Man draws gun, tries to shoot out tires


PDA






CZ-100
June 2, 2005, 09:45 AM
Story (http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050601/NEWS01/506010455/1075)

If you enjoyed reading about "Man draws gun, tries to shoot out tires" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pythonguy
June 2, 2005, 09:54 AM
Interesting situation, I don't think he's helping himself posing for that picture holding his gun in a wife beater t-shirt. The problem is in public with so many innocent bystanders around its not a good idea for him to shoot, if its our daughter or son being hit, god forbid, how horrible would that be? If it was a more isolated area he wouldn't be charged, but the police don't want to condone these things and inspire more shootings in public.

beerslurpy
June 2, 2005, 09:58 AM
That a 380 auto, technically a 9x17mm but clearly not what the story implied.

I personally beleive that it is better to shoot at people than at objects. Either you are justified in applying deadly force or you arent. Still, he was justified in applying deadly force to protect the people in the parking lot, so I think a halfassed application of deadly force was ok.

OF
June 2, 2005, 10:00 AM
Sounds like the guy has a pretty good handle on the situation, actually. He recognized that the shoplifting offense wasn't worth a response other than calling the cops, but when the guy used the car to threaten others, something had to be done.

Hard to say since we weren't right there, but giving the guy the benefit of the doubt re: backstop, bystanders locations etc. it looks OK to me. One guy hanging out the door and another one run over, car turning back around towards more people. Got to stop that thing somehow. I'd go as far to say that he'd have been justified taking a shot at the driver, assuming his line of fire was clear.

Frankly, I also agree with him that it if the employees hadn't gotten involved, his hand would not have been forced. Once their lives were at risk, the door opens for using the gun to stop it.

- Gabe

PS: I'm with python on the t-shirt pose...bad PR move :)

c_yeager
June 2, 2005, 10:11 AM
How is flattening the guys tires going to make him LESS dangerous on the road? Seriously, popping one tire will do NOTHING to stop the car, it WILL make it 100 times more difficult to control and dangerous to bystanders. Lets not forget the potential for people getting hurt by deflected/missed shots, clearly this was a possibility since the guy DID miss.

His actions certainly sound irresponsible, and his demeanor and appearance do nothing to dissuade one from this conclusion. Im having a hard time picturing how this went down. The shoplifter stays in the parking lot long enough to do the damage described by the shooter, and AFTER THAT is still close enough for him to take a shot at the tires?

My rule of thumb is this: If deadly force is necessary, shoot the driver. Thats the biggest target, and the easiest way to stop the situation. If deadly force ISNT necessary, keep the gun where it is.

R.H. Lee
June 2, 2005, 10:21 AM
How does he think 'shooting out the tires' will stop the truck? His motive may have been noble, but his judgement is not so good.

MikeIsaj
June 2, 2005, 10:28 AM
I think he was justified even though his hand was forced by the stupidity of others. The suspect had the ability, opportunity and had taken a substantial step towards using deadly force on victims. He would have been justified in using deadly force to stop the assault on the victims. What he should have done is fired at the suspect, not the tires. Hollywood bullets hit and puncture tires, real ones don't. I'm not going to get on his case too much though. The bottom line is this; He witnesses an act of deadly force against another person, and he tries to protect another life. He is justified.

This line is just stupid;
"When you take matters into your own hands, whether with physical force or firearms, there's no way can you ensure ... that it goes the way you want it to," Baker said. "You want to do the right thing, and that's admirable, but it's a liability issue. You could be wrong. We would rather not people take that approach."

If you're not guaranteed success, don't even try? Call 911 and stand by with a loaded gun and watch a store clerk get dragged around a parking lot by a driver? I wonder if that's what Mr. Baker wants us to do if his family member is being assaulted?

"Shoot somebody for stealing groceries? Not in my line of business," Biggs said. "The Publix employees shouldn't have gotten involved. They should have just observed, taken the license plate numbers and called the police. They would have picked him up and we wouldn't have had this mess."

