Real Life Shooting Scenario

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How many stupid moves can you spot by all participants?

Charles Keitt decided he needed some new windshield wipers. So with two of his friends, he drove by the home of Bennie Peterson with plans of "salvaging" the windshield wipers of Peterson's wrecked car.

Peterson caught him in the act of doing this and some harsh words were exchanged. Peterson went back inside the house, grabbed a pistol and returned to the yard. During this time, Keitt and his two buddies had gotten back into their car and were getting ready to leave.

Coming outside into the yard with an unloaded revolver, Peterson stopped to load the gun while yelling "If you move I will shoot!". He then walked up to just inside his own gate and said "If you come in here I will kill you!" even though Keitt was still sitting in his car and had made no attempt to exit the vehicle.

At this point, Keitt decides to exit the vehicle. He took a few steps towards Peterson and said "What in the hell do you think you are going to do with that?" Keitt then turned around and began to retrieve a lug wrench from his car. With the wrench raised above his head, Keitt began to advance on Peterson. Peterson warned Keitt not to take another step. When Keitt continued to advance, Peterson shot him in the face from a distance of ten feet immediately halting the attack.

Two questions:
1) Justifiable self-defense or not?
2) How many stupid tactical decisions can you count in this scenario?

[tc300mag1]

Justifiable or not there were a lot of stupid decisions in this one alsmot to many to count

[itgoesboom]

I don't know.

Sounds to me like Thief #1 goes to the morge while Hotheaded moronic murderer #1 goes to jail.

Win/Win situation in my book. :evil:

BTW....I am only kidding. Mostly.

I.G.B.

[Chris Rhines]

Justifiable? No. Peterson deliberately continued and escalated the situation after Keitt was leaving the scene. Oops.

How many stupid tactical decisions? Let's count:
1 - Keitt decides to steal windshield wipers from Peterson.
2 - Keitt decides to steal windshield wipers from Peterson. I mean come on, just how white trash can you get?
3 - Peterson catches Keitt in the aforementioned act of larceny, and decides to confront him over a $10 property crime.
4 - Harsh words exchanged over a set of used wiper blades. I think this counts as a seperate stupid decision.
5 - Peterson leaves the scene and comes back with his gun, instead of calling the fuzz.
6 - Gun is unloaded.
7 - Keitt, who was apparently leaving, decides to remain at the scene. Turns out to be one of the more fatal decisions of his life.
8 - Peterson shouts threats, doubtless accompanied by brandishing of his now-loaded firearm (was it an RG, by any chance?)
9 - Keitt decides to confront a gun with a lug wrench.
10 - Peterson decides not to retreat, despite apparently having every opportunity to do so.
11 - Peterson waits until an escalating threat is ten feet away before shooting.

I make it eleven, which is not bad, though probably not a record. could be a few less or a few more, depending on your interpretation.

Any chance that demon rum was involved in this situation? Meth? Abject stupidity certainly was in evidence...

- Chris

[tanksoldier]

I disagree. I think it was an _unnecessary_ shoot, but not an illegal one.

Confronting a criminal is not escalating.

Telling the criminal not to move isn't escalating, it's putting someone under arrest... a power that private citizens have, even if it isn't used very often.

Telling the criminal NOT to come onto your property as he is leaving is not escalating... it's telling him to do what he's already doing.

Nothing Peterson did gave Keitt the right to advance on him with a tire iron.
Peterson had every right to confront a criminal in his own yard, and had every right to be armed while doing so.

[Kurush]

He then walked up to just inside his own gateHe should have stood farther back so the criminal couldn't use his weapon.

I think it was an illegal shoot. Even if he didn't have a duty to retreat, he did retreat and the crime was over when he returned.

[Ryder]

Some idiots are smart enough to know they are stupid. Sounds like this shooter wasn't one of them.

I'd have let them take the wipers. What would those be worth exactly? A person's life? Nooooo, not even a single penny. True that they should have asked for them but still not worth getting that worked up over. The guy wouldn't fair well with me on his jury.

[Father Knows Best]

Keitt then turned around and began to retrieve a lug wrench from his car. With the wrench raised above his head, Keitt began to advance on Peterson. Peterson warned Keitt not to take another step. When Keitt continued to advance, Peterson shot him in the face from a distance of ten feet immediately halting the attack.

