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

[Mainsail]

Bottom line here is that the shooter was never a threat to the witness.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The witness was one lucky SOB. The witness did not know the shooter wasn’t a threat until after the shooter didn’t shoot him. In the moment, all the witness knew was that someone had just shot a woman in a car and, still holding the gun, turned toward him. At that point, many of us would have shot in self-defense. Not to protect the woman, but to protect ourselves. Not to ‘get involved’ (because at that instant the witness was already irretrievably involved) but to protect ourselves.

The witness said the shooter acted like he wasn't present.

That’s was his observation in hindsight, not at the moment. Again, in the moment, all the witness knew was that someone had just shot a woman in a car and, still holding the gun, turned toward him.

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.

That’s not the argument so it’s silly for you to take a position counter to it. The argument is; all the witness knew was that someone had just shot a woman in a car and, still holding the gun, turned toward him. Shooting in self-defense may be an execution in Illinois, but not in the rest of the country.

Everything else in your position is pure speculation and nothing more. You cannot argue from a position of speculation and maintain intellectual honesty. You need to read the story and discern the critical difference between what the witness saw and heard at the moment and what he, looking back in hindsight, drew conclusions about. He wasn’t involving himself in a shooting, that situation was thrust upon him, just like it could do to you or any of us at any time, under a myriad of circumstance. You could be standing on the street looking in a shop window and someone standing near you could shoot another and turn towards you. You don’t get to call a time-out when someone shoots another and turns toward you still holding the gun. You don’t get time to reason and speculate about the shooter’s intentions and motives.

 

[stonecutter2]

Guy fires shots into a woman point blank, I'm standing there (let's say carrying a concealed firearm, though i can't because i live in Illinois), and he turns, faces me, and stares - and he's within range of my firearm.

I eliminate him because he raised his gun and pointed it at me. That's my story. Dead men tell no tales.

Now, being totally removed from the situation and staring at this story on the internet, that's pretty easy to say. The reality would probably be over in a split second, and maybe I might have been able to get my hand near my concealed firearm by the time the guy was turning to leave the area after staring at me.

I think what the witness did was all most could do, who haven't witnessed point blank executions regularly. You'd hope the threat was only to the victim, and then fret about it once it's all over and done with - and be glad the killer didn't level his firearm in your direction. There would probably be little time in this situation to realize the guy WAS a threat. He was apparently following her, and she flipped out (or got shot) and lost control of the car, and the witness would easily assume he was just another driver coming to her aid, until BANG BANG BANG. You're talking a window of a few seconds of threat recognition and elimination - a lot of people are not accustomed to handling such a scenario.

I think the guy's lucky, and if it were me, I'd have been lucky. Even with a carry piece at the ready, I don't know if I'd have reacted any differently than this person did.

 

[Jeff White]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The witness was one lucky SOB. The witness did not know the shooter wasn’t a threat until after the shooter didn’t shoot him.

When did you personally talk to the witness and get this information? It certainly wasn't in the news article. You haven't got a clue what the witness knew at the time. No one but the witness does.

In the moment, all the witness knew was that someone had just shot a woman in a car and, still holding the gun, turned toward him. At that point, many of us would have shot in self-defense. Not to protect the woman, but to protect ourselves.

And at that point many of you may have made the wrong decision, jumped into a situation you knew nothing about and been killed in a gunfight or charged with murder. You haven't got a clue how he was holding the gun, if it was raised or not. Obviously the witness didn't perceive him as a threat. Self defense is one thing, walking around armed looking for justification to shoot someone is at best irresponsible at worst criminal.

That’s not the argument so it’s silly for you to take a position counter to it. The argument is; all the witness knew was that someone had just shot a woman in a car and, still holding the gun, turned toward him. Shooting in self-defense may be an execution in Illinois, but not in the rest of the country.

What you are proposing is not self defense it's murder, where is the threat to the witness? Let's say that you just witnessed a plainclothes police officer shoot someone in the line of duty and he turned in your direction, and you shot him. Self defense? Good luck with that argument.

Everything else in your position is pure speculation and nothing more. You cannot argue from a position of speculation and maintain intellectual honesty. You need to read the story and discern the critical difference between what the witness saw and heard at the moment and what he, looking back in hindsight, drew conclusions about. He wasn’t involving himself in a shooting, that situation was thrust upon him, just like it could do to you or any of us at any time, under a myriad of circumstance.

