chance to react. Nothing he was humanly capable of doing could have stopped the shooting from occuring. Going after the assailant would have done nothing to help the woman at that point. Which , I thought, was the whole point of this exercise. If it were my wife or child I would much prefer you let the ex-boyfriend go and get some kind of aid to her, than engage him in a gun fight while she bleeds out
 
Couple things that I didn't see mentioned.
How does one know that the situation is not killing spree where the shooter has or will kill others aside from this victim? Will that affect your actions?
Witness saw the shooting but would have no way of knowing if the victim was dead. What if no action was taken toward the shooter, aid was rendered to the victim and the shooter returned?
 
Guys, this is little simpler than people are making it. If the guy raises his gun toward you, you empty your mag. If he doesn't, you don't - you let him go on his merry way. The facts say that the gun-toter had no interest in the witness/story-telling, whose place we are putting ourselves in. Had the gun-toter sparked an interest to eliminate a witness, his first act would have been a facial response, and/or movement toward the witness, and/or raising of his gun. If so, time to kill or be killed; otherwise, evade and offer help to victim.

As for intervening, that's a non-issue, being an impossibility here - the murder had already occurred before he could do anything.
 
According to this account you would not have known what was happening. He saw a woman go off the road, unaware she was likely shot.
He got out to help her with the vehicle problems.

Then his first clue was a man walking up to the vehicle and emptying rounds into her.

At that point immediately evading and getting ready to use whatever force was available if necessary is a far smarter decision than standing there unnarmed leaving the outcome soley in the killer's hands.
The fact he did not choose to kill him as a witness was just his luck. He had no way of knowing the killer's thought process and the time to draw, retrieve a weapon, attack or disarm if really close, or try to escape is not after the guy decides to start unloading lead in your direction. The time to act is before his mind has gone from his current target, the woman, to thinking about you.

His ability to intervene or save her based on the perspective given in this story was non-existant. His ability to save himself from being eliminated as a witness on the side of the road did exist. In this situation that choice was left to the killer, who chose to spare his life. Fortunately for him.
 
After witnessing an execution, my first instinct would be to eliminate the threat.

I'm not being cavalier, I just know how what my instant knee-jerk reaction would be.

Of course, I live in a state that rarely indicts people who kill BG's, so it wouldn't be much of a legal issue.
 
Jeff, I think you're getting to caught up in the legal aspect and you assume anyone speaking of "duty" must be speaking about a "badge or commission" or some other sort of official or legally defined duty.

I think you're forgetting that some people feel inside themselves a personal duty to right and wrong that supersedes concerns about their own legal status

I am focused on that because the legal and tactical issues are the only discussion of this incident that are on topic here. THR is not a debating society, nor do we deal with philosophy. It is not on topic to talk about whatever you feel your personal duty is. A personal duty is a personal choice, not everyone will have that same sense of duty. Whenever we have that discussion we end up with deleted posts, members warned and sometimes banned, because some members are not mature enough to recognize that not everyone shares the same personal values they do. We've already had six posts deleted from this thread.
 
After witnessing an execution, my first instinct would be to eliminate the threat.
Every situation is unique however. While in this situation the circumstances make the killer's actions fairly clear in many they are not.
The last thing you want to do is kill someone using justified lethal force before understanding what is really happening.
Nor are you judge and jury for criminal actions if an actual criminal is no longer a threat.

In fact in a large number of public self defense cases especialy involving firearms the defender is initialy reported as an aggressor by the majority of witnesses.
The reason is clear. The first thing that caused most people to even notice something was going on was the sound of gunshots. They then look and see someone harming another person. At a point when hopefully things are working out best for the armed defender.
Thier mind often jumps to various conclusions. Such as the conclusion they are witnessing a murder.
Afterwards when answering questions and giving a statement thier mind has began to exxagerate the clarity of what they saw. They often become positive they witnessed a murder, they saw the cruel killer standing thier discharging the weapon as the victim collapsed. When in reality the "victim" could have been a robber who failed in his latest attempt at predatory behavior.
So even with dozens or hundreds of witnesses sure they saw a murder, the guy could just have been a victim legaly defending himself.

The mind can make further assumptions based on appearances. If the shooter resmebles what they think bad people look like.
By believing they witnessed a bad person doing a bad thing thier mind also will seek to find other bad qualities of the individual. Like how they were suspicious before the event.

