Lethal shooting in Salt Lake City, UT; CCW holder was the shooter


PDA






jeepin_junkie
July 9, 2008, 06:13 PM
Here is the link: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3722062

Sounds like a self defense CCW shooting but they are still investigating...

If you enjoyed reading about "Lethal shooting in Salt Lake City, UT; CCW holder was the shooter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
divemedic
July 9, 2008, 06:20 PM
More here (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700241804,00.html)

James T Thomas
July 9, 2008, 07:00 PM
Must wait for more information to make sense of initial reports.

Note: to myself!

NukemJim
July 9, 2008, 07:27 PM
From 1st link

Salt Lake police investigating deadly shooting
July 9th, 2008 @ 5:04pm
By Marc Giauque and Sarah Dallof
A violent shooting this afternoon left one man dead outside a Salt Lake City restaurant. Now police are trying to figure out what prompted the shooting near 1400 South and West Temple.

Witnesses say 47-year-old Mike James May, a transient in the area, began yelling at people who were sitting outside Mama's Southern Plantation restaurant.


The witnesses say May took a swing at the customers, threatened them and a security guard and then reached inside his jacket or backpack. That's when the security guard pulled out his concealed weapon and fired.

That single shot, which hit the May in the torso, was fatal.

Neighbors who were on scene moments after the shooting say it's unsettling. "People don't seem to care anymore. They don't seem to care who they shoot or what they disturb. It's ridiculous!" said Ben Hollands, a resident who lives nearby.

Police say the security guard has been very cooperative with them and, as of about a half hour ago, they have decided not to book him. They say they will meet with the district attorney very soon to discuss the case.

To listen to a short interview with a witness named Mitch McMillen, click the related audio link.



I cannot copy the article from the 2nd link.

If there is a CompuGeek (I wish I was a Compugeek) who can help it would be greatly appreciated.

NukemJim

La Pistoletta
July 9, 2008, 07:33 PM
The fatal shooting death of a man on a Salt Lake City street Wednesday afternoon may have been a case of self-defense, according to police.

Mike James May, 47, was shot and killed in front of a Salt Lake restaurant following what witnesses described as an ongoing argument between two people.

About 12:20 p.m. two men got into some sort of dispute near the corner of 1400 South West Temple, said Salt Lake police detective Jeff Bedard.

"They were arguing back and forth. The one man went away and then came back. He took off his backpack and went toward the other man in a way that I would call aggressively," said Mitch McMillen who watched the entire scenario unfold right before him as his sat on his porch across the street.

When the man with the backpack went after the other man, the other man pulled out a gun and fired once, fatally striking the victim.

Yellow crime scene tape surrounded the intersection where the body lay. The man's backpack was a few feet away in front of Mama's Southern Plantation Restaurant, across from Franklin Covey Field. A white blanket covered the victim with his white tennis shoes sticking out on the end as homicide detectives conducted their investigation.

The alleged shooter stayed at the scene after the incident and waited for police to arrive. He was taken to police headquarters for questioning. Bedard said the man was very up-front with detectives about the shooting and his involvement.

"The victim contributed to the confrontation that led to his death and our investigation unit has been in close consultation with the DA's office," he said. "The police department has chosen not to book the responsible party."

The case will still be screened with the Salt Lake District Attorney's office for possible charges even though the man was not arrested.

The death is the second fatal shooting in Salt Lake since Sunday. Maria Del Carmen Menchaca, 7, was shot and killed while playing on the sidewalk in front of her house when she became caught in the middle of what police called an on-going rival gang dispute.

MD_Willington
July 9, 2008, 07:43 PM
Sounds like "Gentle Ben Holland" would just rather roll over and die and figures everyone should too... :rolleyes:

TallPine
July 9, 2008, 08:08 PM
A violent shooting this afternoon

Note to self: be sure to shoot non-violently :rolleyes:

wyocarp
July 9, 2008, 08:56 PM
Maybe even almost smile, but don't smile because then the news will say that you enjoyed shooting someone.

ReadyontheRight
July 9, 2008, 09:01 PM
Neighbors who were on scene moments after the shooting say it's unsettling. "People don't seem to care anymore. They don't seem to care who they shoot or what they disturb. It's ridiculous!" said Ben Hollands, a resident who lives nearby.