Proof he knows what he's doing. Publix needs to send this guy on a tour of all their stores training their people on what not to do. Then they need to hire a pit bull defense lawyer to keep the local blissninnies off his back. They should also require the two clerks to apologize for putting him in this situation because they were jackasses. My first high school job it was made clear by my boss; If someone wants the money, give it to them!

Highland Ranger
June 2, 2005, 10:28 AM
Your question is backwards . . . .

Technosavant
June 2, 2005, 10:45 AM
I say shooting was a bad idea.

Somebody is being dragged by the vehicle, and he is SHOOTING at it? Sounds like a violation of "be sure of your target." With that little pea shooter (decent for social work at close range, not for anti-materiel at any range, especially if it is moving), he was more likely to cause harm to bystanders than actually hit a tire (rather small target area, constantly moving).

Plus, the guy was stealing groceries, not children. The supermarket employees were being stupid in trying to stop the crook, but this yutz goes and makes it more dangerous for anybody within a couple hundred yards.

Sounds like somebody with a Rambo complex.

dolanp
June 2, 2005, 10:52 AM
It's a gray area, police say. An event that involved a misdemeanor shoplifting crime shouldn't have escalated into the use of a deadly weapon.

Oh please. Cops have riddled suspects with bullets for even suggesting that they might ram them with a vehicle. This guy is running over people and putting lives in danger and we're just calling it a 'shoplifting crime' and ignoring what he's doing with a deadly weapon (the vehicle)? Funny how cops kill people for the exact same thing.

GRB
June 2, 2005, 11:03 AM
Your poll question and answers are really confusing. You ask: Will he get charged?" and then, I think, offer confusing choices:

YES , He was Justified in trying to shoot out tires - (Yes seems to indicate yes they will charge him. Why charge him if he was justified?)

NO, He was not Justified in trying to shoot out tires (N seems to indicate no they will not charge him. If not justified why wouldn't they charge him?)

As for whether or not he was actually legally justified to use deadly force when he intervened, based upon the info supplied in the article I definitely believe that he was legally justified. As to whether or not that was a shoot or don't shoot situation it is hardto second guess with as little information as was supplied. As to whether he should have attempted to shoot the tires, I think that was a poor judgemnent call on his part probably from watching too many movies where they shoot out tires. Bear in mind that poor judgement about what he shot at does not, in a case as described, lessen his justification to use deadly force in the firct place.

Regarding that picture in the article: His appearance in the photograph says absolutely nothing about: the facts surrounding this shooting, whether or not he was justified to shoot, his frame of mind at the time or, his level of responsibility. To bring up such utter nonsense is only to push the weakest of arguments like grasping at straws. In my opinion, anyone who is suggesting, implying or even thinking that said photo reveals something of merit with regard to the shooting is really stretching things. Sure it would LOOK better if he had been drerssed in a nice three piece Armani suit with a really expensive necktie, or even if had had been wearing a button down shirt BUT; my guess is the media was on him like stink on manure once he was released by the police. He was probably pretty frazzled after such an event, and maybe did not think to grab his shirt before they started snapping away.

His real sign of poor judgement was regarding at what he shot. Poor choice of target. As for his judgement on if it was a situation that justified deadly force, I would gladly testify that in my professional and personal opinion I believe it was justified.

One thing about what the policen said and what they usually say in situations like this. I am referring to their comments that Mr. Briggs and the store employees should not have been involved in this. Isn't it amazing how they throw blame on the victims and on the person who attempted to help without saying: you know the bad guy should have tried to steal this stuff. Think about it. Do you own a firearm, do you carry a firearm, so that when someone threatens your life or the life of another innocent you will just not get involved other than to comply with the bad guy and, then you will call 911? Not me if I can help it.

All the best,
Glenn B

rhubarb
June 2, 2005, 11:58 AM
Keltec P11 in 9mm. 380 has no slide stop. Guess the gun fits his hands just right since it looks like he only has three fingers.