Two questions:
1) Justifiable self-defense or not?


The facts quoted above make it a justifiable shooting. Peterson was acting reasonably in response to the very real and apparently reasonable threat of serious bodily harm, i.e., he was justified in shooting to prevent his attacker from bashing his head in with the raised wrench, which a reasonable person in his position would expect to be the likely result if he had not fired. He also gave a verbal warning to halt before shooting, which helps his case as it tends to show that he was merely trying to stop the attack.

Peterson was certainly stupid to confront and threaten Keitt. He may be charged with assault or other offenses for his actions that led up to the shooting, but the fact that he acted poorly prior to the shooting does not eliminate his legal right to protect himself when he reasonably fears imminent bodily harm.

The only thing that might change my analysis is the physical layout. If the "gate" was large and secure enough that no Peterson could have retreated to a safe distance behind it (out of range of a handheld weapon), and a reasonable person would not have believed there was an imminent threat of serious bodily harm at that point, then the shooting might not have been justified. As in all cases, it is a fact-intensive inquiry.

[brufener]

Even if he didn't have a duty to retreat, he did retreat and the crime was over when he returned.

I agree that the crime was over when he returned. Thus the second part of the scenario must be analyzed separately.

Citizen sees some menacing people on the street outside his house and goes out to see what is going on, bringing his firearm - legal to here

Citizen feels threatened and tells them to go away or he'll shoot - legal to here (although if he had shot at this point, the shooting would turn on whether a "reasonable person" would feel threatened)

Citizen continues to feel threatened and tells them if they come closer he wil shoot - legal to here

Criminal grabs a lug wrench and advances on citizen - illegal act on part of criminal (probably a charge of assault or menacing)

Citizen feels threatened and shoots criminal - legal if there is no duty to retreat (although legality would turn on whether a reasonable person would feel threatened - probably yes). If there is a duty to retreat, illegal.

This scenario presents exactly the type of situation the new Florida law was written for. Legal firearm holder feels his life is threatened, and shoots person who is threatening. Legal shoot as long as jury agrees person was threatened.

I do agree that the shooting is stupid, unnecessary, and could have EASILY been avoided.

[MikeIsaj]

1. Unjustified use of force. Peterson after deciding to go back in the house, should have stayed there and called he cops.

2. Stupid Actions almost too many to list;
Peterson; confronting two bad guys unarmed, coming back out, coming back out with an unloaded gun, threatening with an unloaed gun, instigating a new confrontation with a retreating thief, not retreating, shooting another man over a $10.00 pair of wipers.

Keitt; Not spending $10.00 on wipers, tesspassing, theft of property, arguing with the homeowner, not driving away, getting out of the car, confronting a gun with a lug wrench, ignoring warnings, not getting back into car, not driving away, being too stupid to be allowed to breed, getting shot over wiper blades.

To better understand why it is unjustified, you need to realize that this is actually two incidents.

If Peterson had been armed on the initial confrontation, and Keitt had raised the lug wrench, he probably would have been justified. That event ended when Peterson went in his house. He was no longer in peril until he went back outside. He initiated the second confrontation with a person who was retreating. That makes him responsible for the outcome. He dliberately and recklessly placed himself in peril over property. Bad ecision.

[svtruth]

Needing NEW wipers and going to get USED.

[Double Naught Spy]

Some of y'all amaze me. You get all hot and bothered about our RKBA, but not our rights to free speech and rights to defending our property and ourselves.

So what if the moronic homeowner escalated the situation? If he did not do so illegally and the other guy attempted to attack him with a tire iron, the shooting was justified.

The notion that when he went back into his house for his gun that he should have just stayed there is correct. He SHOULD have stayed there, but was he legally obligated to do so? No, or at least No in many states.

I am not completely clear on whether he actually had the right to stop the suspects if they were not actually making off with any of his property. Certainly if they were, he has the right to stop them and to hold them for the police. If the suspects were not making off with his property, then the homeowner may not have had the right to stop the suspects at that point and so the suspect with the tire iron was acting in self defense as he stupidly approached the armed homeowner in his attempt to stop the homeowner from making good on his threats to shoot them if they attempted to flee.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Peterson was convicted of manslaughter and appealed all the way to the federal circuit court - losing every single appeal along the way.