It sounds to me like this shooter cared very much who he shot. He shot someone who was dangerous to him and other people. And he waited until that person came back and escalated the situation by charging and reaching into his bag.

I think a more accurate quote would be "People don't seem to care who they provoke or frighten anymore. Maybe this incident of a citizen legally defending himself will start to change that. Thank the Lord for the Second Amendment and our Bill of Rights" said ReadyontheRight, a Minnesota resident who lives far from the incident, but who seems to have a very clear grasp of the obvious.

XD Fan
July 9, 2008, 09:25 PM
I hope for the shooter's sake that he was truly threatened. That would be a tough one to live with if the guy was reaching in his bag for a Snickers. It sounds like he (the shooter) was justifiably concerned for his life, but it would still be hard to deal with psychologically if it turns out that the agressive guy was in no way armed.

Rugerlvr
July 9, 2008, 09:42 PM
murderer is as murder does

He would've had a weapon with or without the license, if he went out with the intent to shoot someone. That should be obvious.

Maybe even almost smile, but don't smile because then the news will say that you enjoyed shooting someone.

Seriously, WTH are you guys talking about?

MaterDei
July 9, 2008, 09:48 PM
My prayers go out for both of these guys. Seems like a very justified shooting. Sad nevertheless.

Aguila Blanca
July 9, 2008, 09:53 PM
I hope for the shooter's sake that he was truly threatened. That would be a tough one to live with if the guy was reaching in his bag for a Snickers. It sounds like he (the shooter) was justifiably concerned for his life, but it would still be hard to deal with psychologically if it turns out that the agressive guy was in no way armed.
Why?

Threatened is threatened.

FCFC
July 9, 2008, 09:58 PM
I hope for the shooter's sake that he was truly threatened. That would be a tough one to live with if the guy was reaching in his bag for a Snickers.
Right on.
Did the guy with the knapsack actually have a weapon? If he did, the shooter is golden. If not, exactly why did CCW guy shoot the knapsack guy? If it's a good reason, then fine. If not, then it will get complicated.

Erik
July 9, 2008, 10:01 PM
Perhaps because the perception that a weapon was about to be produced? A viable justification, by the way.

FCFC
July 9, 2008, 10:05 PM
Perhaps because the perception that a weapon was about to be produced? A viable justification, by the way.
Why is it viable?
Is it viable in all cases?
Does one just have to say, "he reached into his knapsack and I thought he had something threatening in there!"

That would be interesting...I guess I better be careful when reaching into my knapsack, bookbag, briefcase, shopping bag...

Rugerlvr
July 9, 2008, 10:12 PM
If you read the comments section of the story on KSL.com, down near the bottom is someone claiming to be the former stepson of the man who was shot. He claims the man has a long rap sheet for violent offenses. I'm gonna say right now that the CCW holder will probably be cleared.

Rugerlvr
July 9, 2008, 10:13 PM
FCFC, your devil's advocate thing is really wearing thin.

Jimmy Dean
July 9, 2008, 10:15 PM
FCFC, I think that if you are in the middle of a confrontation, reaching into your bag, pocket, under a jacket, would be considered threatening, this is not just this guy saw someone reach intop a backpack so he shot him, they were in the middle of an altercation from what it looks like

fearless leader
July 9, 2008, 10:30 PM
I was involved in a near shooting of a similar nature. When you draw and fire on an individual who is reaching for an unknown object that you BELIEVE to be a gun, it is called a furtive shooting.
My BG was wearing a heavy coat in Florida, in AUGUST! He was bald and sweating (he wasn't cold) and he was yelling and threatening me when he stopped and looked left and right, then reached under the coat with his right hand. I drew my pistol and went to a low ready.

I nearly went to prison!!!

The news may crucify him, but he is LUCKY he is not up on muder charges!

FCFC
July 9, 2008, 10:42 PM
FCFC, I think that if you are in the middle of a confrontation, reaching into your bag, pocket, under a jacket, would be considered threatening, this is not just this guy saw someone reach intop a backpack so he shot him, they were in the middle of an altercation from what it looks like

Of course, the context already is that there was a confrontation (the full details of which have not been reported, btw).