Clearly he was justified in using deadly force. Remember that this is Florida, which has been in the national news lately for its legislation allowing upstanding citizens to defend themselves against criminals.
"He said the magic words, words to the effect the guy was coming around again, trying to run somebody over," said felony Supervisor Scott Cupp with the state attorney's office, which will be reviewing the case.

I would think it a dicey shot at best to shoot at the tires. Even if he had flattened both rear tires as he said he was trying to do, I don't know that it would have stopped the threat of an out of control truck. That said, thank you Mr. Biggs for stepping up to the bad guy. Hope that I could do as well.


Maj. Doug Baker of the Fort Myers Fuzz: :rolleyes:
Always dial 911 to ensure your safety, your family's safety and others around you.

cfabe
June 2, 2005, 12:12 PM
He should have shot the driver if he had a clear shot.

8830
June 2, 2005, 12:26 PM
He was justified in shooting. As soon as the suspect started using his vehicle as a weapon to commit aggravated assault/attempted murder he could have shot the suspect. I can only reason that he shot the tires because he didn't want to take the chance on shooting the employee hanging out the window or risk hitting a bystander.
As a cop I'm glad to see someone taking action instead of standing there watching and waiting to see what happens next.

testar77
June 2, 2005, 12:46 PM
Having not been there I can't really say how iminent the possibility of someone getting severely injured was (remember we are relying on the "Press" on this one). Obviously the store employees definately escalated the situation alot further than it should have gone over some "groceries". I am not sure that the situation required discharging a weapon in a location as public as a shopping complex, as any ricochet could injure someone worse than the driver could have. Should he be charged? not sure, he was within the grey area of the law, however they are in a tough position in that if they don't charge him you run the risk of people brandishing and discharging they're weapons for what could be insufficient cause, and people getting hurt. Yet with him being technically within the law you don't want to discourage someone from using a weapon when it is necasary,out of fear that they will be charged for it!. It is a very tough call, I will be interested to see how it turns out.

Risasi
June 2, 2005, 12:55 PM
Justified in shooting.

Deadly nature of the scenario.


As to legality, local laws apply. But since when do legality and justice necessarily have anything to do with each other?

You are justified in shooting a non-violent thief caught in your house too. Doesn't necessarily mean it's legal either...

jefnvk
June 2, 2005, 01:04 PM
It's a gray area, police say. An event that involved a misdemeanor shoplifting crime shouldn't have escalated into the use of a deadly weapon.

How convienently they forget that he hit a guy and was dragging another, and sounds like trying to hit another.

The biggest mistake was shooting at the tires, not the guy.

Sergeant Sabre
June 2, 2005, 01:08 PM
"Always dial 911 to ensure your safety..." Baker said

Just like the plaintiffs in the case Warren v. District of Columbia?

(Look it up if you don't know. If you don't know already, you'll be shocked)

Risasi
June 2, 2005, 01:12 PM
http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

Link to Warren vs DoC.

[/hijack]

Bobarino
June 2, 2005, 01:20 PM
in my opinion, he shouldn't have charges pressed, and was probably technically justified but i think it was a poor choice. shooting the tires of a speeding vehicle can cause the driver to lose control and become even more dangerous to the public, especially in a crowded parking lot. i have a hunch he was trying to play hero. if he was really in fear for his life and the lives of others, i think he would have gone for the driver and not just the tires. i think if it was me, i would just try to get the plate # and get the heck out of his way.

Bobby

Risasi
June 2, 2005, 01:23 PM
Although I agree, generally speaking the discipline is shoot to kill. Not shoot to "wound", even if they are tires. But there was a store employee hanging out of the car, fighting with the perpetrator.

TallPine
June 2, 2005, 01:28 PM
Glenn, thanks for your reasoned response. I don't always agree with you but this time I do.

Just out of curiosity, what would be the expected action of a LEO (on foot) in the same situation?

Michigander
June 2, 2005, 01:47 PM
I don't think he was justified in attempting to use his weapon as a "spike strip" but I also do not think he should be charged with any crime.

