CCW shoot out in Tulsa


PDA






scottw
October 5, 2006, 07:07 PM
You gotta hear this. 2 men were having an argument in a Waffle House here in Tulsa and went outside to settle the dispute. Man A pulls a replica Lighter that looks like a gun. Man B has a CCW and pulls it to shoot Man A. He misses both shots and the bullets went through the wall of Waffle House and hit an employee who was cleaning the windows. You all can come up with all the jokes you want about this one. Both were arrested. Employee was hit in leg is OK at this time.

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW shoot out in Tulsa" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
October 5, 2006, 07:09 PM
Link? Gotta see SOME kind of proof before we start piling on :evil:

tenbase
October 5, 2006, 07:14 PM
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=112191

Bruce333
October 5, 2006, 07:17 PM
Never bring a lighter to a gun fight...

Gun control...hit your target

TexasRifleman
October 5, 2006, 07:20 PM
OK, now that it's documented it's a lot funnier :neener:

Now, I have to say that it's right before Texas/OU weekend and I am a graduate of the University (of Texas in case you don't know that there's only one University :evil: ) so I will have to take the standard approach for this time of year.

It's Oklahoma, what did you expect?

Joe7cri
October 5, 2006, 07:20 PM
Leave your gun at home if you can't hit a man in a parking lot carrying a lighter:evil:

PlayboyPenguin
October 5, 2006, 07:23 PM
Did the guy just happen to decide to light his cigarette in the middle of a fight??? I doubt it. I think he was trying to intimidate the man with what appeared to be a gun and as bad luck would have it the other guy had the real deal.

If the guy with the gun had hit and killed the guy with the lighter I would say that all the fault lay with the guy pulling the lighter. The other guy did not know his life was not in danger.

The fact that he missed and hit an innocent is something he should have to answer for legally and in civil court. Bad shooting is his fault and noone elses. That is why people should not only be trained but continue to practice after you get your ccw. A missed shot can find its way to very bad places... not to mention a missed attacked can still cut your throat.

Geronimo45
October 5, 2006, 07:41 PM
Avoid stupid arguments. Hit what you're aiming at...
Sometimes I think CCW classes should teach shooter to stick the muzzle in the BGs eye socket before pulling the trigger. Maybe people could actually hit what they're aiming at then.

grampster
October 5, 2006, 07:45 PM
Always consider the lighter to have a flint and fluid.
Never point your lighter at anything you do not want to set on fire.
Never put your finger on the strike wheel unless you want the lighter to light.
Now whatna heck was that fourth rule?.....:neener:

scottw
October 5, 2006, 07:46 PM
You can go to this address and watch the news cast. You will see a commerical first. www.kotv.com/e-clips/?id=3640

TexasRifleman
October 5, 2006, 07:46 PM
Now whatna heck was that fourth rule?.....

I'm pretty sure it involved not getting SHOT :evil:

ID_shooting
October 5, 2006, 07:51 PM
IMHO, the shooter lost all claims to self defence the minute he choose to "settle" the argument. When petty thugs feel the need to prove thier toughness, I walk away. When they start calling me names and tossing insults, I walk away. When they call my wifes unholy things, she has me walk away.

The point is, if you can't control your self enough to avoid whizzing contests, you should not be carying a CCW. Even if the flamer had a real gun, to me, it would have been a bad shoot.

RNB65
October 5, 2006, 07:54 PM
Can you say, "civil lawsuit?"

Can you say, "need a lawyer?"

Can you say, "dumb and dumber?"

Glockfan.45
October 5, 2006, 07:57 PM
IMO it sounds like a justified shooting. The shooter had no way to identify the gun as a fake. Do I think it was stupid to take a petty argument outside, yes but I wont second guess a persons intentions when it comes to my life. As far as the person who was shot at I bet he learns not to pull a fake gun on anybody again. Sad to here about the employee though. Heres some fodder for the anti crowd.

Zundfolge
October 5, 2006, 07:58 PM
IMHO, the shooter lost all claims to self defence the minute he choose to "settle" the argument.
Where do you get the idea that the CCWer chose to "settle" the argument or that they "took it outside".

When petty thugs feel the need to prove thier toughness, I walk away. When they start calling me names and tossing insults, I walk away.

Based on the story linked it looks like our CCWer had words with the guy and then left and the other guy followed him to continue the "dispute". Sounds to me like the CCWer took your advice and "walked away" ... just goes to show, sometimes when you "walk away" name calling, petty thugs proving their toughness will follow.

Tulsa Shooting Sends A Restaurant Employee To The Hospital
KOTV - 10/5/2006 6:18 AM - Updated 10/5/2006 8:47 AM

A man is in a Tulsa hospital after being shot while working at a Tulsa Waffle House, but he wasn't the intended target.

It happened at about 5:30 PM Wednesday at the restaurant at 51st and Peoria.

Tulsa Police say two men exchanged words inside. One man followed the other one out into the parking lot and pulled out what looked like a gun. It turns out; it was a replica cigarette lighter. The other man, who happened to have a concealed carry permit, pulled out a real gun and fired two shots. He missed, but hit a 37 year old employee inside the restaurant.

The two men were arrested, but it's not clear what charges there will be. Tulsa Police Captain Rick Helberg: "What we're going to do is, we're going to treat it like any other shooting, work the scene very thoroughly and then forward the case down to the DA's office to figure out what charges if any to file."

The shooting victim is expected to be OK.


Sounds to me like the only mistake made by the CCWer was not to keep Rule #4 in mind.

silverlance
October 5, 2006, 08:08 PM
The sad thing is, had this been a perfectly good shoot (not necessarily dumbfish with the lighter DOA), it would have been an excellent story to tell all the folks who say that CCWs are for white hillbillies, etc.

Heck, we might even have been able to get the NAACP to support CCW! Yeah, there' s a thought. :p

I sure laughed for a bit on this one though. Poor window washer, horrible aim on the part of the shooter, and imagine the look that must have been on the other guy's face when he saw the shooter pull out the real deal and start spitting lead!

lol*

ny32182
October 5, 2006, 08:08 PM
The shooter lost his self defense claim if he went outside with the intention to "settle the dispute", and it almost cost a 3rd party their life.

Sounds like he needs to cool his heels in prison for a while to me. Kind of guy that gives all of CCW a bad name...

Erebus
October 5, 2006, 08:10 PM
They should both be charged with the same thing. They both escalated it and brought it to the point that it almost killed an innocent bystander. Neither is any less guilty than the other. The guy pulling the lighter knew that it could result in a gun being pulled and fired in responce. He gambled against the odds that the other guy wasn't carrying and lost. The guy pulling the gun knew full well when he "stepped outside" he was, at least, allowing the situation to escalate and likely it's considered escalating it your self. So I see no one that shouldn't get smacked down here. And they both owe the innocent victim some serious cake. He got shot for their egos.

taliv
October 5, 2006, 08:14 PM
strike one - eating at waffle house
strike two - going to a parking lot to settle an argument while packing
strike three - missing your target

i'm predicting he's going to get what he deserves and deserve what he gets

Zundfolge
October 5, 2006, 08:22 PM
The shooter lost his self defense claim if he went outside with the intention to "settle the dispute", and it almost cost a 3rd party their life.
strike two - going to a parking lot to settle an argument while packing

Did I read a completely different story than you guys did?

I don't see anywhere that the CCWer had any interest in "settling the dispute" or "taking the argument to the parking lot" :confused:

he guy pulling the gun knew full well when he "stepped outside" he was, at least, allowing the situation to escalate and likely it's considered escalating it your self.
Or he was removing himself from the situation to de-escalate it?
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT EVERY CCW INSTRUCTOR IN THE WORLD TELLS YOU TO DO.

It sounds to me like the guy with the lighter tried to start crap with the CCWer and he left like we all agree he should have.

Just because you walk away doesn't mean the other guy is going to let it end there.

Tulsa Police say two men exchanged words inside.
That's pretty vague ... Mr. Lighter might have been a belligerent who just didn't like the cut of Mr. CCWer's jib and tried to start crap with him, Mr. CCWer might have responded with "What?" ... that's enough to count as "exchanged words" but that doesn't mean Mr. CCWer is a belligerent party here.


Boy can you guys sure can armchair quarterback with half the facts ... lord I hope none of you ever serve on a jury :rolleyes:

Eleven Mike
October 5, 2006, 08:23 PM
Erebus,

According to both stories that are linked, we have no indication that the shooter did anything to escalate the argument. Going outside probably meant that he was trying to get away from the other man.

saltydog
October 5, 2006, 08:26 PM
Please. We still have our share of idiot's here too!:rolleyes:

I ocassionally get fingered by some hick or redneck because I won't speed up in the slow lane and do 80 mph but I still smile and keep my 45 auto in its holster:D

Valkman
October 5, 2006, 08:29 PM
How the shooter answered questions to the police (and of course what witnesses say) will determine what happens. If he tried to de-escalate by leaving and was truly scared he can get off. If he escalated it verbally and agreed to settle it outside he'll be charged, and deservedly so.

RobXD9
October 5, 2006, 08:50 PM
I agree with a few other posters.

The "real" shooter lost all hope to "self defense" when he went outside with the guy.

If he really felt "threatened" then why didn't he stay inside and call police?

I say unjustified. Lock him up. He gives CCW a bad name.

Robert

PS: This is assuming the story is accurate. It's possible he actually was walking outside because he was trying to AVOID the situation, and the "lighter" shooter followed.

PlayboyPenguin
October 5, 2006, 08:53 PM
I am not sure I want to go down the road that says "if you CCW you have to walk away from every fight that does not threaten your life". I do agree we have to be more careful and than we have to realize how quickly something little can turn into something big but I do not feel we have to flee every non-life threatening conflict.

If I am out and some loud mouth starts something with me I can usually ignore them...if they started in on a friend or mine or worse yet my better half I am afraid I still reserve the right to confront them and, if they insist on making it something physical, pound some sense into them.

Just because I own a gun does not mean I have to become a doormat for every loud mouth out there.

brickeyee
October 5, 2006, 08:57 PM
"If he really felt "threatened" then why didn't he stay inside and call police?"

Geez. Know we have to call police if we have words in a waffle house???
If they CCW left with the intention if ending the conflict he is clean.
Chase after him and draw a weapon (real or appears real enough) and you are liable to get shot, and justifiably so.
Ending the event by leaving is a well recognized method of trying to terminate the situation.

DRMMR02
October 5, 2006, 09:07 PM
I agree with a few other posters.

The "real" shooter lost all hope to "self defense" when he went outside with the guy.

If he really felt "threatened" then why didn't he stay inside and call police?

I say unjustified. Lock him up. He gives CCW a bad name.