So you're saying in such a context, that any reaching into a knapsack, bag, pocket, etc. will be "considered threatening?" And would that be "threatening" enough to justify shooting the reacher?

FCFC
July 9, 2008, 10:43 PM
My BG was wearing a heavy coat in Florida, in AUGUST! He was bald and sweating (he wasn't cold) and he was yelling and threatening me when he stopped and looked left and right, then reached under the coat with his right hand. I drew my pistol and went to a low ready.

Did baldy have a weapon of any kind?

Jimmy Dean
July 9, 2008, 10:52 PM
FCFC, my life is important enough that if I am actively engaged in a fight with another individual, and they reach into their bags, and it appears that they may be intending to escalate the situation, you can guarantee I am going to draw and shoot. I will not risk my life on..."Oh, maybe he decided to give me his card, or his lawyers in the middle of a fight, or maybe he got hungry and remembered he had a snickers in there"...or maybe he realizes that the easiest way for him to win is to draw and shoot. in which case, I have every intention to do so first.

FCFC
July 9, 2008, 10:57 PM
So you're saying in such a context, that any reaching into a knapsack, bag, pocket, etc. will be "considered threatening?" And would that be "threatening" enough to justify shooting the reacher?
FCFC, my life is important enough that if I am actively engaged in a fight with another individual, and they reach into their bags, and it appears that they may be intending to escalate the situation, you can guarantee I am going to draw and shoot. I will not risk my life on..."Oh, maybe he decided to give me his card, or his lawyers in the middle of a fight, or maybe he got hungry and remembered he had a snickers in there"...or maybe he realizes that the easiest way for him to win is to draw and shoot. in which case, I have every intention to do so first.

Are those legal "yesses" to both questions or personal "yesses?"

camslam
July 9, 2008, 11:24 PM
These are the comments posted on the local board from the supposed stepson.

Hello everyone. My name is Nick. The man who died was my former Stepdad. His ACTUAL name is Michael James Mays with an S at the end. And I must say he got what he deserved and it sounds like him to be threatening people. But he knew when to draw the line. So I believe he was strung out on SOMETHING. To those saying I think he's mexican or whatever he's completely white. WHY I think he got what he deserved is when I was growing up he was always beating me and my brothers and my mom on occasion. When my older brother moved out at like 16 he started more with me. Then in October of 2005 him and I got into a really bad fist fight and he almost killed me. I moved in with my real dad then he started being an [no swearing please] to my little brother. That is when my mother drew the line and found a way to get out of the situation. Don't be judging my mom for not leaving sooner. She had 3 boys to raise and didn't know how to feed us without a man in the house. If you guys want details of any kind on him send me a message. I'll be glad to answer anything. A backup way to get a hold of me is my email. Recniabsal@hotmail.com

Thanks for reading.


Either way this goes, it is tough taking a human life, it is tough not doing anything to defend yourself or others. Let's all continue to hope we don't have the opportunity to experience an event like this.

Erik
July 9, 2008, 11:45 PM
"So you're saying in such a context, that any reaching into a knapsack, bag, pocket, etc. will be "considered threatening?" And would that be "threatening" enough to justify shooting the reacher?"

In such a context, when the shooter believes that the reaching will produce a weapon, and under review that belief is deemed reasonable, and that therefor applicable law allows for shooting, you are justified in shooting the reacher.

Of key importance: The shooter's knowledge of the law and reasonableness of judgement. ANd of course the validity of the "belief." No, one cannot merely say, "I believed it!" There will be a bit more attention paid to things than writing that down.

It is not cut and dry, if that is what you are asking.

XD Fan
July 9, 2008, 11:54 PM
Originally Posted by XD Fan
I hope for the shooter's sake that he was truly threatened. That would be a tough one to live with if the guy was reaching in his bag for a Snickers. It sounds like he (the shooter) was justifiably concerned for his life, but it would still be hard to deal with psychologically if it turns out that the agressive guy was in no way armed.

Why?

Threatened is threatened.