Key factors in Peterson's conviction:

1) Like many here noted, these were seen by the court as two separate incidents. The first one started by Keitt; but the second one started by Peterson. Peterson's decision to return to the house and then pursue someone who was retreating but him in a very bad spot with the jury. His decision to tell Keitt not to come into the yard while Keitt was sitting in his car was seen as a challenge rather than a warning.

2) Peterson was the first to display a weapon and this was deemed disproportional force for stopping the henious crime of windshield wiper theft. Because Peterson introduced lethal force into the scenario before there was any justification for it, he was held responsible for escalating it.

3) At the time this shooting happened, there was no clear doctrine on duty to retreat in the jurisdiction. The jury was instructed that they could decide that Peterson's failure to retreat, if he could do so safely, contributed to the problem. They apparently decided that failure to retreat played a role.

[TallPine]

Well, in MT I think Peterson would have been charged with "failure to keep a loaded gun in the house" :p

[one-shot-one]

would have probably depended on if Keitt was leaving with or without the wipers.
it bothers me that some are concerned about the cost of wipers ($10),
what if you only make $10 a week? a $100? at what point is it no longer ok to roll over for criminals? we have had that discussion before and i still maintain that the $value of stolen property is not the issue.

[kihnspiracy]

What is it about stealing that people do not realize? Doesn't matter whether it is a nickel gumball or a porsche. It is stealing if you take something that is not yours. When you were growing up did your parents or preacher set a monetary value on things to steal? I mean what do you think the cutoff point is? For me personally, whatever is mine, stays mine. I will use whatever means necessary to protect it. Be it a can of pop, my wife, my truck, my personal posessions.

[chris in va]

Kihn, c'mon now. You don't kill someone over a windshield wiper. Or soda, or other mundane crap.

Ya call the cops over that garbage. If they try and hit you over the head with something however before they get there...well...

[Wastemore]

I'm with Kihn on this. A thief is a thief, be it .35 or 3500.00, it's mine and unless I give you permission to take/use it, you're stealing.
I'm pretty certain that if property owners defended their goods with "whatever means necessary", stealing would almost come to a stop.

I'm not sure how the value of the item should be a defining factor in how much force should be justifiably used. How would you rate it?
-Less than 1.00 gets the thief a justified poke in the eye, while an item with a value of more than 1.01 but not greater than 10.00 legally calls for a fat-lip, but no more than 2 missing teeth?

I can see the legal leeches arguing over retail and wholesale pricing, factoring in depreciation and inflation.

Would I have shot him over a pair of winshield wipers? No! But I certainly would have made absolutely sure he didn't leave with my wipers or his pride.

[Kurush]

I disagree that it's wrong to shoot over small thefts. The thief made the decision of what his life is worth, not the shooter. But like I said I agree with the conviction. The shooter went back out not to protect his property or his life, but because he was angry. That's a line that can't be crossed.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, you guys are entitled to do whatever you think is right. If you shoot somebody in the manner described above though, plan on a manslaughter conviction, a civil suit judgment against you that will take most of your personal and real property, and losing the right to ever own a firearm again.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, if you restart a confrontation that has ended or if you go out there threatening deadly force BEFORE there are circumstances to justify it, you are going to be convicted of manslaughter if you exercise that so-called "right".

[Father Knows Best]

Thanks for the discussion, Mr. Roberts. It's been very informative. We may not all agree with the decisions of the prosecutor, judges and jury in this case, but we would be wise to keep them in mind.

[MikeIsaj]

Some of y'all amaze me. You get all hot and bothered about our RKBA, but not our rights to free speech and rights to defending our property and ourselves.

Many have expressed a similar sentiment. What you are missing is an understanding of the law. This should be crystal clear in your mind before you even think of picking up a weapon. You will not be held accountable to your personal standard of conduct. You will be held accountable to the standard of the law in your community, whether you agree with it or not, whether you understand it or not. My opinion is based on an understanding of the law that will determine where I live after a shoot.

Most states;
Do not allow deadly force for protection of property.

Do not allow you to retreat and then re-engage.