I certainly did not like the tone of this statement:

"He said the magic words, words to the effect the guy was coming around again, trying to run somebody over," said felony Supervisor Scott Cupp with the state attorney's office, which will be reviewing the case.

Almost seems like a jab at the law so some antis will say, "see, all a gun-toting thug has to say is the magic words and then they can shoot anybody/thing!"

HighVelocity
June 2, 2005, 01:52 PM
I'm thinking that he had no chance of blowing out the tires with that tiny little pistol. :uhoh:
http://cmsimg.news-press.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=A4&Date=20050601&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=506010455&Ref=AR&Profile=1075&MaxW=400&MaxH=400&Q=80&title=1

Dave P
June 2, 2005, 01:54 PM
"Always dial 911 to ensure your safety, your family's safety and others around you. Get the information: a suspect description, a vehicle description and let the police handle it," Baker said.


Sure - will do.

CZ-100
June 2, 2005, 07:22 PM
Your question is backwards . . . .

Dang... your right.. I even read it twice before submitting..

Oh well :what:

I do not think he will be charged.. but I also do not think he should of went for the tires, If justified, he should of went for the driver.

N.M. Edmands
June 2, 2005, 07:45 PM
8830; Thank you ;)

GRB
June 3, 2005, 11:18 AM
Tall Pine,

Just out of curiosity, what would be the expected action of a LEO (on foot) in the same situation? I guess there would be many different expectations depending on the different views of many departments. In my former agency, US Customs, we were forbidden to shoot at a vehicle in order to stop it (note I did not say forbidden to shoot the driver) even when the vehicle posed a threat to us UNLESS the benefit of shooting to stop a vehicle outweighed the threat to the public. Sounds crazy and my guess is while the intent was good it was poorly written. What I believe that meant was you could shoot a vehicle to try to stop it only if doing so did not cause a greater threat to the public than the one already being posed by the vehicle (as opposed to caused a greater benefit to the public than it did a threat). Then again I don't know if that is absolutely correct because some head up where the sun never shines attorney probably wrote it. That word benefit could be construed as anything or nothing depending on who was making the call. You had to wonder, if a bad guy in a vehicle was trying to run you down, and had just hit 5 other people and, there was a crowd around, if you shot at the tires or at the engine block hopefully through the radiator, then the vehicle went off course from you and hit someone else - what would be the result - would you go to jail or would you be supported by your own agency with such a vague regulation. I would think the benefit of stoppping him from killing another 5 people and the benefit of not having him kill me had outweighed the threat of my shots possibly causing some innocent to be harmed because I shot his vehicle - but that is very subjective of me.

They certainly have not trained me to shoot at vehicles throughout my career. So in any case it would pretty much have been up to me if I decided to do so. In this particular case, I do not think I would have tried to shoot out the tires. I have seen police videos of it being done during chases when the bad guy car is in the middle of nowhere. Very different than this with a guy hanging off the side of the truck and many people all around in the parking lot. This shooter took a big chance of hitting someone else. if I had done the same, there is a chance my agency would come down on me; almost a definite if I had wounded an innocent bystander.

In a case like this for an off duty officer I think maybe the best thing to do would be to have someone call 911 but; there are also things the officer could try to do. An officer could get in his own car, or commandeer a car and try to drive in front of the truck, then slow down, in hope of making it slow down. This of course is putting oneself in harm's way - this is not required of any officer - but some would maybe do it to protect others. The hope would be to help get the guy free, that really scared guy who is hanging on the side of the truck being dragged around. Again this could do more good than bad, or it may work very well.

Or if the truck was moving slowly enough, you may want to try to unhook the guy hanging on. This would also be very tricky and potentially dangerous.

Of course, while doing anything, it would be a good idea to have your badge out and be calling out in a loud voice that you are the police with a command to stop. This may sound preposterously stupid and ineffective to some but, it is amazing how many bad guys will obey that command when given by someone they believe to be an LEO. Even if he only stopped for a moment that allowed the guy to free himself, it could have made all the difference. Of course many guys would just as soon try to run over the cop too.