Robert

PS: This is assuming the story is accurate. It's possible he actually was walking outside because he was trying to AVOID the situation, and the "lighter" shooter followed.

Not all verbal fights=threatening. Maybe the guy with the Lighter was just being a jerk. That doesn't necessarily mean he was threatening anyone. Maybe the CCWer just thought 'I don't need to be a part of this, I'm leaving'. And if that is the case, the CCWer is not at fault. We don't really know. Even if what is included in the story accurate, it still leaves things out.

Eleven Mike
October 5, 2006, 09:07 PM
If he really felt "threatened" then why didn't he stay inside and call police?

PS: This is assuming the story is accurate. It's possible he actually was walking outside because he was trying to AVOID the situation, and the "lighter" shooter followed.The story you're reading is the original post, which does not appear to be accurate. The news stories that are linked only indicate that the shooter walked outside and the unarmed moron followed him.

Perhaps he left precisely because he felt threatened and was trying to avoid further conflict. Maybe he planned to call the police from outside.

4v50 Gary
October 5, 2006, 09:12 PM
I think both men need to be locked up. The lighter wielder because he's stupid. The ccw'er because if you're armed, you should know better than to get into a verbal altercation that is going to become physical.

PlayboyPenguin
October 5, 2006, 09:14 PM
Even if the shooter was not leaving and had every intention of going outside and punching the other guy in the face he is not the one that escelated the scene to the point where a firearm was pulled. The other gentleman is the one that did that...he is the one that saw fit to give the impression that he was puling a weapon first.

If he and the shooter were stepping outside to duke it out and the lighter guy pulled a knife it would still be his fault for getting shot. Being willing to punch someone in the melon is not the same as pulling a weapon. The shooter did not step outside and pull his weapon to intimidate the other guy. He went outside for scenerio A (a first fight), the other guy changed it to scenerio B (a gun fight). The lighter guy carries all the blame except for the bad shooting.

Zundfolge
October 5, 2006, 09:27 PM
The ccw'er because if you're armed, you should know better than to get into a verbal altercation that is going to become physical.

You assume the CCWer had some sort of control over the situation ... from the news stories posted its not clear (and I generally assume that any MSM account of a self defense shooting is going to be skewed to make the licensee look bad).

Some guy walks up to you and starts haranguing you what do you do?

Just because you're the type of person who doesn't start crap with other people doesn't mean there aren't people out there who would gladly start crap with you.

PlayboyPenguin
October 5, 2006, 09:32 PM
Just because you're the type of person who doesn't start crap with other people doesn't mean there aren't people out there who would gladly start crap with you.
Agreed...there is a big difference between not starting something and becoming a victim to anyone that will stop short of killing you.

Just because a guy is only going to spit in your face, call your wife a whore, and punch you in the back of the head as you walk away should we not fight back until we are justified in using lethal force just because we are capable of said lethal force. And at what point do you decide it is okay to fight back? It is all about degrees.

Eleven Mike
October 5, 2006, 09:33 PM
Some a y'all gotta real negative outlook. Give the feller the benefit of the doubt.

Pilgrim
October 5, 2006, 09:37 PM
Once upon a time before my law enforcement days, a fellow faced me off in a Denny's restaurant at four in the morning. He decided that I had been staring at him and he was angry. I assured him that after being on the road for four hours I wasn't staring at anyone. I was just waiting for my coffee and English muffin.

He went back to his table with his girlfriend and stared at me for ten minutes before leaving the restaurant.

I decided to sit at my table and have another cup of coffee, giving him enough time to get bored and leave.

By the time I was ready to leave, angry fellow and his girlfriend were gone.

Pilgrim

taliv
October 5, 2006, 09:44 PM
Did I read a completely different story than you guys did?

I don't see anywhere that the CCWer had any interest in "settling the dispute" or "taking the argument to the parking lot"

quite possibly. i only read the first post in the thread and a few responses. i didn't read the actual article. the first post used those exact words.

PlayboyPenguin
October 5, 2006, 11:15 PM
Pigrim,

That is a good ending and I am sure most of us have similar stories. But we also have stories where the guy gets in your face, won't leave alone, even puts there hand son you if you remain where you are and do not run away. Does that make it our fault for not running away?

Pilgrim
October 5, 2006, 11:19 PM
Someone who puts his hands on me gets dumped fast, before he knows what happened to him. He won't get up.

Pilgrim

PlayboyPenguin
October 5, 2006, 11:21 PM
Pilgrim,

My feelings exactely...but some people want to act like just because you are carrying a weapon you have to run away instead of stand up like a man just because it might go south.

Zundfolge
October 5, 2006, 11:31 PM
And at what point do you decide it is okay to fight back?
I'd say right about the time they pull out a gun shaped lighter :p

ny32182
October 6, 2006, 02:29 AM
The standard in these cases dictates that you avoid any physical confrontation if at all possible. If you don't, and you kill someone, you were not acting in self defense... you were acting out of pride, you allowed the situation to escalate when you didn't have to, and you deserve to go to prison. Period.

Rereading he original article, it does sound possible that the CCW guy was trying to leave the WH in an effort to remove himself from the situation, and that lighter guy followed against the shooter's wishes. If that is the case, he may be in the right, but that isn't how the situation was originally presented, and in any case, the shooter still has to be held accountable for where his rounds landed.

I'm sure the cops will investigate and prosecute (or not) as appropriate.

PlayboyPenguin
October 6, 2006, 03:58 AM
The standard in these cases dictates that you avoid any physical confrontation if at all possible.
Who sets this standard? if someone walks up to me and shoves me on the ground and spits on me am I to get up and walk away??? If I am to leave "if at all possible" then I would be obligated to scamper to my feet and run away simply because he did not use lethal force against me.

I am sorry...I just do not subscribe to that mindset.

Cosmoline
October 6, 2006, 04:03 AM
IMHO, the shooter lost all claims to self defence the minute he choose to "settle" the argument.

Absolutely. Leave your machismo in the dresser when you put on your piece. If he really did go outside to settle a fight, he deserves a few years and a smack upside the head for rank stupidity. But then again, who knows what really took place here.

Who sets this standard? if someone walks up to me and shoves me on the ground and spits on me am I to get up and walk away???

With a smile, yes. Unless he crosses the line to deadly force, you'll TAKE IT and you'll LIKE IT or you will go to PRISON. If you don't want to follow those rules, don't pack heat. Then you can lose all the teeth you care to in stupid fights.

It's not about "standing up like a man," it's about keeping a level head and avoiding any situation which might end with you blowing a man's lungs out and watching him cough and shiver his life away. Or even worse, shooting some third party. The rules are simple. Respond with an unlawful threat of deadly force with overwhelming deadly force of your own, until such threat is gone. Give no warning, do not hestitate and use all concealment and cover possible. But respond to lesser force by RUNNING AWAY and avoiding the situation with as much cowardice and unmanly behavior as possible. "Being a man," "defending honor" or settling personal grudges must never enter into it either way. Notions of honor should never enter into self defense tactics, since you want to make it an UNfair fight. Nor should such notions enter into the much more important tactics of avoiding conflict in the first place.

torpid
October 6, 2006, 04:04 AM
I feel bad for the only guy in the situation who did get shot, and all he wanted to do was finish cleaning his windows and go home from his shift at the waffle house.

:(

Harley Quinn
October 6, 2006, 04:25 AM
What caliber is it? Any one mention it?

Went through the wall and still wounded the other person. Shows bad on both. If it was a police shooting they would be harping on the officer not carring for the background and he should have at least let the lighter guy, get off the first shot before he returned fire.:uhoh:

Here is my thought he realized at the last moment it was a lighter, shot anyway and missed on purpose.:neener:
Not realizing it would go through the wall;)

I also agree with cosmoline on this one.

HQ:)

Kankujoe
October 6, 2006, 04:31 AM
I did not read that the CCWer took things outside. I read that he left and the other guy followed him and then he pulled out his lighter (gun). The CCWer pulled out his real gun and shot at the aggressor. I feel that he was justified to shoot at the perp (it probably appeared to be a true assault given the aggression inside and then being followed outside) but because of his poor shooting he is now in trouble for missing the perp and hitting a bystander. The perp was pretty lucky he wasn't killed, and the CCWer was lucky that he did not injure the bystander more than a leg wound. I don't feel that any of us are justified to assume that the CCWer is an idiot.

We can all make fun of this CCWer but I think that he responded correctly albeit he should have been more aware of what was behind his target.

I know that all of us here "think" we would have responded differently but I'm not sure that would be true. I'm sure that it can be pretty disruptive to our judgement when we perceive someone pointing a gun at us.

While it's funny to joke and make light of these kind of situations... it is not really valid to put stock in the joking as being factual...

The true moral of this story IMO should be "if you play with fire (toy lighter guns) you may get burnt..." The lighter guy was the real idiot...

PlayboyPenguin
October 6, 2006, 04:39 AM
Got back earlier from dinner with our realtor and our lawyer. I asked him the question about having to avoid all conflict if carrying and he said "absolutely not". He said that any person is allowed to meet physical aggression with due force for self defense. Just because you are carrying a weapon does not negate that right.

He said if someone threatens to hit you with their fist and you pull a gun then yes you are in trouble because that is undue force but if you simply fight back the fact that you are carrying a gun is not a factor. He said if you get into a shouting match with someone and stand and shout back then the other person pulls a knife then you pull your gun you are not in trouble because you only met aggression with necessary force to protect yourself. The fact that you did not run away when he was just screaming is not a factor. He said hypothetical situations like if you had walked away he would have let you go are not relative and cannot be proven or disproven.

He did add that even though you would probably not face any legal charges if you did not start the conflict you would still be open to civil damages since the burden of proof is different for civil cases.

Cosmoline
October 6, 2006, 04:56 AM
I'm not talking about the code, I'm talking about the RULES--the ones established by many long years of experience. In real life, the line between duly matching non-lethal force with force and mutual assault is REAL THIN! While you are not legally required to turn the other cheek, it's standard practice for anyone carrying a concealed firearm. It's also tactically sound. You keep your cool, you keep your distance, you make sure your attention is on his hands and you keep backing away. You try to get to cover. You keep total control over your sidearm at all times. All of these sound tactics are OUT THE DOOR as soon as you start exchanging blows like some dim-witted drunk. Your vision gets obscured, your arms are up, your sidearm exposed and open to being grabbed at. You're too close to see what the guy's doing.

you simply fight back the fact that you are carrying a gun is not a factor.

Think about what you're saying from a tactical point of view. Almost all fist fights end up on the ground, with both idiots slapping and kicking at each other. You couldn't come up with a worse position to try to EVALUATE whether the other guy has a deadly weapon and whether he's about to USE it.

TheGrouch
October 6, 2006, 04:59 AM
He said if someone threatens to hit you with their fist and you pull a gun then yes you are in trouble because that is undue force but if you simply fight back the fact that you are carrying a gun is not a factor.