Do not allow a defense if you instigated or aggravated the incident. You can't pick a fight and then claim self defense.

Many require retreat if possible.

Many reguire a surrender of property over lethal force.

[Janitor]

And one of the more important points to be made here:

if you go out there threatening deadly force BEFORE there are circumstances to justify it ...

About as clear as it gets. I'm fairly sure most states laws will agree with this sentiment.

As they should.

-

[JohnKSa]

If he had called the cops while inside and gone back out with his gun but had not shown it unless attacked, I think things would have gone very differently for him.

First of all it sounds like there would have been no attack.

Second, if there had been, he would have looked more like a victim than an antagonizer/challenger.

He was in the right all the way up until he started waving the gun around.

Had he been armed when he exited his house initially, he would probably also have escaped jail time in that any escalation could have been seen to be a continuation of the initial theft.

You're allowed to try to prevent theft of your property in TX, and if the situation escalates in the manner defined in the law, it's even possible to legally use deadly force in very specific instances with very carefully defined requirements met. What I'm saying is that it is POSSIBLE for an armed person to end up legally shooting someone over property in TX, but Peterson stepped over the line in a couple of ways.

[gunsmith]

ianal
but from what I know of TX law you're allowed to shoot folks trying to steal your car, gotta love that law I wish it was legal everywhere.
2nd ...10 feet?! thats to close if someone came at me like that 21 ft is as close as they come b4 meeting Mr .40s&w or .357mag

[jpIII]

US v Peterson (483 F.2d 1222) (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/apppeterson.htm)

Interesting case.

One thing to note, is that it was in Washington DC.

As I read it, the court seems to have a problem with petterson "un-retreating" from the apparent safety of his home and becoming an aggressor of sorts.

Another thing to note, is that the distance of 10 ft combined with the weapon of a lug wrench did not seem to give the court any pause that it was imminent deadly force.

What if we apply Florida's new law (no duty to retreat)... any different outcome?

I'm not sure.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Also it was 1973, so different culture as well... I think that even if you apply Florida's "No retreat" law and modern outlooks to the situation, Peterson still goes to jail.

Peterson's big problem is that he got himself classified as the "aggressor" and a person who starts a confrontation is not entitled to claim self-defense unless they attempt to withdraw or give notice of withdrawal first.

Peterson managed to safely retreat and then came back out to confront somebody who was already leaving the scene. Not only did he confront him; but he confronted him with deadly force. I don't believe Florida allows use of deadly force over windshield wiper theft, so Peterson now has two strikes against him as an "aggressor".

Because he didn't attempt to withdraw from the conflict, he can't claim self-defense as justification. I think if Peterson had made any attempt to withdraw or had simply not produced the pistol until deadly force was appropriate, he would have stood a chance of claiming self-defense.

[Archangel]

Even if we apply Florida's new law, I think the outcome would still be the same.

Peterson got into a non-violent, albeit verbally heated, argument with Keitt et al. We was not in mortal danger, and was in fact able to leave unmollested.

It was Peterson who escalated it to a lethal force encounter. Not only that, he left to get the tools needed to escalate it, and then came back and did so.

Peterson took the time to load up his gun, and then advanced on Keitt ("He then walked up to just inside his own gate.")

Peterson made a statement that could definitely be taken as a threat. ("If you come in here I will kill you!")

Then, when Kiett came at him with a contact weapon, Peterson shot and killed him, despite (and I'm making an assumption here, based on the "just inside his own gate") there being a physical barrier between them.

Peterson's lucky he only got manslaughter. Hell, Kiett had a better case for self defense.

[Michael Courtney]

Most states;
Do not allow deadly force for protection of property.


But many states do allow reasonable force for protection of property. Drawing a gun (by itself) is not using deadly force. It can be seen as preparing to use deadly force (if necessary) and as communicating the availability of deadly force in order to bring a criminal back into compliance with the law. Even firing a warning shot can be interpreted under many state laws as "reasonable" non-lethal force that can be used to prevent a property crime. Whether or not it is "reasonable" will depend on the totality of the circumstances.