The witness didn't involve himself in anything. He did exactly as what he should have done, he was a good witness. You are right that situation could come under a myriad of circumstances. And your total refusal to accept that things might not be the way you want them to be so you can shoot someone, will eventually get you in deep trouble. You my friend are the one who's not being intellectually honest here. In your mind everything in the world is cut and dried and clear as glass. See person shoot someone, that person turns and faces, me = shoot that person to you. In real life things are seldom that clear. For all you know you could have just witnessed anything from a fellow CCW holder trying to give assistance to an accident victim who met a gun when he got to the door, to a serial killer chasing down and executing a victim who was trying to escape. But if he turns and faces you afterwords he's dead. All I've got say is you better be right because the consequences of being wrong are serious.

You don’t get to call a time-out when someone shoots another and turns toward you still holding the gun. You don’t get time to reason and speculate about the shooter’s intentions and motives.

No but you do get time to evaluate what is a threat and what's not. Did he raise the gun? Did he verbally challenge the witness? How close are you?

According to the report he didn't raise the gun, he didn't challenge the witness, he acted like he wasn't there. That wasn't in retrospect, the witness observed that at the time. Every one of you gunfighters out there is making the shoot no shoot decision on incomplete information. And on the remote chance you ever do get involved in a shooting I sure hope your posts here and who knows where else where you admitted to the world you would make a shoot/no shoot decision based on the meager information available in a news article doesn't come back to haunt you.

On day (if it hasn't already happened) some member of a gun forum is going to be charged and maybe convicted because of what he posted in threads like this show a cavalier attitude towards the use of deadly force.

 

[Kleanbore]

One day (if it hasn't already happened) some member of a gun forum is going to be charged and maybe convicted because of what he posted in threads like this show a cavalier attitude towards the use of deadly force.

Don't ever underestimate that risk! Add to that civl liability.

In addition, posts of that nature do not help the preservation of the rights of law abiding citizens to carry arms--one bit.

 

[rondog]

So, Jeff, if you were in that situation, you wouldn't have drawn your own weapon and prepared to defend yourself UNTIL the shooter had pointed his gun at you?

Sorry, I may not have fired on the shooter for what he did, but I'm getting my gun out asap and preparing to defend myself if he decides to shoot at ME too. I don't plan to wait for an invitiation to the dance, but I'm getting my shoes on just in case.

 

[Jeff White]

So, Jeff, if you were in that situation, you wouldn't have drawn your own weapon and prepared to defend yourself UNTIL the shooter had pointed his gun at you?

Where did I say that one shouldn't be prepared? That's right, I didn't. I did say I wouldn't have fired given the information that is available. There is a difference between being prepared to fight and gunning someone down in Charles Bronson movie type revenge fantasy and then trying to make up justification for it later.

 

[DHJenkins]

So the shooter wasn't an immediate threat to the witness.

What about the rest of society?

People keep posting about how the police are the last to arrive, or how "they only clean up the mess". They post how an armed citizenry will make a difference in crime.

Exactly what difference will be made if no one is willing to do anything?

What, out of every 10,000 robberies, 1 won't go so well?

And sixtigers, they aren't strangers - they are your fellow citizens; but thanks for making my point.

EDIT: I just wanted to add, Al Queda is counting on your inaction. After all, the guy with box cutter wasn't threating everyone...

 

[Kleanbore]

So the shooter wasn't an immediate threat to the witness.

If so...the witness would not have been justified in the use of deadly force. One is justified in using deadly force if he is in immediate danger of death or serious injury and deadly force is necessary to prevent it. It is also permissible in some states to use deadly force to protect someone else, but in this case the time for that had passed.

What about the rest of society?

Speculating here?

The citizen is not empowered to pass judgment on guilt or innocence, determine sentence, or execute the sentence. That's a good thing.

What are you suggesting?

 

[Jeff White]

So the shooter wasn't an immediate threat to the witness.

What about the rest of society?

Were you commissioned as a peace officer when you got your permit? If not, then you have no duty to protect society, just yourself.

People keep posting about how the police are the last to arrive, or how "they only clean up the mess". They post how an armed citizenry will make a difference in crime.