That's relative to way too many factors. If you're physically assaulted or believe you are about to be physically assaulted you have the right to protect yourself from "severe bodily harm". Where this becomes interesting is that the factors will include size and age of attacker, number of attackers and your size, age and physical condition. If a 100lb female is assaulted by her 250lb date\lover\husband\random creep, her level of force will be whatever means she needs to prevent severe bodily harm or death. If great grandma Opal decides shes going to attack me with her walker and has every intention of killing me, my level of force would be what is necessary to prevent severe bodily harm or death (which in most cases would not include deadly force). It's not a hard and fast rule. You have to be able to justify your case in court. Would 12 of your peers have done the same thing in your situation?

PlayboyPenguin
October 6, 2006, 04:59 AM
Cosmoline,

I guess we fight differently. I have probably ended up on the ground in maybe two or three fights I have ever been in...and I have been in dozens.

If carrying a pistol for the very rare chance I would ever need to deal out deadly force meant I had to behave like a coward in the more likely event that I was in a situation of having to fight someone man to man I would never carry a weapon.

Cosmoline
October 6, 2006, 05:02 AM
I don't get in fights. I avoid them by avoiding idiots who get in fights. This in spite of living in places famous for folks losing teeth, from Spenard to The Butte and the bad end of the Mat-Su. Lots of guys out there love to fist fight, they do it practically every weekend. Just add some booze and they start defending their honor. You know what I do? I pay attention to where they are and I don't go there. Bars, mostly. If I see someone giving me stink eye, I move off. I keep my eyes out for trouble, I don't respond to challenges. If I hear gunshots I run for cover. I'm a proud coward. I'm sure I could deliver some good blows, but I'm also sure I could get some dental bills of my own and maybe some jail time. It ain't worth it.

PlayboyPenguin
October 6, 2006, 05:04 AM
I don't get in fights. I avoid them by avoiding idiots who get in fights
Then couldn't you avoid situations where you would need a firearm just as easily?

Sometimes you have no say in what or who seeks you out and I refuse to live my life in fear of who might approach me if I leave my house.

Cosmoline
October 6, 2006, 05:38 AM
Then couldn't you avoid situations where you would need a firearm just as easily?

I certainly try to, and I hope I will always be able to. It's much easier to walk away from someone wanting a punchup than it is to dodge their bullets, though.

I don't think anyone is asking you to live your life in fear. The key is to discard notions of "upholding honor" by meeting idiotic challenges or getting in punch-ups.

BullfrogKen
October 6, 2006, 05:43 AM
PP, its gonna sound like I'm picking on you today. I swear I'm not, but you have stated some thoughts that aren't accurate, and frankly come across as kinda hot-headed. You can tell me to go to hell, also, but I suggest you might want to retink your position. . . .

PlayboyPenguin said: if they started in on a friend or mine or worse yet my better half I am afraid I still reserve the right to confront them and, if they insist on making it something physical, pound some sense into them.

Just because I own a gun does not mean I have to become a doormat for every loud mouth out there.

The armed person in the room has moral imperative to be the MOST self-controlled, polite person present. Why? Because he has the means and ability to take the life others.
You don't have to take a beating. But - we don't engage in fights under the auspices of "pounding some sense into them." I know you used it as an expression, just be clear about how that sounds to others.


PlayboyPenguin said: He (the shooter) went outside for scenerio A (a first fight), the other guy changed it to scenerio B (a gun fight). The lighter guy carries all the blame except for the bad shooting. . . . . Got back earlier from dinner with our realtor and our lawyer. . . . .

The next time you two go out, ask him about the concept of "mutual combat". Ask him about its ramifications on the claim to self defense.


PlayboyPenguin said: Who sets this standard? if someone walks up to me and shoves me on the ground and spits on me am I to get up and walk away???

Well, the law sets guidelines about such things, but in reality, the prosecutor in your area will determine if the initial evidence supports a charge, and those whose duty it is of finding facts and deciding guilt in any subsequent trial will. It certainly is not your, nor my, opinion. You roll those dice, you take the gamble that you might loose.


The claim of self defense is an affirmative defense. You are not disputing your actions, but rather stated you have reason under the law (either statute or common) that you had met criteria that permitted you to justifiably commit the act of harming or killing another. There are circumstances that preclude you from using the claim of self defense. Again, that conversation with your attorney might be a little more enlightning if you ask about what those are.


I suggest you take, or re-take, a class that addresses the legal aspect of carrying a weapon by a reptutable instructor. Most all cover AOJP now in some fashion. The concept of Preclusion addresses your specific attitudes and statements about what you feel is right or not. I assure you that those who have the duty of evaluating your actions will be looking to the evidence and asking you questions towards establishing whether you could have safely avoided shooting someone. The newly passed laws in several states suggest to remove the burden of satisfying that concern, under limited and defined circumstances, but I do not believe Oregon to be one of them.



Specific to this article:
We have no evidence here this man left the resturaunt either to engage in a fight outside, or not. So I won't say he has to go to prison, or that he's free and clear. The media reported it in such a fashion to remain vague, but did use words designed to impress that the shooter may have contributed to the escalation. I'm going to bet they have NO clue, but put such a spin on the story. Otherwise, they'd have been less ambiguous.

BullfrogKen
October 6, 2006, 05:59 AM
PlayboyPenguin said: If carrying a pistol for the very rare chance I would ever need to deal out deadly force meant I had to behave like a coward in the more likely event that I was in a situation of having to fight someone man to man I would never carry a weapon.

Hey, you said it. I agree, maybe you should reconsider it.


Do you advocate the concept of fighting someone man to man?


What I did as a child and teenager on the playground is a part of growing up, and used to be acceptable. It is not condoned as the behavior of mature adults. Certainly, the attitude that suggests we can solve the disputes of insults to manhood with violence is completely and utterly incompatable with men who decide to walk about society armed. Hell, even martial arts disciplines forbid that attitude and behavior from its students.

ID_shooting
October 6, 2006, 11:02 AM
I showed up to formation one Monday moring with a nice big ole shiner over my left eye. The 1ST Sergeant asked me who won the fight. I replied that well, I am here and he is in jail. Top asked if I hit him back and I said no. Top looked at me, gave a sly smile and said, "You won."

Letting somone be a jerk is not a challenge to your "manhood." Honestly, do you think your wife, girlfriend, or other is goin to dump you based on if you are macho or not? My wife would rather me come home at night than go around being Mr tough guy.

Manedwolf
October 6, 2006, 11:20 AM
I think the best advice here is to never eat at an Awful House. If the food doesn't kill you, the fights that ALWAYS start at those will.

scottw
October 6, 2006, 12:30 PM
It would be interesting to do some research on how many shooting are done at Waffle House. I know that when I was in KC there was a shooting at a Waffle House on Front St. and I am not sure but seem to recall a shooting at a Waffle House in Liberty MO. Think I might start eating pan cakes.

Zundfolge
October 6, 2006, 12:33 PM
Waffle House restaurants are "victim disarmament zones" by corporate policy (and many are "cash only" operations as well).

Most aren't in the best neighborhoods.

It doesn't surprise me that there's lots of shootings at them.


Aside from that, if the shootings don't get you the food will :barf:

RobXD9
October 6, 2006, 01:32 PM
Let me clarify my earlier post...I'm not saying the guy was a sissy, nor should one have to be a "coward."

But we're missing something from this story. I read the article. (not the post, the article) and it said they went outside to settle their argument.

Okay, for all of you talking about, "Lighter boy" pulled his lighter and therefore HE escalated the situation...

Here's what a prosecuter is going to look at...

If "lighter boy" suggested to take it outside, and "gunboy" followed...NO CLAIM TO SELF DEFENSE. Why? Because "gunboy" had the opportunity to de-escalate the situation. By going outside with lighterboy, gunboy created an entirely NEW situation. (ie: the fight had a chance to end, and he didn't take it. As PP suggests - he might've been going to "pound some sense into him."

Now, what about if gunboy suggested they "take it outside?" STILL NO CLAIM TO SELF DEFENSE. Why? Same reason.

Without knowing that states laws and case law, the only lawful claim to self defense would've occured like this... lighterboy picks the fight. gunboy says, "forget this. I'm leaving." Walks away. As he gets outside, out comes lighterboy flashing his bad ass lighter toy.

Now the situation is changed, and self defense is in order.

Penguin - I hear what you're saying. I wouldn't want to see my family, or wife getting "dogged" "picked on" etc by someone else. And I appreciate your desire to stand up against the criminal element.

But you have to be sure all of YOUR bases are covered before you pull that weapon.

That's all I'm saying here. Did the guy who pulled the real gun screw himself or do the right thing?

I don't know. That's for the courts to decide, which undoubtedly will happen given that an innocent 3rd party was hit.

You can bet that the only way gunboy gets off is if he can proove that he was attempting to LEAVE the scene (and the fight) behind.

Call it "cowardly" behavior all you want. But that's how it'll go down.

Robert

Eleven Mike
October 6, 2006, 01:46 PM
I read the article. (not the post, the article) and it said they went outside to settle their argument.Where did it say that? Are you talking about the article linked in post #3? That's not what it said.

From the article:
Tulsa Police say two men exchanged words inside. One man followed the other one out into the parking lot and pulled out what looked like a gun.

These sentences would fit any of the three scenarios you mentioned, but the implication is that the shooter left and was followed by the smoker. If the shooter agreed to this ahead of time, the article doesn't mention it.

GungHo
October 6, 2006, 03:35 PM
With a smile, yes. Unless he crosses the line to deadly force, you'll TAKE IT and you'll LIKE IT or you will go to PRISON.
Please note, however, that you don't have to take the beating. If all he's doing is being a drunk jerk, that's one thing. But if someone's attacking you, you do not need to wait until he's beating you to death before deciding that, "hey, maybe this guy's serious."

Otherwise, I agree with your sentiment.

PlayboyPenguin
October 6, 2006, 03:42 PM
ID Shooting,

That is a nice sentiment and I bet it made you feel better at the time but it is a load of crap. To take verbal abuse from someone is fine but to allow someone to do you physical harm or to do physical harm to a loved one is being a coward and a sheep. Many religions have taught people to be sheep for centuries so that they would roll over without a fight everytime the monarche decided to do something unfair and unjust. I will not be a part of that. If a person puts their hands on me or a loved one in a violent manner I am taking them down. That doesn't mean I am pulling a gun or the knife I always have in my pocket... it means I am going to meet them with equal aggression and force.

Harley Quinn
October 6, 2006, 04:10 PM
I have been in quite a few altercations myself are you LEO if not why are you in all these fights.