It is a very tough call to make without actually being there - and when there it has to be made pretty darned fast because at least one person's life is in immediate danger. These things are always more easily jockeyed after the fact than while the race is actually ongoing. Still though, based only on what I have read, I think it was a poor judgment call for that guy to have fired off rounds in that crowded parking lot and with the other guy hanging onto the truck for dear life.

All the best,
Glenn B

El Rojo
June 3, 2005, 02:01 PM
Legally this guy is going to be fine. He was in fear for those people's lives and he used force to stop the situation. What puzzles me is how many people here are second guessing the guy. We can hypothetical this one to death, but really the only thing that should be judged is what happened. The store employees were hanging out the window and being dragged, he can't make a clean shot at the suspect. He made two clean shots on the wheels, in the sense that his bullets hit the wheels and went no further. His shooting at the suspect quite possibly scared the bad guy enough that he decided to get the heck out of there. No one was shot, no one died, the employees made it out ok. So why would you even question this guy? There is always potential for something to go wrong in a shooting, always. I think shooting should be judged solely on their outcome. Was there potential for him to hit a bistander? Sure. Did he? No. So cut the guy some slack. You don't know how far away from the tires he was. He might have been running along side the vehicle. There is no point in arguing about it because he didn't have any stray shots endanger others.

I say if he shot, hit something safe to hit, and didn't injure an innocent person, he is fine. Otherwise, no one should ever shoot at any time because there is always a chance something bad might happen. Always just call 911 right? If you want to learn something from this and you would have acted differently, I respect that. I also respect that this guy did things right and no matter what the potential might have been, things turned out fine.

And the point about cops lighting people up for things like this is certainly valid. You would think we would be praising this guy for shooting twice safely instead of the LASO 120 rounds with 4 hits and a friendly fire hit.

Fred Fuller
June 3, 2005, 02:36 PM
IANAL, don't know FL law etc. No way I can say what will happen, no matter what jurisdiction he is in- absolutely NO TELLING what will happen in any situation like this. No way to predict, too many variables. I'd hate to have my own legal future hanging on the decision a LEO/DA might make in this case.

Here in NC, it would be a very poor decision and would likely result in the shooter netting a whole mess of legal troubles no matter what his good intentions. I for sure wouldn't do it myself in the same circumstance, and Biggs' own comment ("Shoot somebody for stealing groceries? Not in my line of business," Biggs said.) indicates he didn't feel justified in shooting at the _driver_. If he wasn't justified in shooting at the driver then IMHO he wasn't justified in shooting at all- no "warning shots," no shots at tires or radiators or anything else. But no telling what will happen once the review of his actions is over. If he walks away from it without getting charged, that would seem to me to encourage ill considered gunfire in FL among those who are watching the situation.

Good post, be interesting to see what happens with this one.

lpl/nc

GunGoBoom
June 3, 2005, 03:47 PM
Uhhm, I think a 9x19 round will punch through a passenger tire like a hot knife through butter, IF you can hit it, no?

Punkermonkey
June 3, 2005, 05:29 PM
I might have been compelled to shoot as well. Judging by the facts given it sounds like he was doing the best he could to stop an escalating situation. I personally believe that shooting out the tires is never a good idea, but I don't fault him for trying.

One thing I do give him credit for is acting on the situation. All too often, people stand around and watch as horrible thing happen to people right in front of them. I once heard a good analogy as to why this is, I would like to share it with the group. Sorry I can not give credit where credit is due.

"People respond to situations the way they have been trained. The general population are presented and exposed to crisis situations on television. They have trained themselves to sit an watch as the crisis unfolds, doing nothing to intervene. Why would they, it's on TV. This develops an automatic psychological response - sit and watch."

If all else, I would like to shake his hand for just doing something, anything to prevent the situation.

This is also why training (or un-training) is so important.

Pointman
June 3, 2005, 05:53 PM
Had to vote no because it wasn't the cars fault. Now if he'd put a slug in the punk driving that'd been ok in my book.