Please do not misunderstand me. The shooter may well have been justified in his actions. I am just saying that if it were me and I killed a man because I thought he had a weapon then it turned out he was only getting a comb (snickers, whatever) out of his bag. I would spend a lot of time second guessing myself and feeling very guilty. I hope this shooter does not have to go through that.

GigaBuist
July 10, 2008, 12:34 AM
Are those legal "yesses" to both questions or personal "yesses?"

Well, the legality depends upon where one is when it takes place.

Here's a mental exercise for you: Imagine you went out and picked a fight with a cop, acting aggressively. Then you shove your hand into your jacket and grab your cell phone before the situation deescalates.

Think you're going get shot at? Yep.
Think the cop's going to jail for it? Nope.

The 'stand your ground' and 'no duty to retreat' laws are all pretty much written with a "reasonably in fear of harm" type test in them. That means an objective 3rd party observer would have to arrive at the same conclusion that you did, given the facts known to you at the time, and presume that it was reasonable for you to be in fear of your life.

Pretty much the same standard for police if I'm not mistaken.

FCFC
July 10, 2008, 12:54 AM
I wonder if baldy in post # 21 had a weapon....:)

CrackerJim
July 10, 2008, 09:35 AM
It's my understanding, that in a defensive situation, the aggressor doesn't have to have a weapon......if you are in fear of bodily harm by another, you are justified.

There's a lot of people in this world that can do you plenty of bodily harm empty handed and they don't have to be 6'5" and 250# either :D.

Jim

FCFC
July 10, 2008, 09:45 AM
It's my understanding, that in a defensive situation, the aggressor doesn't have to have a weapon......if you are in fear of bodily harm by another, you are justified.
That's untrue.

There always is a "reasonably" thrown in there. And, really, that makes sense. Just because a guy has a gun and a CCW doesn't mean he can go around shooting people for making any sudden move that makes him feel all scaredy. If it is a "reasonably" perceived threat, one gets to blast away. It's OK. It's justified.

If it's not "reasonable" then it's probably not a good idea to pull the trigger. If one shoots, someone will eventually have to make the call on "reasonably."

In the instant case we don't know the sizes of the shooter and the shootee yet, I don't think. Was the shooter bigger then the shootee? Or smaller? And did the knapsack guy have a weapon? If the knapsacker did have a gun, a knife, brass knucks or something, then that would make the shooter golden. Usually.

SaxonPig
July 10, 2008, 09:49 AM
A restaurant called Mama's Southern Plantation?

In Salt Lake City, Utah?

Dravur
July 10, 2008, 10:23 AM
A restaurant called Mama's Southern Plantation?

In Salt Lake City, Utah?

uh, yeah. We have Italian, Chinese, southern and Thai restaurants here. They can be anywhere. :uhoh:

I think there is a difference when after apparently several confrontations with this guy, the security guard was justified in thinking the guy was going for a weapon. In the heat of an argument, I am going to guess that he wasn't going for a can of Bril-Cream. If the guy had pulled out a knife and killed the security guard, I wonder how many people would be second guessing. If the guy was within the 21 ft range, then letting the BG actually pull a knife could have been fatal.

I am going with a good shoot on this one.

Rugerlvr
July 10, 2008, 11:18 AM
if you are in fear of bodily harm by another, you are justified.

Actually, the standard in Utah is if you are in reasonable fear for your life.

This guy has to convince the DA that his fear for his own life, or the lives of others, was reasonable.

coyotehitman
July 10, 2008, 11:42 AM
I wonder if there were any other armed citizens on the scene. If so, did they produce a weapon? That is a good test of your reasonable person standard.

There are lots of scenarios where shooting someone who simply reaches into a bag after, or during, an altercation is not going to justify lethal force. Since the deceased is a member of the decay of western civilization (a transient), I am betting the shooters chances of getting off are much better than if he would have shot an upstanding, affluent, member of society. Sad, but true.

Originally Posted by XD Fan
I hope for the shooter's sake that he was truly threatened. That would be a tough one to live with if the guy was reaching in his bag for a Snickers. It sounds like he (the shooter) was justifiably concerned for his life, but it would still be hard to deal with psychologically if it turns out that the agressive guy was in no way armed.