I was in plenty when a youth, many in the USMC. Many in LEO, hardly any in my life since retired. Carry yes, push it because I have a gun, Never.

Try to make it go away. I am not a bully, I am a bad dude, but do I want to fight no, if I have to for protection of myself and others. Yep

HQ:)

BullfrogKen
October 6, 2006, 04:32 PM
ID Shooting came away with more than a nice sentiment; he did win that fight. As a young Marine, I'd say he acted with uncommon maturity. It appears he didn't need to engage in a fistfight to solve that problem. Good decision, Leatherneck.


PP, I mean this with all sincerity and goodwill. Take some time to reconsider your attitude. No one is advocating pacifism; I have no idea why you decided to introduce religion into this, so let us leave it out of the discussion. You are suggesting that de-escalation is cowardice, and that exercising restraint doesn't suit honorable men.


Both I and others stated earlier you are not required to take a beating. Perhaps you decided to ignore where we are all in agreement on that matter. However, when the situation is such that a fight is not necessary for self-preservation and protection, but rather to keep your ego intact, it is unnecessary and an unwise attitude to harbor.

PlayboyPenguin said: Just because a guy is only going to spit in your face, call your wife a whore, and punch you in the back of the head as you walk away should we not fight back until we are justified in using lethal force just because we are capable of said lethal force. And at what point do you decide it is okay to fight back? It is all about degrees.


I would ask you the question you asked us earlier. At what point do you decide its ok to fight back? You suggest by your statements it is for matters that include more than self-preservation. Don't you think, even as a practical matter, that's an expensive choice?

springmom
October 6, 2006, 04:34 PM
Never bring a lighter to a gun fight...

I don't care who you are. THAT'S funny.

Springmom

PlayboyPenguin
October 6, 2006, 04:52 PM
Harley,

I used to be an LEO for a short period but most of my fights have come from being raised in a very poor part of WV where you fought to keep what you had. Fighting was not an option. You either fought back or you got beat regularly and had things like your bike, shoes, anything you had, taken from you.

Bullfrog.

Since pacifism by definition regards the acts of war and not violence it is not true pacifism but it is an act of allowing yourself to be abused. I have never started a fight in my life. I hate fighting. It tears my stomach up so badly I cannot stand it. But I would never stand by and let someone put their hands on a loved one and say "I cannot get involved unless they threaten your life because I have a gun or a knife on me which might escelate the situation". That is just absurd and I will not do it.

I would love to have someone on here show me legal cases where someone was charged for getting in a fight and having a weapon on them that was not used in the altercation or where someone was chrarged for drawing a weapon after someone that had started a fight with them escelated the situation to the point were they had to draw their weapon.

neoncowboy
October 6, 2006, 04:55 PM
The sad thing is, had this been a perfectly good shoot (not necessarily dumbfish with the lighter DOA), it would have been an excellent story to tell all the folks who say that CCWs are for white hillbillies, etc.


Yeah, but then it wouldn't have made the press.

Can't have the people thinking that anything good can come out of firearms ownership now, can we?

BullfrogKen
October 6, 2006, 05:06 PM
it would have been an excellent story to tell all the folks who say that CCWs are for white hillbillies, etc.

The news broadcast showed a black man as the CCW holder. So, that woulda been quite a feat to portray him as a white hillbilly.

PlayboyPenguin said: Since pacifism by definition regards the acts of war and not violence

PP - To clarify the issue of pacifism, Encarta's definition:

a belief that violence, war, and the taking of lives are unacceptable ways of resolving disputes
the refusal to take up arms or participate in war because of moral or religious beliefs
politics a belief that international conflicts should be settled by negotiation rather than war

PlayboyPenguin said: I would love to have someone on here show me legal cases where someone was charged for getting in a fight and having a weapon on them that was not used in the altercation or where someone was chrarged for drawing a weapon after someone that had started a fight with them escelated the situation to the point were they had to draw their weapon.


A case for what? Where mutual combat precluded the affirmative claim to self-defense? Be more clear, and I'll find you one.

PlayboyPenguin
October 6, 2006, 05:14 PM
A case for what? Where mutual combat precluded the affirmative claim to self-defense? Be more clear, and I'll find you on

Okay, I would think specifics would not be needed to find such an instance but here goes...

Guy 1 is sitting in a diner. Guy 2 starts bad mouthing him. Guy 1 ignores him and starts eating his meal. Guy 2 walks over and picks up guy 1's hamburger and shoves it into his face. Guy 1 stands up and forcefully shoves guy 2. Guy 2 stumbles and falls then pulls out a switchblade knife. Guy 1 then pulls out his snubbie revolver and ends the situation one way or the other.

Show me a case where guy 1 is charged with a crime. Surely he must be in the wrong because he did not leave when guy 2 first started bad mouthing him and then even failed to crawl under the table and then flee once guy 2 shoved the burger in his face.

Eleven Mike
October 6, 2006, 05:21 PM
If a person puts their hands on me or a loved one in a violent manner I am taking them down. That doesn't mean I am pulling a gun or the knife I always have in my pocket... it means I am going to meet them with equal aggression and force.Completely wrong. You should meet them with utterly superior force. Or at least whatever you have on you at the time. :)

I don't know if Playboy is entirely correct, but I agree with his sentiment. While lethal force isn't for protecting your pride, part of the reason for our current crime rate is that we allow violent people to have too much leeway. Every time we let the violent man have his way, every time we avoid the bad part of town, even when we're armed and prepared for trouble, it sends the wrong message.

romma
October 6, 2006, 05:22 PM
determined that the shooter was justified drawing and firing on the lighter guy, then I thing the lighter guy should be the one liable for damages. I think if the ccw/shooter escalated the conflict by arguing, then he should burden some blame but not all. However, people do disagree and argue over such things as parking places or whatever. You have to take The High Road and walk away from these scenerios if at all possible.

Eleven Mike
October 6, 2006, 05:25 PM
The lighter guy? Yo, why this gotta be a racial thing? :p

mp510
October 6, 2006, 06:21 PM
A few years ago, a Hartford Police Officer shot a black kid dead after a foot persuit. The kid pulled one of those gun shaped lighters on him, and the cop fired believing it was a real weapon. IIRC he was either acquitted or not charged in the end (it was really drawn out, and the officer ended up in the clear). Little Punk's family, and most of the minority community in Hartford was pretty TO'd that the officer didn't end up in the clink.

stiletto raggio
October 6, 2006, 06:28 PM
I have not been in a fist fight since high school, and I don't really intend to get involved in any in the immediate future. That said, I am ready to throw down if necessary. When is it necessary? If someone gets physical with me. Will I try to avoid that happening? Yes. Will I back down from all comers? No.

As an LEO and a military officer, I can certainly see myself needing to get physical with someone, but usually I can give the impression that violence will be met with violence, and that keeps most people in line.

I never leave the house without a weapon of some sort. Be prepared, right? Still, the use of that weapon, be it a knife or a firearm or a collapsible baton, is not the first resort. Nor does it require me to run away form everyone hwo looks at me cross-eyed. It comes down to assessing a situation and trusting yourself to act appropriately in the face of whatever is brought your way.

razorburn
October 6, 2006, 07:09 PM
It seems a lot of people only read the first post and didn't read the article. I'll restate it in bold.



The first post is wrong. The CCW did not suggest or agree to "taking it outside" to fight it out. He was followed, presumably against his will.

Cosmoline
October 6, 2006, 07:25 PM
Guy 1 is sitting in a diner. Guy 2 starts bad mouthing him. Guy 1 ignores him and starts eating his meal. Guy 2 walks over and picks up guy 1's hamburger and shoves it into his face. Guy 1 stands up and forcefully shoves guy 2. Guy 2 stumbles and falls then pulls out a switchblade knife. Guy 1 then pulls out his snubbie revolver and ends the situation one way or the other.

Show me a case where guy 1 is charged with a crime. Surely he must be in the wrong because he did not leave when guy 2 first started bad mouthing him and then even failed to crawl under the table and then flee once guy 2 shoved the burger in his face.

Guy 1 should alert the manager and have the police called. He should go get behind the counter if the other fellow chases him. Getting up and pushing Guy 2 to the ground should only be done to the extent necessary to escape. If it's done in retaliation for having the burger in his face, then Guy 1 is not acting in self defense. Self defense would involve trying to stop Guy 2 from shoving the burger in the first place.

Zundfolge
October 6, 2006, 07:30 PM
Guy 1 stands up and forcefully shoves Guy 2
Legal definition: Guy 1 committed battery on Guy 2 ... a hamburger is not a lethal weapon (although if he was blocking the hamburger and in the process Guy 2 landed on the ground it might be a different story).

Guy 2 stumbles and falls then pulls out a switchblade knife.
After being the victim of battery Guy 2 produces a weapon to protect himself from Guy 1 ... unless he makes an attempt to stab Guy 1 (or other "furtive movements"), he's still not a threat (legality of a "switchblade" notwithstanding).

PlayboyPenguin
October 6, 2006, 07:35 PM
Cosmoline,

You are completely wrong. Legally, and in my opinion, ethically. If you are not the aggressor you do not have the responsibility to flee from every bad person out there and allow them to run over you and then the next person they decide to behave this way towards. Living my life like a prey animal ready to dart at the first sign of trouble is not how I am going to live my life. Like I said many times before...i will never start trouble, and will usually ignore people that try to up until the point where they make it physical. At that time I have every right to defend myself.

That doesn't mean I have the right to kill them. it simply means I have the right to exert enough counter force to end the attack and assure my own safety.

Even bad gun laws that included the "need to flee" are being struck down in court or re-writtenn due to their absurdity. The idea that you are obligated to run away if your home is invaded it laughable and people realize that fact. In most cases the "need to flee" only refers to the use of deadly force. You are not under the same obligation during a non-lethal physical attack.

redneckrepairs
October 6, 2006, 07:41 PM
Other than bad marksmanship its obvious to me that someone is dreadfully guilty of not scattering and smothering the hashbrowns ... other than that this thread imho has allready had its 15 minutes or so of fame lol .

PlayboyPenguin
October 6, 2006, 07:44 PM
Does your screenname imply that you repair rednecks? I have a few in my family that could use some work. They haven't worked in years and they give off a funny smell.

saltydog
October 6, 2006, 08:30 PM
I don't get in fights. I avoid them by avoiding idiots who get in fights. This in spite of living in places famous for folks losing teeth, from Spenard to The Butte and the bad end of the Mat-Su. Lots of guys out there love to fist fight, they do it practically every weekend. Just add some booze and they start defending their honor. You know what I do? I pay attention to where they are and I don't go there. Bars, mostly. If I see someone giving me stink eye, I move off. I keep my eyes out for trouble, I don't respond to challenges. If I hear gunshots I run for cover. I'm a proud coward. I'm sure I could deliver some good blows, but I'm also sure I could get some dental bills of my own and maybe some jail time. It ain't worth it.