I have legally used a warning shot on two occasions to prevent property crimes in the state of Ohio. On one occasion, I was hunting with a dog when I encountered some trespassers. The trespassers were on a ridge about 100' high and I was below with the dog. The trespassers became belligerent when I informed them where the property line was and asked that they leave. During this conversation, the dog climbed up toward the trespassers, at which time the trespassers threatened to throw the dog off of the cliff. I fired a warning shot into a tree which sent the trespassers scampering away at high speed.

On another occasion, we had some animal rights activists coming onto the property and opening gates in order to let our cattle out. I happened to walk outside and see a trespasser fiddling around near a gate a few hundred feet from my front door. There were cattle close enough to the gate that they would probably escape before I could get there and close the gate. Under Ohio law, the crime of opening a gate is relatively minor, and certainly does not justify deadly force. However, the potential for loss of property and danger to human life is considerable with 1200+ lb cattle wandering through the streets. I drew my gun and fired two warning shots into the ground to put a stop to the possibility of the gate being opened.

Had the animal rights activists stuck around to press charges regarding the warning shots, and a prosecutor secured an indictment, an Ohio jury would have decided whether or not the warning shots represented a reasonable use of force given the circumstances. I believe the warning shots were not only reasonable, they were the best course of action in the situation. Fortunately, I do not live in a state where drawing a pistol or even firing a warning shot is considered deadly force.

Most states;
Do not allow you to retreat and then re-engage.


If reasonable force is allowed to protect property, then the laws of the state certainly do allow for re-engaging if necessary to apply whatever reasonable force is necessary to protect the threatened property.

Michael Courtney

[Jeeper]

If you cant get the people on this board to agree that it was reasonable to do so; What chance do you have of getting the public to think so?

[jpIII]

Allow me to play Devil's advocate for a moment.

When Peterson came back out with the gun, he was merely going to assault the wiper swiper. Assault is perfectly justified in retrieving property. (please note the difference between assualt and battery)

It was then, during the assault and attempt to retreive his property, that he was presented with lethal force by an approaching aggressor. He had no duty to retreat and stood his ground and fired in self-defense.

Pick this one apart if you will.:p

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Allow me to play Devil's advocate for a moment.

When Peterson came back out with the gun, he was merely going to assault the wiper swiper. Assault is perfectly justified in retrieving property. (please note the difference between assualt and battery)

It was then, during the assault and attempt to retreive his property, that he was presented with lethal force by an approaching aggressor. He had no duty to retreat and stood his ground and fired in self-defense.

Pick this one apart if you will.

If I were the prosecutor, I would argue that the fact Peterson obtained a gun prior to returning outside signalled he intended to provoke a situation where he could claim self-defense and that as a result he has no claim based on this.

I would argue Peterson obviously intended more than assault since he displayed the gun before any lethal threat developed and never attempted to exit his own gate or retreat once confronted.

By the way, if you guys think the result in this case was unjust, then wait until you see the one I have for next week.

[Michael Courtney]

If I were the prosecutor, I would argue that the fact Peterson obtained a gun prior to returning outside signalled he intended to provoke a situation where he could claim self-defense and that as a result he has no claim based on this.


As long as Peterson remained on his own property, the thief has a reasonable opportunity to retreat, and by remaining it is the thief rather than Peterson who is continuing to provoke the situation. In addition, Peterson went as far as his gate (still on his own property). The thief returned to his car to retrieve a tire iron and then advanced back onto Peterson's property in a threatening manner. A homeowner certainly has the right to advance to his property line while armed if necessary to protect his property. On the other hand, a thief advancing onto private property with a tire iron to threaten the homeowner has the right to take a bullet to the head.


I would argue Peterson obviously intended more than assault since he displayed the gun before any lethal threat developed and never attempted to exit his own gate or retreat once confronted.


Homeowners should have more latitude in displaying a gun on their own property to curtail criminal activities than the average citizen on the street.


By the way, if you guys think the result in this case was unjust, then wait until you see the one I have for next week.

I don't think that this case was necessarily unjust. It seems likely that Peterson verbally stated the intent to kill the thief rather than merely use his gun to detain the thief or disuade the thief from further criminal acts. Whereas all the acts that Peterson took with the gun could be viewed as legal and reasonable in the absence of specific verbal threats, the presence of specific verbal threats would tend to make it clear that Peterson's intent went beyond a homeowner simply defending his home and person. The jury was likely ale to weigh evidence regarding what was said that is unavailable here.