Aguila blanca responds:

Why?

Threatened is threatened.

Aguila blanca, I am betting that you have never been in an up close and personal lethal force encounter. The kind where you shoot someone, see the frothy blood spurt out, and watch them gasp their last few breaths. Whether you are justified in using deadly force or not, it is a difficult and unnatural thing to deal with.

yesit'sloaded
July 10, 2008, 11:49 AM
You left out the spasms and the wide eyed look, but yeah not something you want to deal with. Bullets can't be taken back. We don't really know because we were not there. Threatened and in fear of your life are not the same thing. A big drunk guy yelling at me is threatening, a big drunk guy coming at me fast with a tire iron while telling what he intends to do with it is going to be shot. Big difference.

3KillerBs
July 10, 2008, 01:42 PM
Did the guy with the knapsack actually have a weapon? If he did, the shooter is golden. If not, exactly why did CCW guy shoot the knapsack guy? If it's a good reason, then fine. If not, then it will get complicated.

We are not required to either read an attacker's mind to determine if the threat is serious or to possess X-ray vision to see inside his clothing/gear to determine if a weapon actually is present.

We are only required to believe that the threat of "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault" is real and to believe that the attacker is going for a weapon and that a person, in the words of the NC statute, "of ordinary firmness" would believe the same thing.

A person who has been behaving aggressively and presenting a credible threat who reaches inside his clothing as if going for a weapon can be assumed to have one.

3KillerBs
July 10, 2008, 01:46 PM
So you're saying in such a context, that any reaching into a knapsack, bag, pocket, etc. will be "considered threatening?" And would that be "threatening" enough to justify shooting the reacher?

Yes. In the context of an aggressive confrontation it would indeed justify deadly force to act as if you are reaching for a weapon.

If you don't want to be shot don't act aggressively towards someone and than act as if you are reaching for a weapon.

This isn't rocket science.

SaxonPig
July 10, 2008, 02:56 PM
Maybe he was going into his backpack to get that take-out order of grits from Mama's Southern Plantation?

jaak
July 10, 2008, 03:19 PM
sounds like he would have been reaching for SOME sort of weapon, may or may not have been a gun. probably a knife or other sharp object is my GUESS.

MarcusWendt
July 10, 2008, 03:37 PM
The death is the second fatal shooting in Salt Lake since Sunday. Maria Del Carmen Menchaca, 7, was shot and killed while playing on the sidewalk in front of her house when she became caught in the middle of what police called an on-going rival gang dispute.

This paragraph had NO relation to the story and should not have been included.

In an article about GM and Chrysler's falling sales, should we talk about a drunk driving accident because both had cars involved?

My prayers are with the family..... of the shooter.

USMC_2674
July 10, 2008, 05:56 PM
Quote:
if you are in fear of bodily harm by another, you are justified.

Actually, the standard in Utah is if you are in reasonable fear for your life.

This guy has to convince the DA that his fear for his own life, or the lives of others, was reasonable.


Actually, the law states that you can use deadly force in Utah for three reasons:

1) When you are in fear of your life or serious bodily injury
2) To protect a third party from death or serious bodily injury
3) To prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

DWFan
July 10, 2008, 08:49 PM
I realize that it's easier said than done, but there is no need to second guess yourself if the shooting was justified and you honestly felt the threat was genuine at the time.
Hindsight might be 20-20, but second guessing and hesitation will get you killed. The most important parts of carrying a weapon are being willing to use it and being able to determine when that use is necessary. If you can't do that, for whatever reason, you have no business wearing one.

HOME DEPOT GEORGE
July 10, 2008, 09:28 PM
My question is why does the press insist on calling bad guys who were shot in self defense-"victims":fire::fire::fire::fire:

FCFC
July 10, 2008, 11:18 PM
They're saying the deceased was unarmed.

It seems to be turning slightly bad for the shooter.

Happiness may not be a warm gun after all.




Are Utah gun laws effective?
July 10, 2008
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3732486

Michael Mays was shot and killed yesterday outside a Salt Lake City restaurant.