Thats probably because your above all the B.S. and you have a life. The sess pool is not for everyone. :D

knuckles
October 6, 2006, 08:35 PM
and they give off a funny smell.


Do they vibrate slightly, while making a strange noise? I think I might know what that is... :D

BullfrogKen
October 6, 2006, 09:01 PM
Cosmoline,

You are completely wrong. Legally, and in my opinion, ethically. If you are not the aggressor you do not have the responsibility to flee from every bad person out there . . . .

In most cases the "need to flee" only refers to the use of deadly force. You are not under the same obligation during a non-lethal physical attack.
<emphasis mine>


WHERE are you basing those statements and arguements?

PP, I spent some time gathering that case information. There are several ways I can answer your hypothetical. Frankly, I'm not sure if this conversation is wasted.

Eleven Mike
October 6, 2006, 09:14 PM
If you are not the aggressor you do not have the responsibility to flee from every bad person out there and allow them to run over you and then the next person they decide to behave this way towards.
Plus Uno.

I'll let you experts decide how such a case will be judged by our pathetic legal system. But Guy 1 is getting off easy by getting pushed to the ground. Who are you to say it's not self-defense? Unless Guy 1 was walking away at the time, it would certainly appear to be.

Penguin has a profound point in seeing how our actions in such encounters will affect future victims and the society at large.

PlayboyPenguin
October 6, 2006, 09:16 PM
WHERE are you basing those statements and arguements?

I am basing this on the information I received from our lawyer and from what I have been able to look up (and understand) in state law.

PP, I spent some time gathering that case information. There are several ways I can answer your hypothetical. Frankly, I'm not sure if this conversation is wasted.
Well, lets hear it? Site a case with the previously stated circumstances where a person defending themselves was convicted of a crime. I am open to hear it.

Harley Quinn
October 6, 2006, 09:25 PM
Yes I do understand what you are saying.
I was in Norfolk stationed for 2 years "sea going" Had a couple of WV guys in the detachment. Fought their way around the world and back again.:eek:

Tough does not do them justice.:)

HQ;)

Lupinus
October 6, 2006, 09:37 PM
Personally I am going with penguin (least up till page too where I stopped reading the posts).

If I carry a gun and you spit in my face or grab my girl friends ass expect to have your nose broken. Just because someone is carrying a gun does not mean that they have to be a coward and take any and every abuse thrown at them without response. You may do that if you so choose, but you shouldn't be dictating to others that just because they choose to arm themselves they have to take each and every abuse thrown at them. Feel free to say they shouldn't pull their gun, don't say they have to tuck tail and wrong because it is wrong and absurd. Meet force with force. If someone punches you spits in your face grabs your girls ass etc, defend yourself by the appropriate force. You have the capability of using lethal force in carrying a gun, that doesn't mean you have to use lethal force or no force. Don't cause the fight but you should damn well be able to respond to it in ways other then tuck tail or blast away.

As far as legality goes I think it depends a lot on state law. As I understand my state law the use of deadly force and be in the clear you have to be in no fault of bringing the altercation. I think it can be left open to interpretation though in being at fault for bringing an altercation because when do you become at fault for it? Throwing the first punch? Having a few words with someone? Defending yourself rather then running away and it then escalating to another level when someone else pulls a weapon? Sometimes it might be clear cut but others it seems pretty open to the person reviewing it.

ny32182
October 6, 2006, 10:10 PM
As I understand my state law the use of deadly force and be in the clear you have to be in no fault of bringing the altercation.

That about sums it up. After a shooting, the question will be, did you do *everything possible* to avoid the outcome of having to use lethal force. If the answer is no, you go to jail.

The one exception is if you are in your own house... inside your house you have no duty to retreat. Outside your house, you do. Speaking on SC law specifically.

saspic
October 7, 2006, 01:40 AM
#77
originally posted by Zundfolge"
"Quote:
Guy 1 stands up and forcefully shoves Guy 2"
Legal definition: Guy 1 committed battery on Guy 2 ... a hamburger is not a lethal weapon (although if he was blocking the hamburger and in the process Guy 2 landed on the ground it might be a different story).
Ah, but what if the hamburger was blocking the air passages of Guy 1?
"Can't...breathe...Delicious...suffocation...Must shoot to...stop attacker...Defend life."

ID_shooting
October 7, 2006, 02:24 AM
I guess what we have here is one group the views not escalating tense situations as cowardice. I view life differently. You can spit in my face, you can call me a MF, you can call my wife a filthy W. We will just laugh and walk away. A coward has to prove himself, I do not. I am comfortable with my position enough to let you be a jerk.

Touching my wife or child, you will be staring down the barrel. You can say what you want, you can pretty much abuse me all you care. Get physical, there is but one response. As a disabled person, I can pretty much claim any fight with a fully abled person is life threatening.

bouis
October 7, 2006, 02:49 AM
For it to be a clean shoot, you can't be the first to threaten deadly force or serious bodily harm. In theory you could walk up to someone, out of the blue, and slap him in the face over and over. If he pulls [what appears to be] a gun on you, it's valid self-defense for you to shoot him dead, because he escalated it to the level of deadly force.

Without knowing exactly what happened, I'd say the guy with the lighter-gun threatened deadly force first and as such was the "aggressor," regardless of whether the shooter intended to fight when he went outside or not.

Now of course the circumstances leading up to the drawing of the fake gun are going to be considered, very much so, by the prosecutor in deciding whether or not to take the shooter's testimony at face value, or prosecute for various possible offenses.

tulsamal
October 7, 2006, 03:12 AM
I guess we fight differently. I have probably ended up on the ground in maybe two or three fights I have ever been in...and I have been in dozens.

That's kind of scary. I'm 44 years old, eight years in the US Army, ex-Drill Sergeant and the last fight I was in was 5th grade. I'm a decent sized guy so there is some deterrent there. But mostly it is because I don't put myself into situations where these things are going to happen. Even when I was in the Army and went out to bars with the guys, it still didn't happen to me. I didn't run away from any conflicts or anything; they just don't happen. Some people seem to attract fights. Others do not.

If I carry a gun and you spit in my face or grab my girl friends ass expect to have your nose broken. Just because someone is carrying a gun does not mean that they have to be a coward and take any and every abuse thrown at them without response.

Now I agree with that up to a point. But I'm 44 years old and nobody has ever spit in my face. No one has ever grabbed my wife's ass in some kind of attacking manner. If someone is actually threatening and attacking you or your family, you have to respond in some way. But I'm going to want to know afterwards what you did to avoid the situation in the first place? Why did it happen? What did you say or do that led up to the event? Once again, if you are the type that just "somehow" seems to attract full blown fist fights, maybe you really shouldn't be carrying a gun! At least not in the situations where your past experience is telling you that a fight is a good possibility.

Gregg

Andrew Rothman
October 7, 2006, 03:30 AM
Here's what I was able to scrape up with a few minutes of searching. It's not intended to be comprehensive, just a random sampling based on some keyword guesses.

My personal and professional view as a carry permit holder and instructor? You've got to be an idiot to forget that a) when you are armed, every conflict is an armed conflict, b) you can carry a gun or a temper, but not both.

Besides, if you fail to de-escalate, and end up shooting, even assuming that you get away with a self-defense legal defense, it'll cost you 50 or 100 grand to defend yourself in the criminal and civil cases.

As I tell my students, "As all married men come to know, sometimes when you are right, all you can do is apologize."

Andrew "Haven't Been in a Fistfight Since Junior High" Rothman

---

CALJIC No. 5.56, California jury instructions:

The right of self-defense is only available to a person who engages in mutual combat if he has done all the following: [¶] 1. He has actually tried, in good faith, to refuse to continue fighting; [¶] 2. He has clearly informed his opponent that he wants to stop fighting; [¶] 3. He has clearly informed his opponent that he has stopped fighting; and [¶] 4. He has given his opponent the opportunity to stop fighting. [¶] After he has done these four things, he has the right to self-defense if his opponent continues to fight.

Minnesota case law is pretty clear, too, as to when you can use deadly force. Joel Rosenberg explains it well in his book (http://ellegon.com/features/data/orderingthebook/):

1. You must be a "reluctant participant."

2. You must be reasonably in immediate fear of "death or great bodily harm."

3. No lesser force will serve, making deadly force necessary.

4. Retreat is not practical.

All of these factors must be present in order to lawfully use, or threaten to use, deadly force.

...

The classic example of a reluctant participant in a violent confrontation is a mugging victim. You're minding your own business, walking down the street, and somebody shoves you up against the wall and brandishes a knife. Forgetting, for just a moment, what the best way of handling that confrontation is -- although we'll return to it -- you are, in law and in fact, a reluctant participant. You weren't looking for a confrontation, and have not taken any action that would indicate otherwise.

Compare that to, say, a stereotypical loud bar confrontation. Somebody says something offensive to you; you respond with harsh words, and words turn to pushing and shoving, which turns to him pulling a knife and you pulling a gun.

Neither the police nor the courts are going to think of you as a reluctant participant. You've voluntarily engaged in this confrontation, and while it's escalated far beyond what you've wanted or intended, you haven't tried to avoid it. You're not a reluctant participant, and you're in legal trouble, even if the person who pulled the knife backs down.

Florida: (http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2005/House/bills/analysis/pdf/h0249a.JU.pdf)
In Florida, a person acting in self-defense outside his or her home or workplace has a “duty to use every reasonable means to avoid the danger, including retreat, prior to using deadly force.”

This common law duty created by the courts is also referred to as a duty to retreat “to the wall” and is not found in statute.

The duty to retreat applies to mutual combatants and to an initial aggressor.



Wyoming: (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/wyomingstatecases//1998/97-54.pdf)
Two critical facts distinguish Leeper from the case at bar. First, Leeper’s husband and Johannsen were mutual combatants. Since her husband could not assert self-defense, Mrs. Leeper could not invoke the defense of others. In the present case, viewing the facts in Duckett’s favor, Mrs. Duckett and Carlson were not mutual combatants. Carlson was the
aggressor. Mrs. Duckett would thus assert self-defense, which in turn permits her husband to invoke the defense of others.


Connecticut jury instructions:
(http://www.jud.ct.gov/CriminalJury/2-40a.html)a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety . . . by retreating . . . .

KD5NRH
October 7, 2006, 03:42 AM
The armed person in the room has moral imperative to be the MOST self-controlled, polite person present. Why? Because he has the means and ability to take the life others.

Who doesn't have that ability? Didn't we just get done discussing the very out-of-shape woman who strangled an armed intruder to death?