The valid defender leaving the danger to call police for example remembered as "murdering and then fleeing the scene". In some self defense situations, especialy when a group of individuals is involved like a group of young men or teenagers or gang members leaving the immediate scene to avoid further conflict with the friends of the shot individual can be in your best interest.
If you just defended yourself from a gang member in that gang's part of town standing around waiting for police can make you ripe for retaliation. Proper procedure is not going to protect you from "revenge" from thier homeboy.
If you just defended yourself from a violent individual standing around thier angry friends and family could also pose a serious risk.
How many parents do you hear call thier vicious child an angel after they commit a long string of crimes?
How many friends, girlfriends, or wives think a man that savagely attacks people over minor insults was a nice guy and are going to view the defender as over reacting?

The majority of situations are far less ideal than the perfectly clear and justified scenarios gun rights groups point out. In fact they point out those situations because the details make them so transparent to readers.

Consider police responding to a home invasion assuming the person firing shots is the criminal and needs to be dealt with. It could be you defending yourself from the criminal with your own weapon. Should the responders rush to judgement? It could also be you or family being executed by the invading criminal. Should they rush to judgement?

You hear an active shooting in progress. A madman is randomly shooting things outside. You look out and see an armed man with his weapon taking aim at someone else. Do you know he is the madman? Is he an undercover? Is he a good armed citizen who witnessed more of the situation than you?
The "innocent and cowering" target he is aiming at could be the active shooter kneeling down and reloading his weapon before he is going to continue his rampage.
The Tyler Texas court shooting had all those elements present, including the CCW holder that shot and hit the criminal twice with his pistol. So did the North Hollywood shootout with many armed undercovers running around. Even police and citizens in the area were reporting the armed undercovers running around as potentialy more suspects.

You need to assess the situation and understand what you are seeing.
Be careful of assumptions of what you see.
 
Last edited:
I saw him turn toward me after he shot her. He looked right at me

What would I do?? RUN LIKE HELL (while probably sh*tting myself the whole way)! If I just saw a woman get murdered and her murderer knows it? And he has also seen my car and perhaps license plate, and therefore could quite easily find out where I live? Hell, I might consider plastic surgery too.
 
As an update I just heard on the news apparantly the shooter is dead. Killed by Police
 
"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."

Too late to prevent him from shooting the motorist.

But the second the shooter turns his attention towards me I would consider it a threat.
 
thorazine said:
But the second the shooter turns his attention towards me I would consider it a threat.

BINGO!
Well, at least someone in this forum can read a story and comprehend the timeline.
 
Ideally, if I see this guy approaching the car with a gun and with obvious intent to murder the driver, (i.e. he isn't shouting "Police! Keep your hands where I can see them.) I would draw and shoot him as fast as I could.

Realistically, I would probably be shocked or confused to the point of inaction just to see the man coming at her with a gun.

But honestly, when I heard the first gunshot I think my reaction would be similar to hearing the buzzer after "Shooter ready?... Standby..." Draw, sight picture, press, reset, press.

The argument that he might shoot someone else is pretty lame. Who else was there to shoot?
I don't know she is dead. He might shoot her again. He might shoot me, the witness.

Those who say they wouldn't draw and shoot unless he pointed the gun at you better be determined to carry through with it while taking lead.
 
I don't know she is dead. He might shoot her again. He might shoot me, the witness.

You don't know who she is, you don't know who he is. You haven't got a clue what's transpiring and you're ready to jump in shooting.....I am so glad that so many people here are blessed with the ability to instantly assess everything that is going on around them, including the back story and make such perfect decisions in a split second.

Too many people act as though they are looking for an excuse to shoot someone.........
 
I agree with Jeff White. I just saw on "Outrageous Videos" on T.V. that a psycho woman was beating up a man and chasing him. He was running away until he got cornered. So, he hits her back. Bystanders immediately thinks that he is beating her up and beat him to death. He was only trying to protect himself. Guess what? Those guys that beat him to death "protecting" the woman are now in jail.

My point is, you just walked into the middle of something. You don't know what is really happening. For all you know the man could be protecting himself. I would dial 911 and render first aid to the woman. I would get the guy's license plate number. I would NOT try to apprehend nor shoot the guy. I would only do so if he pointed his gun at me.
 
If I'm not in danger, and my family isn't in danger (or present), then my weapon stays holstered. If I have any time to think at all, I would hope I would be more concerned with cover than morality. Once I'm safe, I'd try to locate the shooter while I dialed 911.

I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I have bad dreams about doing the right thing, and losing my family, freedom, and livelyhood because of it. The wife and I have discussed this many times (she's going for her CCW too). If the family isn't in danger, then we don't draw. It may sound harsh, but so would hearing that cell door slam shut. I'm all about CCW fellas, don't get me wrong--I don't think I'd hesitate a second to protect my loved ones--but my underwear is merely white. I'm not saying I wouldn't be bothered with the moral quandary later, but in all reality, my training says, for this particular scenario as it is written, lethal force is neither required or justifiable.