It's a gun culture myth that armed citizens have any effect on the crime rate. The latest research shows that gun laws, whether they greatly restrict firearms or if they make firearms ownership and carry very easy have no effect on the crime rate. Firearms laws are pretty much neutral.

Exactly what difference will be made if no one is willing to do anything?

You have just hit on the primary reason people not in the gun culture are against concealed carry. The idea of a bunch of people with guns running amok fighting crime and/or evil rightfully scares the hell out of them.

EDIT: I just wanted to add, Al Queda is counting on your inaction. After all, the guy with box cutter wasn't threating everyone...

Al Queda isn't concerned with CCW holders. CCW holders would be nothing more then a speed bump to them. We have a rule about reality here and that statement is really stretching it.

 

[twoclones]

What about the rest of society?

I would gather, from the original post, that the rest of society was not in immediate danger.

Exactly what difference will be made if no one is willing to do anything?

I think a big difference has already been made by those who *do something* by defending themselves. Isn't violent crime at a 30 year low?

 

[DHJenkins]

No, I wasn't commissioned as a peace officer.

I guess my views are clouded by the fact that in my state, I could (and would) shoot that man and be justified.

 

[Jeff White]

I guess my views are clouded by the fact that in my state, I could (and would) shoot that man and be justified.

Could you show me the law that permits you to perform a summary execution if you witness a crime?

 

[1Texican!]

You Can't be Serious - are you?

I wouldn't even call police, though if I later learned of an investigation premised on the facts described, I'd have come forward as a witness. Reluctantly.

Duke of Doubt: Thanks for adding the word "reluctantly"; otherwise, I'd be forced to believe that you possess absolutely NO Sense of Civic and/or Moral Responsibility Whatsoever- that your true preference would be to do Nothing at All . . . just walk away & not get involved??? - Incredible.

Please explain, if you can, how you justify that to yourself - let alone anyone else . . . I'm totally Dumbfounded!

 

[Jeff White]

Moderator Hat On

Duke of Doubt: Thanks for adding the word "reluctantly"; otherwise, I'd be forced to believe that you possess absolutely NO Sense of Civic and/or Moral Responsibility Whatsoever- that your true preference would be to do Nothing at All . . . just walk away & not get involved??? - Incredible.

Please explain, if you can, how you justify that to yourself - let alone anyone else . . . I'm totally Dumbfounded!

The legal and tactical aspects of this incident are on topic. Anyone's personal moral choices are not. If we are going to insist on going there, this thread will go the way of most of the other threads that involve should I or should I not intervene....CLOSED and quickly off the first page. We don't discuss personal moral codes or philosophy here.

 

[Kleanbore]

I guess my views are clouded by the fact that in my state, I could (and would) shoot that man and be justified.

And what would that legal justification be, pray tell?

That question pertains to "could."

Be very careful with "would." Possible basis for establishing mens rea in the potential event, I should think. Jeff White said that in plain English at 3:59.

 

[DHJenkins]

Wow. This is just like modern america.

Your burden is to prove me guilty, not the other way around. I don't have to prove my innocence.

Show me case law in which a Texas resident was indicted of a felony murder while protecting his property, the property others, his life, the life of someone else, or any simliar situation.

 

[Kleanbore]

Show me case law in which a Texas resident was indicted of a felony murder while protecting his property, the property others, his life, the life of someone else, or any simliar situation.

Not relevant. In this case, the witness has seen someone shoot someone. The operative words are has seen. And it has been concluded that he was not himself in danger. Had he fired, he would not have been protecting anyone.

By the way, be aware, if you don't know it already, that the provision in the Texas Penal Code that provides for the use of deadly force for protecting property only applies at night.

I don't have to prove my innocence.

Very true, but if you shoot someone simply because you have seen him shoot someone else, the state may have little difficulty in proving your guilt.

 

[JKimball]

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?

I hear what you're saying Jeff, but if you are only going to use your weapon when you are 100% sure that you are in danger, you will basically have to resign yourself to the plan that you are not going to shoot someone until you have been shot/stabbed, etc. And I really don't think either of the scenarios you suggested matches this description:

The moment he got out of his car near 35th Avenue and Wadsworth Boulevard on Tuesday night, he noticed another man walk up to 34-year-old Amber Kathleen Cremeens' car and fire three shots.