The self-control comes in when deciding the appropriate level and type of response to the situation at hand. There are levels of force other than deadly, and being prepared to use deadly force does not negate ones ability to use lesser force when necessary.

bouis
October 7, 2006, 05:10 AM
Andrew Rothman: a quick search of California case law reveals that the instruction is missing a part:

“Where a person seeks or induces a quarrel
which leads to the necessity in his own defense of using force against his adversary, the
right to stand his ground and thus defend himself is not immediately available to him,
but, instead he must first decline to carry on the affray, must honestly endeavor to escape
from it, and must fairly and clearly inform his adversary of his desire for peace and of his
abandonment of the contest unless the attack is so sudden and perilous that he cannot
withdraw. . . .”

You can read that case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/g027470.pdf

I would be very suprised if any state actually abrogated the common law rule as I stated it.

Harley Quinn
October 7, 2006, 02:38 PM
To bad,:confused: but it is not CA law that is going to prosecute.
Good post though thanks for the url.
Okies came to CA did they ever return after being able to live,
and work and have their kids grow up? Does not look like it.
HQ:)

PlayboyPenguin
October 7, 2006, 02:40 PM
The key phrase in all those laws are "seeks" or "induces"...not running away is not seeking or inducing a fight. Going up to someone that flips you off in traffic and getting a shouting match would be considered "inducing" but standing your ground and fighting back when attacked in neither.

C96
October 7, 2006, 03:02 PM
PP - I assume your lawyer is a practicing criminal defense lawyer and not some other type. Also you should remember that lawyers don't take criminal defense cases on a contingency basis. :D

Even if you go to jail, the lawyer still gets paid. Hopefully you will grow up a bit before you end up taking an applied lesson in criminal law.

Andrew has supplied a number of good references, take a good look at them.

allan

PlayboyPenguin
October 7, 2006, 03:07 PM
C96,

Grow up? I am not the one making a personal attack. You might want to consider your words before making such a statement.

As for the references that were supplied they did not relate to the scenerio I created. In the scenerio I created Guy1 in no way what-so-ever sought out or induced a conflict. I am not sure why you cannot see that.

I guess by some people's thinking it was the USA's fault that we got into WWII because we should have not had our ships out there where they could be bombed..and when they were bombed we failed to retreat. :rolleyes:

Lupinus
October 7, 2006, 03:14 PM
I guess what we have here is one group the views not escalating tense situations as cowardice. I view life differently. You can spit in my face, you can call me a MF, you can call my wife a filthy W. We will just laugh and walk away. A coward has to prove himself, I do not. I am comfortable with my position enough to let you be a jerk.
I don't think anyone is saying that you shouldn't descalate a situation in ways that don't involve your fists. What is being said however is that you shouldn't have to run away in order to do so.

Touching my wife or child, you will be staring down the barrel.
Ok fine, that there is what we are saying. But we are saying that usin a right hook is just as viable an option if that will work and that just because you carry a gun doesn't mean that it should have to be a toss up between no force and lethal force.

Now I agree with that up to a point. But I'm 44 years old and nobody has ever spit in my face. No one has ever grabbed my wife's ass in some kind of attacking manner. If someone is actually threatening and attacking you or your family, you have to respond in some way. But I'm going to want to know afterwards what you did to avoid the situation in the first place? Why did it happen? What did you say or do that led up to the event? Once again, if you are the type that just "somehow" seems to attract full blown fist fights, maybe you really shouldn't be carrying a gun! At least not in the situations where your past experience is telling you that a fight is a good possibility.
Come to think of it it's never happened to me either since the 9th grade. However, the point is should it happen just because you carry a tool that means you are capable of lethal force doesn't mean you should have to use lethal force or no force. Meet force with proper force, it isn't about saving face. If you can leave sure do so but you shouldn't have to spend your life running from every situation which might escalate if you don't leave.

No one is saying go looking for a fight when armed that would be stupid. No one is saying use your fists without thinking either. But in a public space you shouldn't have to retreat everytime some idiot looks at you cross eyed and just because you are carrying doesn't mean you should have to always use it or nothing.

PlayboyPenguin
October 7, 2006, 03:20 PM
Lupinus,

Well said....

C96
October 7, 2006, 03:41 PM
PP - My apologies for the "grow up" comment. I associate much of the macho talk with times of my youth. My mistake.

Did you carefully read what Andrew posted ?

Is your legal advise coming from a practicing criminal defense lawyer ?

Have you spent anytime in criminal court ?

If you are carrying a firearm, avoiding it's use should be very high on your list of objectives. Getting into dust-ups does not seem to fit that objective.

Staying healthy and out of jail are both high on my list.

allan

PlayboyPenguin
October 7, 2006, 03:57 PM
C96,

Apology accepted.

Yes, our lawyer used to be an asst. DA in Washington county before going into real estate law (where there is more money).

I have spent alot of time in court but usually in cases involving child custody when I worked for Ohio's children's services division while working on my psychology degree (was a paycheck and school credit).

As far as a fight goes...I have not been in one in ten (10) years and I did not start that one. I was defending a guy that was being harrassed by 3 guys in a bar. They had singled him out for a "gay bashing" and bar management would not do anything unless they actual started something and our local police have about a 2-3 hour response time if a crime is not actually taking place. I guess I could have done nothing and let them follow him home when the bar closed and hour later and beat him to death in the street.

I do not start trouble. I ignore jerks. I ignore people that cut me off in traffic and just write them off as a-holes or think to myself "boy their life must suck for them to be so angry and I sure am glad I am not them". This being said I will not flee every time I think something might go south. I just will not do it. I will also never allow myself or a loved one to be physically violated without response.

scottw
October 7, 2006, 09:42 PM
I started this post and am amazed at the different discussions that have come up. I guess we can live in scenario land forever so with that in mind let me put one in that could actually happen. I have eaten at that Waffle House and I was thinking, what if I had just stepped around the corner when the man with the real gun shot and that bullet just missed me? I would draw and shoot him as fast as I could and as soon as I started shooting and took out the first man the other one with the lighter turned to face me and I saw a look alike gun I would shoot him. What a mell of a hess. (hell of a mess). One of the biggest problems I see is that no 2 states have the same laws. I know someone will jump on this if they are from Oklahoma. But as I understand it you are not allowed to draw a weapon because you are getting your ass kicked, it is not considered deadly force.(providing they do not have any type of weapon in their hand) One exception is in my case. Oklahoma says that because I am over 62 and someone tries to kick s--t out of me for fun I can shoot him if I feel my life is in danger. (I most likely will)

BullfrogKen
October 8, 2006, 06:33 AM
I feel no compulsion to convince anyone of any argument. I find a few statements made in this thread so far silly, and others grounded in beliefs that have no basis in reality and legal theory. They represent opinions and the world as we wish it, as opposed to the way it is.


Frankly, Penguin, if you remain committed to your beliefs about the appropriateness of armed men having the luxury of settling disputes “man to man”, you might just one day be afforded the opportunity to convince the state of it. Jurors will ponder why someone who decides to arm himself feels he can fight recklessly, for any reason other than fending off an immediate attack.


Your scenario presented still contains the assumption that the blow – a shove, was necessary. Intent does factor; was it out of anger, or the need to stop an assault?

PlayboyPenguin said: Guy 1 is sitting in a diner. . . .

Show me a case where guy 1 is charged with a crime.


Well, lets hear it? Site a case with the previously stated circumstances where a person defending themselves was convicted of a crime. I am open to hear it.

I’ll show you actual cases, not hypothetical scenarios, where actual force was used and responded to, but the “defender” was convicted. I have 3 cases for your consideration.

1. United States of America v. Bennie L. PETERSON, Appellant. Commonly cited case for demonstrating to law students that an initiator or provoker does not have justification for using self-defense, even if an encounter degrades into one that threatens the initiator’s life.

Peterson (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/apppeterson.htm)

History:
Three men had gone to an alley behind the defendant’s home to steal windshield wipers from Peterson’s wrecked car. The deceased, Keitt, had taken items from his car before, and was warned that day by Peterson not to do it again. Peterson emerged from his house to challenge Keitt, words were exchanged, and Peterson returned to his house to retrieve his pistol. Keitt was about to leave with the stolen property. Peterson paused briefly to load the pistol. "If you move," he shouted to Keitt, "I will shoot." He walked to a point in the yard slightly inside a gate in the rear fence and, pistol in hand, said, "If you come in here I will kill you." Keitt exited from his car, took a few steps toward Peterson and exclaimed, "What the hell do you think you are going to do with that?" Keitt then made an about-face, walked back to his car and got a lug wrench. With the wrench in a raised position, Keitt advanced toward Peterson, who stood with the pistol pointed toward him. Peterson warned Keitt not to "take another step" and, when Keitt continued onward, shot him in the face from a distance of about ten feet. Death was apparently instantaneous.

Finding: Manslaughter.
It has long been accepted that one cannot support a claim of self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill. The right of homicidal self-defense is granted only to those free from fault in the difficulty; it is denied to slayers who incite the fatal attack, encourage the fatal quarrel or otherwise promote the necessitous occasion for taking life. The fact that the deceased struck the first blow, fired the first shot or made the first menacing gesture does not legalize the self-defense claim if in fact the claimant was the actual provoker. In sum, one who is the aggressor in a conflict culminating in death cannot invoke the necessities of self-preservation.

We think the evidence plainly presented an issue of fact as to whether Peterson's conduct was an invitation to and provocation of the encounter which ended in the fatal shot.


2. State of North Carolina v. Eddie Purnell Ammons, Jr, Defendant. A man attacked and struck repeatedly with a weapon – in this case a stick, fights back and fatally stabs his attacker. The jury felt he had retreated to a position of safety in a vehicle and the self defense was not justified.

Ammons (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/031592-1.htm)

History:
On 9 June 2002, defendant pawned a VCR to Roher for ten dollars, and agreed to pay thirty dollars to redeem the device. A dispute arose over the amount needed to redeem the VCR. On 17 June 2002, Roher asked defendant to come to his house to redeem the VCR. On 18 June 2002, defendant, driven by his uncle, Gerald Locklear (“Locklear”), arrived at Roher's house in a Ford Thunderbird whose passenger side window was broken and could not be rolled up.
The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, tends to show that defendant came armed with a sharpened knife to confront Roher in his home over the disputed VCR, and that the confrontation led to a fight between the two men. Roher followed defendant as he left his home and picked up a bed slat which he swung at defendant, hitting defendant four times on the arm. Defendant attempted to block the swings with his arm, but was struck in the neck by one of the blows. Defendant produced a knife, told Roher to stop hitting him, to keep the VCR, and not to come to his house.

Defendant then got into the passenger side of the automobile and asked Locklear to start the engine. Roher continued to strike at the vehicle and defendant as the car backed down the driveway. Upon reaching the road, the vehicle's engine cut off. As Locklear attempted to restart the car, Roher continued to swing the slat at the vehicle. Defendant produced the lock blade knife, reached outside the window, and stabbed Roher through the heart while his uncle restarted the engine. The car then pulled away and defendant returned home with Locklear.