Guys, if I ever have to use my weapon, I want it to be such a clear case of self-defense that there is no possible way that I hurt my family. I am not a hero. I'm just a Dad and a Husband, and want to stay that way.
 
Last edited:
So help me out here, Jeff. Who in the world is justified in walking up to a lady that just crashed her car, with a gun drawn and a look on his face that says he has "tunnel vision" with determination to shoot her, and then go ahead and shoot her three times? How can you explain that as anything other than murder?

Suppose she had a gun and pointed it at him, an innocent CCWer, and he simply reacted and shot her. That is the most plausible scenario, but that would go down differently than what this witness described, i.e. he would likely show some sort of surprise and move backwards rather than toward her as he drew and fired.

Or maybe the guy that shot her was a cop? I don't know what cops get away with in Illinois, but I can't imagine a scenario where a cop would be justified in acting the way this murderer did.

Sixtigers said:
my training says, for this particular scenario as it is written, lethal force is neither required or justifiable.

Of course it isn't required, but where in the United States is it not justifiable to shoot a person who is committing murder?

I don't know, maybe we are all just picturing the scenario in our own unique ways, based on the limited synopsis provided in the article. The way I read it, the witness saw that the murderer had the ability, the opportunity, and the intent to murder her. So then the question is not whether or not I would be justified in shooting him, but will I and others be safer if I shoot immediately, run for cover immediately, or wait and see if he points the gun at me, and then draw and shoot.
 
The citizens of this country were scared of losing everything when they threw off the yoke of the British crown.

My, how far we have fallen.

"If it doesn't concern me, it's not my problem"

"If it doesn't concern my city, it's not my problem"

"If it doesn't concern my state, it's not my problem"

"If it doesn't concern my country, it's not my problem."

Great deeds require sacrifice. Do any of you honestly think rebuilding our nation will be accomplished through whining and wishing? Lack of action on the part of the public is why we're in the toilet.

But by all means, keep doing nothing. It seems to be working like gangbusters.
 
It is not that such a situation does not concern me, for in fact I would be very concerned. Concerned enough to render aid and prevent more bloodshed.

Shooting a shooter does not provide justice to the woman who was shot, nor does it protect your family. In fact you may be risking all you have and all your family has.


If the shooter threatens others the situation may change, but just because you witnessed someone get shot does not mean you automatically receive a green light to shoot the shooter.
 
Years ago when I took my concealed carry course, the instructor told us, "You'll get a card. Not a badge. Nor a cape."
 
You don't get a red cape and blue tights either.

I think this would be a very healthy attitude. Particularly in this story where there was no chance of preventing the shooting and the shooter had no interest in the witness. However, the witness should absolutely be ready and willing to use lethal force in self defense. Second to that, avoiding a confrontation while taking note of details to help ID the shooter and his vehicle is what I'd hope for.
 
Jkimball, I'm pretty sure that you're correct about the justification of shooting a person committing a murder. Even in California, we have that statute...

What I would be worried about is the fact that I have arrived after the fact. I didn't have a chance to prevent the murder. Given that opportunity? My answer may have been different. Would I have intervened to prevent the murder of another human being? I hope I would. That isn't the case with the original post.

DHjenkins--You don't know me, or what I've done, or what I still do. You also don't sound like a man with a family. In order to keep this High Road, I'll just say we disagree on what's more important: one's duty to strangers, or one's duty to family.

Respectfully, Sixtigers
 
So help me out here, Jeff. Who in the world is justified in walking up to a lady that just crashed her car, with a gun drawn and a look on his face that says he has "tunnel vision" with determination to shoot her, and then go ahead and shoot her three times? How can you explain that as anything other than murder?

How do you know for sure it wasn't a plainclothes officer attempting to make an arrest and the woman was armed? How do you know for sure she didn't kidnap the child she didn't have custody of and display a weapon when the father approached?

You know when I dropped my crystal ball and cracked it years ago I lost the ability to walk into a situation I knew nothing about, full of people I had never seen before and instantly know exactly what was happening, who the good guys and bad guys were and who's claim was the right one. Heck, poor old me often had to interview everyone involved separately, take written statements and then sit down with the states attorney to figure out exactly what had happened.

Bottom line here is that the shooter was never a threat to the witness. The witness said the shooter acted like he wasn't present. Given that, where is the justification to shoot? Your CCW permit does not give you the authority to act for the state and become the judge jury and executioner because you saw a murder committed in front of you. And just as an aside, you saw what could have been, probably was a murder, but at that point, what do you really know? Not a thing. You know what you saw happen. You don't know the back story, you don't know anything else. And many of you are willing to act on that limited information. You are either letting your outrage over the crime and your desire to see justice served over rule your rational mind or you are looking for a reason to shoot someone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top