"I looked up and then I saw him shoot her at point-blank range," the witness said. "He had tunnel vision. He had an agenda. He was out to kill this person."

There is more to this story than "You see a man fire three shots at a woman. What would you do?"

On day (if it hasn't already happened) some member of a gun forum is going to be charged and maybe convicted because of what he posted in threads like this show a cavalier attitude towards the use of deadly force.

I said I would shoot someone who was committing murder, to protect my life and the lives of any others currently exposed to his murderous behavior. If a jury ever wants to hold that against me, then my situation will be dire indeed.

 

[drjoker]

Sixtigers, you are wrong. You will not go to jail if you come to the aid of a woman who you are SURE is being murdered. Even if you shoot the guy, you are justified. According to Texas Penal Code 9.33: DEFENSE OF A THIRD PERSON. It is legal to use deadly force if "The actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.... against unlawful deadly force."

DHJenkins, you are right. As patriots, we the people have to stick up for each other or we are no longer American patriots.

However, let me reiterate that you've walked into the middle of something you know nothing about. However, if I were in the situation from the beginning and I knew what it was about, then I would come to the aid of the woman. For example, if I was in a bus with the woman and a man walks into the bus saying, "I am going to kill this woman. This doesn't concern you," and points a gun at the woman, I would shoot the man in a heartbeat. However, this is not the case. I wasn't there from the beginning of the event. I WALKED INTO THE MIDDLE OF SOMETHING THAT I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT.

Please guys, it is O.K. to be a hero, but it is more important to know that with a CCW permit, our greatest responsibility is RESTRAINT.

You must keep a cool head and show restraint or you could lose your CCW license. A police officer could confiscate your CCW license just for cussing or giving someone the middle finger: Texas Penal Code 42.01 Disorderly Conduct, "a person... uses... vulgar language..." or "makes an offensive gesture...."

Stay safe,
Drjoker.

 

[DHJenkins]

You have to admit, the anti-gun lobby is brilliant.

They're fixing it so that the prospect of using a firearm anywhre other than the range is so utterly terrifying to a law-abiding citizen that the issue of ownership will eventually become moot.

Next will be liability insurance...

 

[Duke of Doubt]

stonecutter2: "Guy fires shots into a woman point blank, I'm standing there (let's say carrying a concealed firearm, though i can't because i live in Illinois), and he turns, faces me, and stares - and he's within range of my firearm. I eliminate him because he raised his gun and pointed it at me. That's my story. Dead men tell no tales."

You'd shoot and then lie to police about the man pointing his gun at you?

Do you have any idea how many people are watching this little scene unfold from behind their venetian blinds since the first shell exploded? Filming it all with their mobile telephones? While speaking with the 911 operator?

stonecutter2: "I think what the witness did was all most could do, who haven't witnessed point blank executions regularly."

I've never met a fellow who regularly witnesses executions. What's it like?

 

[SrDedosRapidos]

Being that he had already committed the crime before i could realize what was going on, my gun would stay holstered but gripped and ready to speak if he decides to point it my way. Best to find cover and call the police immediately.

I have a strict policy of staying out of the business of strangers... who knows what in hell is going on? There are too many uncertainties and variables. My CCDW is to protect myself and the ones i love, not to play hero.

 

[Kleanbore]

You will not go to jail if you come to the aid of a woman who you are SURE is being murdered. Even if you shoot the guy, you are justified. According to Texas Penal Code 9.33: DEFENSE OF A THIRD PERSON. It is legal to use deadly force if "The actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.... against unlawful deadly force."

Come to the aid of...is being...necessary to protect....

How does that apply here? The deed had been done. The perp was no longer shooting. There was nothing that anyone could do at that point to protect the victim.

I said I would shoot someone who was committing murder, to protect my life and the lives of any others currently exposed to his murderous behavior.

Not quite the same as...

I guess my views are clouded by the fact that in my state, I could (and would) shoot that man and be justified.

"That man" was no longer committing murder.

You have to admit, the anti-gun lobby is brilliant. They're fixing it so that the prospect of using a firearm anywhre other than the range is so utterly terrifying to a law-abiding citizen that the issue of ownership will eventually become moot.