GRB
June 3, 2005, 07:02 PM
El Rojo,

The reason that shootings like this are Monday morning quarterbacked is in order for other people to learn from a situation that already took place - so they can do the same right things and, so they can avoid the same bad things, in future encounters.

I think shooting should be judged solely on their outcome.As for this, man I disagree 110% and then some! If someone does everything wrong during a shooting but just happens not to hurt anyone and scares away the bad guy does that make it a good shooting or good tactics? No it does not, it simply makes it a good result from poor practice. Just because the outcome is not bad does not mean necessarily that the method was not bad!

Of course if the guy was a police officer, you can bet his methods would have been critiqued by the brass and his range/tactical officers (and fellow officers, and the press, and most of us, and so onů). Happens all the time even when a guy does virtually everything right. It is just like having the winning team watch film clips of a football game after the game is over - its a critique. They won the game but still watch the clips and still get critiqued. Without such critical review, people would simply not learn by mistakes they or others have made. Instead they would repeat those mistakes again and again in the future thinking they had done it right.

A good result is no excuse for bad method, sooner or latter using bad practices will wind up in a bad result; maybe a very bad result if with firearms. So if we can avoid bad methods by learning from our own or others mistakes, we are more likely to avoid those same mistakes in the future. I think that is one of the major reasons we discuss/critique things like this shooting here.

Best regards,
Glenn B

GRB
June 3, 2005, 07:05 PM
Shoot somebody for stealing groceries?This is not why he shot, he shot because he believed the guy was threatening life and limb of others and the threat was immediate. This is why he was very likely legally justified to have used deadly force at the time he did so.

GRB
June 3, 2005, 07:08 PM
"People respond to situations the way they have been trained. The general population are presented and exposed to crisis situations on television. They have trained themselves to sit an watch as the crisis unfolds, doing nothing to intervene. Why would they, it's on TV. This develops an automatic psychological response - sit and watch."The sit and watch response was ingrained into the psyche of the human mind long before television was around. The main reason that people sit and watch is because of a normal human response to traumatic events whiuch is: I do not believe this is happening, followed by an overwhelming feeling of helplessness. It has little if anything to do with television.

Cosmoline
June 3, 2005, 07:09 PM
The bottom line is shooting out the tires would have done nothing to make the situation any better. As has been pointed out, modern vehicles can still drive around on the rims at high speeds. You'd be better off getting people away from the vehicle. If the driver was actively trying to run someone down, the proper response would be to kill the driver.

m39fan
June 3, 2005, 08:05 PM
Reckless endangerment with a firearm! I'd have his butt in jail so fast his head would swim. This guy needs a life AND a brain. He's been watching too many TV shows. Having used "stop sticks" I can tell you that there is a definite risk that the vehicle will go out of control immediately following the sudden, violent deflation of its tires even at lower speeds. DA: "So, only one person had been injured by the truck UNTIL you fired your weapon, hitting the guy hanging out the window, the woman with two small children, finally blowing out the tires which caused the truck to go out of control hitting three bystanders. Would you like to plea bargain now or later?"

WHAT AN IDIOT!

- Mike

GRB
June 4, 2005, 11:37 AM
Mike,

I think you are out of line to call Mr. Briggs an idiot. He may have used some poor judgement but he did judge the situation before he resorted to use of a firearm. Yet you seem to brand his intelligence and his actions based upon flight of fancy. In other words you have skewed the situation to fit your point. You do not even present it as hypothetical, you base your claim that he in your words: is an idiot and, in your words needs a brain and, that he should be charged with reckless endangerment on results that you guess at. It does not matter as much that there may be a definite risk that the vehicle may go out of control if a tire is shot out; potential risk to an innocent is inherent everytime you shoot a firearm in any on the street situation. What matters much more is if the shooter reasonably believed the threat caused by that vehicle, which was already being driven in a manical manner and which was at the moment threatening life and limb, outweighed a potential threat caused by shooting out the tires. If that is what he believed, and if that is what a reasonable man could be led to believe after reviewing all of the evidence that Briggs was able to see - no charges.