When people are acting so stupidly, there is also a high probability of alcohol or drug involvement which would also sway a jury's opinion on the judgement of the homeowner and the reasonableness of his actions.

Michael Courtney

[The_Antibubba]

Peterson may have stopped at the inside of his gate, but that doesn't necessarily mean the wiper swiper was off the property. Was it a sturdy barrier, or a flimsy ornamental fence? What was the position of the car? Could Peterson have perceived that the car could have been used as a weapon, justifying him saying, "Don't move or I'll shoot!" Was it clear that the two buddies were just sitting in the car passively, or did they seem to be reaching for something? With enough ambiguous factors, a better attorney might've gotten Peterson acquitted.

Or maybe Peterson had been voted by his neighbors, for twelve years running, as "Most Likely To Shoot Someone In The Face".

[MikeIsaj]

But many states do allow reasonable force for protection of property. Drawing a gun (by itself) is not using deadly force. It can be seen as preparing to use deadly force (if necessary) and as communicating the availability of deadly force in order to bring a criminal back into compliance with the law. Even firing a warning shot can be interpreted under many state laws as "reasonable" non-lethal force that can be used to prevent a property crime. Whether or not it is "reasonable" will depend on the totality of the circumstances.Don't know what states or how many do allow reasonable force to defend property. The point is he had already stopped the theft before he went back in the house.

There is a big difference between reasonable force and deadly force. Deadly force usually has it's own set of justifications. Draw a gun without justification and you will have made the "substantial step" towards using lethal force to be charged. What's more important, that substantial step will justify a use of lethal force upon you. Remember the thief was in his car, off property and making ready to leave the area. He did not present an immediate threat to life or personnal safety.

IMHO firing warning shots is inherently stupid and high risk behavior no matter what local law allows.

[Michael Courtney]

IMHO firing warning shots is inherently stupid and high risk behavior no matter what local law allows.

So how would you suggest I save the life of the dog from the trespassers threatening to throw her off a 100' high ridge?

How would you suggest a cattle owner prevent the imminent release of cattle onto a public roadway from 250' away?

Warning shots worked very well in both circumstances, and even with many years to consider the two events, I have been unable to come up with a better course of action.

Michael Courtney

[cbsbyte]

I would believe it would be a legal shoot, he did threaten him, with a wrench, unless there is a rule against aggervating the situation. I do believe that in most areas of the county the local DA would probably go after shooter for man-slaugther.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Event One -- Peterson caught him in the act of doing this and some harsh words were exchanged. Peterson went back inside the house, grabbed a pistol and returned to the yard. During this time, Keitt and his two buddies had gotten back into their car and were getting ready to leave.

Event Two -- Coming outside into the yard with an unloaded revolver, Peterson stopped to load the gun while yelling "If you move I will shoot!". He then walked up to just inside his own gate and said "If you come in here I will kill you!" even though Keitt was still sitting in his car and had made no attempt to exit the vehicle. I hate to say this, but I have to agree with the jury. These are two separate events. When Peterson grabbed the gun and came BACK out, event two started. From the story, the Keitt thugs were leaving (with or without the wipers, is unknown). Keitt was not on Peterson's property. Keitt, at that time, was not threatening Peterson. Peterson was po'd (rightfully so) and should have called the Police. He made several bad choices:

1. Not calling the police.

2. Not having a loaded gun when he went back out. (I don't agree with him going back out, but his gun should have been loaded)

3. Brandishing the gun at Keitt and threatening him with bodily harm. If he was going outside to yell at him some more, he should have concealed the gun. The brandishing probably escalated the argument.

[mitchshrader]

nothing. had he walked out on his porch with a visible weapon.. he'd have made all the point necessary.

he needn't SAY anything, or DO anything.

i have been there. on MY porch, with a 38, waiting on amateur (wanna be) robbers to decide if they wanted to fight about it or leave..

no point in talking. no point in shooting em either.
i had no excuse for either.

guy was wrong, not sure HOW wrong.. but wrong. on a jury with a manslaughter charge, i'da voted to convict.
had the tire iron been a pistol, i'da voted to acquit.