Actually, the gun lobby has had virtually nothing to do with formulating the laws that pertain here, except to keep in place the law(s) that keep Jeff White from carrying in Illinois.

Today's state laws regarding the use of deadly force have their roots in the English Common Law, which started to evolve during the reign of Henry II in the 1100s, in the era of edged weapons. Read a definitive text explaining the reasoning behind the pertinent aspects of the law and I'm sure you will come to realize why what is written today is for the most part proper and necessary for administering justice and maintaining a civilized society.

Without those laws, it would be impossible to distinguish between proper self defense and murder or the results of a dispute that had gotten out of hand, or to properly tell whether the self-preservation defense, when put forth, was justified. Further, individual citizens would be trying to enforce the law as they understood it without due process, without proper founding in the precepts of the law, without weighing carefully the facts at hand, and without checks and balances to ensure the proper administration of justice and protect the innocent.

It is the fear of precisely that that the gun lobby uses to try to sway the public against gun ownership. A false fear, I think, because the laws are in place, but let them be widely ignored and our cause is lost.

I eliminate him because he raised his gun and pointed it at me. That's my story. Dead men tell no tales.

As the Duke point out, eyewitnesses, security cameras, and 911 recordings may belie your testimony.

There would also be the very real risk of contradictory forensic evidence. Where and how your bullet(s) strike the person could tell a lot about whether his gun was in fact raised.

Finally, consider this: memoranda, notes, or correspondence to the effect of "here's what I (we) will tell the investigators if anything unfolds," or the like, will be presented as evidence. What do you think will be the effect of such evidence on the credibility of the defendant's testimony in court? At that point he is beyond helping himself.

 

[Mainsail]

"I saw him turn toward me after he shot her. He looked right at me and he had no interest at all."

It seems to be the opinion of some here that the witness was able to accurately ascertain, in a half second or so, that the shooter had no interest in him. At the point where he was turning to face the witness, he didn’t, and couldn’t possibly, determine that the shooter wasn’t interested in him. I don’t know if it’s a difference in culture, IOW, maybe in Illinois where few are ‘allowed’ to carry firearms, one is supposed to allow themselves to be shot first before they may respond in kind, but as I mentioned previously, in most of the states this would be a legal shoot.

Ayoob teaches a formula for determining the circumstances under which we would be justified in employing deadly force. The formula is both simple and yet complex. Deadly force is justified when you are confronted with "an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm" to either yourself or other innocents, whose innocence and situation you are totally certain about. You can't intervene with deadly force in a situation you come upon without knowing what's really happening. Don't make assumptions based on what seems to be happening. The danger must be clear and present, immediate and unavoidable. This formula is based on English Common Law and Dutch/Roman Law, and it applies in all fifty states. It is determined by three criteria which can be remembered by the acronym A.O.J. Think "Administration Of Justice". The situation must meet all three criteria.
A = Ability. The person deemed to be a threat must possess the ability or power to kill or maim.

O = Opportunity. The person deemed to be a threat must be capable of immediately employing his power to kill or maim.

J = Jeopardy. This means that the person deemed to be a threat must be acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude beyond doubt that his intent is to kill or cripple.

The shooter certainly had the ability to kill the witness; none of you armchair tacticians can deny that. Likewise, he also had the opportunity; after all, he only fired three shots and even a little .38 holds five. What we seem to disagree on is whether the witness was in jeopardy, and the difficulty appears to be in our different interpretations of the timeline. As I read it, he was. In the split second between discharging the third round and turning to face [me if I was] the witness, there is no possible way to determine that the intent of the shooter didn’t include shooting others.

Seriously, if it isn’t proper to defend yourself against someone who, after having just killed another in cold blood, turns toward you with a still-loaded gun, I have to ask what the hell are you carrying a gun for?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Ayoob has a lot of interesting ideas about guns and some other things, but one thing he conspicuously lacks is a law degree or a license to practice law in any United States jurisdiction, let alone "all fifty states."

At least in my state, it doesn't matter whether YOU think the shooter was a threat, or what factors may go into your calculation. It only matters whether a reasonable person reasonably would have believed that lethal force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or to others. The "reasonableness" is determined by the finder of fact with reference to considerable legal precedent and statutory authority, which precedent and authority varies considerably from state to state. Ayoob's "AOJ" is not among that precedent or authority.