Reckless endangerment with a firearm! I'd have his butt in jail so fast his head would swim. This guy needs a life AND a brain. He's been watching too many TV shows. Having used "stop sticks" I can tell you that there is a definite risk that the vehicle will go out of control immediately following the sudden, violent deflation of its tires even at lower speeds. DA: "So, only one person had been injured by the truck UNTIL you fired your weapon, hitting the guy hanging out the window, the woman with two small children, finally blowing out the tires which caused the truck to go out of control hitting three bystanders. Would you like to plea bargain now or later?"

WHAT AN IDIOT!

The problem with your concept is, I think, that you are allowing emotions to control your reply. "So, only one person had been injured by the truck UNTIL you fired your weapon, hitting the guy hanging out the window, the woman with two small children, finally blowing out the tires which caused the truck to go out of control hitting three bystanders. Would you like to plea bargain now or later?" As far as any DA ever saying this regarding this situation, such is preposterous. It is preposterous because it did not happen. You guess to the outcome: had he shot out the tires and; you wind up with the conclusion not only that he would have caused the tires to violently and rapidly deflate (have a blowout?) but you also guess that had he actually hit the tires instead of the wheels, then he would have also shot the guy hanging out of the truck and some woman who was nearby with children. Just how on earth did you wind up with Mr. Briggs shooting the guy hanging onto the truck or shooting a woman with children. This did not happen yet he definitely did shoot and apparently took pretty careful aim at a moving target and hit the wheels. Are you saying that if he had better aim and actually hit the tires, that would have some way caused him to shoot a woman and the guy on the truck?

As I said, you are guessing at the outcome and, are coming up with definite conclusions. In fact, you guess not only that Mr. Briggs would have hit innocents had his shots actually hit the tires (which would have indicated even better shooting skill) but, you also seem to be guessing as to the outcome of what would have happened to the tires (had he actually hit them) based upon your use of Stop Sticks. The effects of a Stop Stick as opposed to those of a .9mm pistol bullet hitting a tire are sometimes quite different. I do not know how many inflated tires you have shot at with any type of round, or how many demonstrations you have seen of such happening. I have seen it a few times and I have used Stop Sticks too. Few tires are subject to blow out type deflation if hit by a single pistol round. I think this is because in today's world tires are built to prevent blowouts even when pierced by objects of greater diameter than a 9mm round and at high speed and with great force. Yes some will deflate rather rapidly while others will take quite a while if hit by only one projectile. Yet there are others (I have seen this on a filmed demonstration) that deflect the bullet. This was on a moving vehicle, it was obvious the bullet had hit the tire, but yet it did not penetrate.

I think you just cannot base a charge of reckless endangerment upon flight of fancy supposition; then again let me correct myself: you can base a charge upon flight of fancy but you would be very likely to lose the case if in even a moderate political area.

As far as reckless endangerment goes based on anything else, you would really need more information about this event. It is possible and, we do not know at all, if the shooter considered who was in the path of the shots when he fired. Bear in mind the truck was going in circles at the time, he could have fired at the tires when the truck was in the clear of bystanders. While I think he still made a bad call, I base this on what I read and on my thoughts on how I may have reacted. This though is just supposition on my part right now. Maybe if I had more information, I might think he made a good call but I lean still toward poor judgement but certainly not reckless endangerment. Sometimes even a cop has to endanger others in order to stop a bad situation from escalating, yet it might not be considered reckless endangerment. This was a very tough decision to make under extremely short time requirements, yet it is obvious that this guy thought out his options before firing. I do not see it elevated to reckless endangerment, at least not without more information; just don't know enough facts.

By the way two people had already been injured not one and; it was evident that many others were facing the threat of imminent serious bodily harm or death and there was not only opportunity, motive and intent - there was an actual attempt being made at the moment.

Best regards,
Glenn B

If you enjoyed reading about "Man draws gun, tries to shoot out tires" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!