Finding: Manslaughter.
The jury felt his life was no longer in danger. Although he had retreated to a car which had a broken window which had stalled in the attempt to leave, they felt he was in a position of safety from death.


3. Ernest William Ramsey, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Virginia. The defendant, attacked and struck with a baseball bat during an argument initiated by the defendant, produces a knife and fatally stabs his attacker. The jury decided he was culpable in his death and declined self-defense.

Ramsey (www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/1113002.doc)

At trial, the evidence proved that when appellant called his friend, Angel Sanchez, he spoke with the deceased, J.D. Stephens, who lived at the Sanchez home. Later that afternoon, Sanchez arrived at appellant's apartment to pick him up. Sanchez told appellant he needed to get some money from his mother. Sanchez testified that appellant said "[Stephens] needed to stop talking so much **** and that if he didn't somebody was going to hurt him or kill him." Sanchez testified that although appellant "seemed mad at [Stephens]," appellant was agitated mostly because of the delay and said he did not want to be late.

When they arrived at the Sanchez's home, Sanchez went inside and appellant waited in the car. Stephens, who had been drinking alcohol, was sitting in the living room holding a baseball bat. After ten or fifteen minutes, appellant entered the house because Sanchez "took too long." When Sanchez came into the living room, he noticed that Stephens and appellant were "having words." According to Sanchez, appellant was "standing over top [Stephens]," telling Stephens that he "needed to quit talking so much ****." Stephens told appellant "to get out, get out of his house" and was still holding the baseball bat. Sanchez testified that he told appellant, "Come on, let's go, leave him alone." Sanchez then walked outside with his mother.

Sanchez and his mother walked across the driveway and were standing on a neighbor's porch. They had been on the neighbor's porch for less than five minutes when. Sanchez testified that he saw appellant open the screen door, walk backwards off the porch, and walk away. Stephens then emerged from the house with one hand over his chest and the other holding the baseball bat. Stephens said, "Call the law, he got me, he got me." The medical examiner's report indicated Stephens died of a single stab wound in his left chest area.

Appellant testified he went into the house because Sanchez "took so long coming back." He testified that he was not agitated from the telephone conversation and did not start the argument with Stephens. However, he told Stephens that he "should stop talking so much **** on the telephone to people that you don't know nothing about."

He testified that after Sanchez and his mother went out the door, he turned to follow them. Stephens then hit him from behind with the baseball bat. After Stephens hit him on the back and shoulder with the bat, Stephens hit him a second time across the shoulder. As Stephens again "was coming down . . . with the baseball bat," appellant retrieved his knife and opened it. Appellant testified that he held the knife, intending to frighten Stephens away with it, and that Stephens ran into the blade. Appellant testified that he had not had any fights or difficulty with Stephens until that day and that he had the knife because he used it in his work.

Appellant testified that he walked to a nearby store, where he asked Sam Brown, a captain with the sheriff's office, to call the police because he had stabbed someone. After appellant gave a statement at the police station, the police took him to the hospital because he indicated that his shoulder was hurting. The treating doctor testified that appellant had a contusion of the right shoulder and that the injury could have been caused by a blunt object such as a baseball bat. He proscribed medication and a sling to hold the arm.

A toxicologist testified that Stephens had a blood alcohol level of .22% by weight by volume at the time of his death.

Finding: Second Degree Murder. The jury disbelieved the Defendant’s assertion to self defense, and looked to his statements and actions for reasons to believe he provoked and incited the attack.



As I stated earlier, you roll the dice, you may loose. Here were 3 cases of men whose lives were in danger. Yet by their actions:

One was not afforded the ability to argue self-defense, by matter of law, PERIOD. He forfeited it.
One was determined to not be in grave danger in a stalled car, even though he was being attacked, and the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.
One had his state of mind evaluated by damaging statements normally considered heresay, and those statements impacted his claim to self-defense.

PlayboyPenguin
October 8, 2006, 08:01 AM
Bullfrog,
Can you not see the differences there??? Really? The guy went back into his home and got a gun and you think that is the same as being attacked in public? In the second one the man invited the person into his home while arguing a debt. In the third these two men were aquainted and involved in a mutually agreed upon association. I am afraid I cannot expain any further if you cannot recognize these differences. It is obvious you are not a lawyer because you are trying to relate precedence from unrelated circumstances. These were not one stranger attacking another. In none of these cases was someone attacked and then defended themselves with appropriate force. In fact the first two are pretty clear cases of someone thinking their weapon gave them the upper hand and trying to exploit that fact. You also left out a great deal of the evidence presented in all three cases.

Lupinus
October 8, 2006, 02:13 PM
bullfrog,

No one has ever said fight recklessly or look for a fight. What we are saying is you shouldn't need to spend your life running out of an area every time someone looks at you cross eyed or feels the need to be an *******. Ignore the dummy sure and don't throw the first punch but if he starts swinging swing back. If you so feel the need to leave do so and under right circumstances I am sure everyone would. But there are other times when you shouldn't have to run from someone who is an idiot and might maybe get physical.

lacoochee
October 8, 2006, 09:21 PM
He left the argument and was followed by the assailant even though under Florida law he had no obligation to do so, the assailant then produced a firearm (a reasonable person would have believed it was a firearm). In other words the assailant escalated the situation. The shooter then drew his firearm fired two shots I am assuming the assailant then ran the shooter did not at that point attempt to continue the fight. Unfortunately, the two shots hit a bystander, the shooter would not be charged with any wrong doing as the shots were fired during his own reasonable defense during the commission of a a felony by the assailant. The assailant would be charged with attempted murder as he is the one responsible for the innocent bystander being shot. In fact, the shooter would also be immune from civil prosecution by the innocent bystander because Florida law provides civil immunity from damages caused by defending oneself during the commission of a crime. The only person subject to being sued would be the shooter. In addition, it is unlikely that the shooter (victim) would have been arrested as Florida has a strong presumption of innocence in acts of self-defense.

Eleven Mike
October 9, 2006, 12:46 AM
Can anyone explain this to me? Case 2 from above:

2. State of North Carolina v. Eddie Purnell Ammons, Jr, Defendant. A man attacked and struck repeatedly with a weapon – in this case a stick, fights back and fatally stabs his attacker. The jury felt he had retreated to a position of safety in a vehicle and the self defense was not justified.

Ammons

History:
On 9 June 2002, defendant pawned a VCR to Roher for ten dollars, and agreed to pay thirty dollars to redeem the device. A dispute arose over the amount needed to redeem the VCR. On 17 June 2002, Roher asked defendant to come to his house to redeem the VCR. On 18 June 2002, defendant, driven by his uncle, Gerald Locklear (“Locklear”), arrived at Roher's house in a Ford Thunderbird whose passenger side window was broken and could not be rolled up.
The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, tends to show that defendant came armed with a sharpened knife to confront Roher in his home over the disputed VCR, and that the confrontation led to a fight between the two men. Roher followed defendant as he left his home and picked up a bed slat which he swung at defendant, hitting defendant four times on the arm. Defendant attempted to block the swings with his arm, but was struck in the neck by one of the blows. Defendant produced a knife, told Roher to stop hitting him, to keep the VCR, and not to come to his house.

Defendant then got into the passenger side of the automobile and asked Locklear to start the engine. Roher continued to strike at the vehicle and defendant as the car backed down the driveway. Upon reaching the road, the vehicle's engine cut off. As Locklear attempted to restart the car, Roher continued to swing the slat at the vehicle. Defendant produced the lock blade knife, reached outside the window, and stabbed Roher through the heart while his uncle restarted the engine. The car then pulled away and defendant returned home with Locklear.

Finding: Manslaughter.
The jury felt his life was no longer in danger. Although he had retreated to a car which had a broken window which had stalled in the attempt to leave, they felt he was in a position of safety from death.

Defendant was determined to not be in grave danger in a stalled car, even though he was being attacked, and the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.

BullfrogKen
October 9, 2006, 03:00 AM
Eleven Mike said: Can anyone explain this to me? Case 2 from above . . .

Mike,

Not sure what is unclear. From the appellant court recorder:

There was sufficient evidence negating a second-degree murder defendant's claim of self-defense where the jury could find that the threat was no longer imminent when defendant acted, and that he lacked a reasonable belief in the threat of serious bodily injury. . . . . . In light of this evidence, a jury could find that defendant lacked a reasonable belief in the threat of serious bodily injury or death at the time he stabbed Roher, as defendant had reached the relative safety of the car and such a threat was no longer imminent. Further evidence negating the reasonableness of defendant's belief in the need to kill is found in his hasty departure from the scene. See State v. Watson, 338 N.C. 168, 181, 449 S.E.2d 694, 702 (1994) (overruled on other grounds, State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 585, 461 S.E.2d 724 (1995)) (holding such flight would permit a jury to infer defendant harbored a sense of guilt inconsistent with a killing justified on the basis of self-defense). As sufficient evidence of the elements of second degree murder and evidence negating defendant's claim of self- defense were presented, the trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of second degree murder and all lesser-included offenses at the close of all the evidence, and the case was properly submitted to the jury for determination of the disputed factual issues.


Ammons may have been justified of using the displayed knife before he made his way into the vehicle. However, once he made it there, even through the deceased pressed his attack, the dynamic changed. The court felt that considering the totality of the situation, even in a stalled car with no protection of a window (it was broken), Ammons claim to self defense lacked justification, and supported it with other objective evidence.


PlayboyPenguin said: This being said I will not flee every time I think something might go south. I just will not do it. I will also never allow myself or a loved one to be physically violated without response.

Pengiun. Do whatever you wish. Perhaps you'll provide Oregon with an opportunity to help define case law someday.

Eleven Mike
October 9, 2006, 09:23 AM
even in a stalled car with no protection of a window (it was broken), Ammons claim to self defense lacked justificationThis is what I'm talking about. Would you not agree that the jury was completely wrong in this? How many times does someone have to smack a person with a board, following him even when he is trying to get away, before it looks like that person means business? How can they fail to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, considering he was being attacked with a weapon?

such a threat was no longer imminentI'd say right outside the window and still swinging is imminent.

the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself. Carrying a knife is not necessarily arming oneself. Most knives are tools. If he was arming himself, no evidence is given to indicate malicious intent. Did the jury have additional evidence that he was arming himself in order to attack, rather than for his own defense? If not, arming oneself should not prejudice one's case.

Lupinus
October 9, 2006, 01:30 PM
the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.
This is stupid. Being prepared in case something happens doesn't mean you look for it, invite it, or want it. I carry a rubber too, that doesn't mean I plan on getting laid or going to a motel with a woman that looks less then fresh or that every woman I meet I try and get into bed.

It's called being prepared in case.

xd9fan
October 9, 2006, 02:44 PM
strike one - eating at waffle house
strike two - going to a parking lot to settle an argument while packing
strike three - missing your target

i'm predicting he's going to get what he deserves and deserve what he gets

yeppers dumb*****$ alround........

C96
October 9, 2006, 02:56 PM
The legal system only occasionally dispenses justice. Do what you can to stay out of the legal system.

The experiences are seldom good and always expensive and not just in dollars.

allan

PlayboyPenguin
October 9, 2006, 02:57 PM
This is stupid. Being prepared in case something happens doesn't mean you look for it, invite it, or want it. I carry a rubber too, that doesn't mean I plan on getting laid or going to a motel with a woman that looks less then fresh or that every woman I meet I try and get into bed.

C'mon, you trying to make us believe you don't try to get every woman you meet into bed???? :)

Seriously though, I can agree with the jurors if he went looking for someone, knowing it would be a bad scene, and armed himself beforehand. That would say to me that he knew it was going to go bad and wanted the upper hand. If he just routinely carried a knife and was jumped by a stranger that would be different.

The main theme in the cases Bullfrog cited that seperate them from what we talked about was that those involved people with prior relationships and current disputes. That completely changes a situation.

If you go out looking for a guy that owes you money and take your gun "just in case" then you are doing the wrong thing. If you go to the grocery store and are carrying your gun "just in case" and get jumped by a stranger and choose to fight back (with or without the weapon) you did nothing wrong.

Lupinus
October 9, 2006, 03:23 PM
C'mon, you trying to make us believe you don't try to get every woman you meet into bed????
If you saw some of the things round here calling themselves women you wouldnt ask that question :neener:

Low-Sci
October 9, 2006, 03:55 PM
PlayboyPenguin isn't advising that you go looking for trouble, nor is he advocating that you start fights. He's talking about a very specific situation where despite your own efforts, a fight has been started with you by someone else. Their actions are outside your control, and they have created the situation.

It would seem to me that to say one cannot throw a punch when necessary if they're armed is to deny the whole concept of a force continuum. You have force options, no matter what your weapon, all the time. I think its of critical importance to be able to respond with an appropriate force level instead of quite literally simply suffering abuse at the hands of some unstable moron.

A reasonable, armed person IS allowed to defend himself against bodily harm, and he's allowed to do it with a force level that is appropriate for the situation. If that means matching a punch with a return punch, so be it. He's in a fight. Maybe it doesn't warrant lethal force, so the defender doesn't employ his lethal force option because he shouldn't.

Seems to me that denying someone the ability to fight back is essentially depriving that person of defensive means for situations that aren't necessarily life threatening, but are certainly health-threatening.

C96
October 9, 2006, 03:57 PM
PP and others - You may want to take a look at this thread in L&P. It's a bit long and now locked but there are a couple of interesting points on the conviction of the shooter.
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205833
Particularly that he used a 10mm with hollowpoints designed to kill.

allan

BullfrogKen
October 9, 2006, 04:03 PM
Eleven Mike said: Would you not agree that the jury was completely wrong in this? How many times does someone have to smack a person with a board, following him even when he is trying to get away, before it looks like that person means business? How can they fail to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, considering he was being attacked with a weapon?

No, I can not agree they erred in their decision. They were the finders of fact, they heard the testimony, saw the evidence. This is why even appellant courts stay out of the business of questioning facts when reviewing cases. They consider procedural matters and such, but do not question the facts of cases.

How can they not give him the benefit of the doubt? Based on the circumstances and evidence they were presented. Apparently they were not persuaded Ammons' life was in imminent danger once he reached the car and struck the blow. The dynamic changes that quickly. What 5 seconds ago may have been justified, they concluded no longer was.

C96 said: The legal system only occasionally dispenses justice.

I am not of the opinion that the justice system regularly makes mistakes. They may not take care of criminals harshly enough. But, I am persuaded that judges and jurors do take their roles seriously, and endeavor to reach the right decision. If we say to ourselves that we cannot trust our fellow man with the ability to evaluate such things and come to a just conclusion, we cannot be trusted, either. The faith and trust in judgement we extend those actors in the justice system is the same trust we ask for and rely upon when we state we can be trusted to walk about society armed. If we conclude that a panel of jurors cannot arrive at a just decision over when a man is justified in killing another, then how can we claim to have that judgement?


Pengiun, I suspected you would dismiss these cases because they wouldn't fit your ideal scenario. Instead of looking for ways they don't matter because of (insert reason), consider the legal reasoning used to arrive at the verdict. The Common Law theories behind the reasoning used is fairly consistent in all states except Louisiana, and those theories, except when redefined by statutory law, will evaluate your actions.


Your attitude of giving no quarter and responding to attacks in like matter is not supported by most reputable trainers. It is also not welcomed in the legal system of men who walk about society armed. The case above shows even when attacked with a weapon, when the defendant responds with deadly force, the court evaluates the attack for evidence of an immiment threat to life, and the defendant's ability to avoid the threat without using force. The attack is not an excuse for a response. "I punched him because he punched me" is not a valid arguement.


If you harbor this attitude, and one day use that knife you carry or your firearm on another, expect to have it discussed in front of a jury. You have stated here several times that you would, and have, engaged in fighting "man to man", and you alluded to de-escalation as cowardly. I suspect we are not the only ones you share those comments with, that you make those to friends and others you know in your personal life. Your character will be evaluated. If you want to make a claim to self-defense, and want your side of the story heard, you will probably have to take the stand to do it. Expect someone to find these comments and bring them up. Expect to be asked about your past proclivity to fighting. Expect some of the jurors to see the world as you do, and others who won't, BUT regardless of their opinion, to set aside those opinions and reach a verdict based on the judges instructions and established law.


I am persuaded that men who walk about society armed can not afford to dismiss the attitude to endeavor to settle all conflicts peaceably, as much as is reasonable. The training community teaches this, the law certainly observes this, and society does as well.

PlayboyPenguin
October 9, 2006, 04:09 PM
C96,

I think most of us have read that one by now. If I am correct I read that there had been previous instances of trouble between the two men and that there were no witnesses. There were no injured dogs that were supposedly attacking this man (I think I would have shot a dog that threatened my life) and no other real evience that supported his story. i think the jury ssaw it as him going out and looking to end a situation that displeased him. RE: he had a problem with this guy and his dogs and went to solve it. Until I can read the court records I cannot make up my mind about it but I know his story is riddled with red flags.

I was also very put off by the defense trying to claim the dead man was "armed" because he had a screwdriven in his pocket.

greenflash107
October 9, 2006, 05:39 PM
Well, I hate to say it, but what a dumb a--. I can understand why he pulled it, and I can understand why he might have fired it, but to hit a bystander, who is inside (of his workplace)?? Put the gun back in the box it came in and don't take it out.

Eleven Mike
October 9, 2006, 08:46 PM
Bullfrog,

I am well aware that the jury saw a mountain of facts I did not see, and I am allowing for that. But what evidence could convince a jury that the defendant was absolutely, beyond all reasonable doubt, not in fear for his life? A bed slat can be a deadly weapon. It has a longer reach than a knife. The defendant was seated in a closed cage, through which he could have been easily reached with other weapons, if the attacker had been carrying a gun or knife.

C96
October 9, 2006, 09:32 PM
Maybe I haven't lived right, but over my years I have been involved with the courts in Utah, the Bay Area of Ca. and Oregon. This as juror as well as defendant. I have been in court with relatives and close friends.

In my experience, the DA's office can be very political in what cases it decides to prosecute and how it does the prosecution. Some of the judges that I have seen have been extremely good, a couple of them politcal hacks of the very worst kind.

And the jury ? A jury of my peers ? Maybe now at my age, mostly old ladies that have few clues about law or logic.

In one of my jury services there was a lovely young lady tightly dressed that had to bring something to the judge a couple of times during the trial. Apparently the Bad Guy never took his eyes of the young ladies butt. The two old gals were ready to send him up for life for that reason, they wouldn't consider any other evidence. Fortunately for justice the guy was guilty.

In my opnion justice does get served occasionally but it seems to me it happens mostly by chance.

allan

Lupinus
October 9, 2006, 10:41 PM
green-
When you fire under stress it is very different from practice at the range. Do yourself an experament, find a paintball pistol and get someone willing to get shot by paintballs at close range to play the attacker.

Have the attack run at you full bore to tackle you, you natural dont want to be tackled (least I am assuming). Just hold the paintball gun at your side since paintball guns are generaly hard to fit into a holster. Without warning let him do his charge, try raising the paintball gun and firing before he can tackle you. See if all your paintballs go right where you are aiming or even hit the guy charging you.

Now you know that the worst this guy is going to do is tackle you and it might hurt, and you aren't drawing from concealment you are just raising it into position. So multiply it several times over.

Does hitting a bystander suck and is unfortunate? Yes it is. But firing while being attacked is a lot different then waiting for someone to yell draw and drawing your pistol at the range to shoot it.

greenflash107
October 10, 2006, 06:51 PM
Lupinus, I understand fully the action/reaction of both having a pistol pulled, and having someone "Rush Me". Training can take care of you, most of the time. I agree with everyone on this board that practice makes perfect. I think it's our obligation to be level headed when we are carrying!! For one, if you are going to pull your weapon, (for fear of life, yours, someone else's) whatever, you darn well better be able to hit what you are shooting at. That guy was very lucky it was a lighter. Not only would he have shot the wrong person, but if the man across from him had a real weapon, he would be the one that would have ended up dead.

BullfrogKen
October 11, 2006, 12:30 AM
Eleven Mike said: But what evidence could convince a jury that the defendant was absolutely, beyond all reasonable doubt, not in fear for his life?

11-M,

The issue is not just one of being in fear of one's life. The fear has to be reasonable, and the use of force justifiable. Justification is a legally defined term, which means more than what you or I might think it means at face value. The cases I cited, and Pengiun dimissed as irrelevant out of hand, touch on that concept of justification. Meeting the criteria of self-defense can be satisfied without meeting justification. In a situation of mutual affray, self defense can be argued, but when the parties agreed to the fight, they lost justification.

BullfrogKen
October 11, 2006, 12:32 AM
greenflash107 said: practice makes perfect

Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Squidward
October 11, 2006, 01:33 AM
Of course he missed, it was dark outside and the lighter was not lit.

Eleven Mike
October 11, 2006, 09:25 AM
when the parties agreed to the fightWho agreed to a fight?

Eleven Mike
October 11, 2006, 09:26 AM
I've been unable to find any further info on this Waffle House story. Anyone got anything?

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW shoot out in Tulsa" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!