Witnesses say Mays was aggressive and violent, yelling at a group of men sitting outside Mama's Southern Plantation Restaurant yesterday. When he acted like he was going for a weapon, one of the men, a part-time security guard, George Harrison, pulled out his concealed weapon and fired.

This story is generating discussion on our KSL.com comment boards about the effectiveness of Utah gun laws.

While authorities investigate whether the shooter was justified, people on both sides of the debate have opinions of their own.

In the state of Utah, we have the right to protect ourselves with a firearm. Some say the laws clearly state how that firearm can be used, but others argue, in this case and others like it, no one had to die.

Our Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" has for a long time stirred heavy debate across the country and here in Utah.

Clark Aposhian, a firearms instructor and advocate, says, "The only reason to carry a concealed firearm is if you're committed to defending yourself and your family."

Steven Gunn, with Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, says, "I think the first rule ought to be run away or walk away if you can."

The conversation is active once again after George Harrison shot and killed Mike Mays in front of a Salt Lake City restaurant yesterday.

Mays was belligerent but unarmed. Harrison is claiming self defense. Detective Jeff Bedard, spokesman for the Salt Lake City Police Department, says, "It's something where you have to act in a split second, and there's a lot of time after the fact to sit back to analyze it."

Utah law states: "A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonable believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury."

Firearms instructor and advocate Clark Aposhian says, "If you believe that an attack is imminent, and if you believe that a person is reaching into their bag to get a firearm, you don't have to wait until the person is actually pointing a firearm at you to engage with them."

But Gunn says regardless of how the law may protect the shooter, this is just another example of how dangerous firearms can be in the hands of the public. "[There's sadness, for both the victim and the shooter, because the shooter is going to have to bear that burden for the rest of his life."

Aposhian says Utahns don't have the right to kill, but a right to protect themselves and their family.

Hardtarget
July 10, 2008, 11:48 PM
Seems to have been enough time...why didn't the police just OPEN THE BAG...and show what was in there? Could have settled everything..."no weapon" or "yes, here is the weapon".

Mark.

FCFC
July 11, 2008, 12:00 AM
if you are in fear of bodily harm by another, you are justified.

Actually, the standard in Utah is if you are in reasonable fear for your life.
This guy has to convince the DA that his fear for his own life, or the lives of others, was reasonable.

Actually, the law states that you can use deadly force in Utah for three reasons:

1) When you are in fear of your life or serious bodily injury
2) To protect a third party from death or serious bodily injury
3) To prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

You forgot the word "reasonable." :rolleyes:

76-2-402. Force in defense of person-Forcible felony defined

"...person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury..."

Note: Harrison doesn't get to determine "reasonably believes." Someone else does.

I wonder how he's feeling right about now.

BHPshooter
July 11, 2008, 12:29 AM
The 10:00 news just had a story about this shooting, which was basically an open forum for the shootee's son. He blathered on about how the shooter was "very immature" to shoot his dad, and should have told him to freeze, like the cops do. :rolleyes: Cops have freaking backup. Citizens do NOT.

Wow, what a balanced story. Way to go, KSL. :banghead:

You forgot the word "reasonable."

76-2-402. Force in defense of person-Forcible felony defined

"...person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury..."

Note: Harrison doesn't get to determine "reasonably believes." Someone else does.

I wonder how he's feeling right about now.

FCFC, are you playing devil's advocate, or are you really siding with the cretin in this? :scrutiny:

Wes

anarchris
July 12, 2008, 01:37 AM
:neener:


anyway
threatened them and a security guard and then reached inside his jacket or backpack

I said Joe Horn would get off on another forum for liberals and they all said no way, same for this guy, he will not be charged for this & if he is he will be found not guilty.
He made threats, sucks to be him.
Homeless crazy people should stay in NYC & SF

LightningJoe
July 12, 2008, 02:01 AM
If the knapsacker did have a gun, a knife, brass knucks or something, then that would make the shooter golden. Usually.


It doesn't alter the guy's decision. He fired before he saw a weapon whether or not one existed. Finding a weapon in the guy's backpack only measures the quality of the shooter's ESP.


But that doesn't mean shooting the guy was unjustified. I'm not going to second guess the shooter.


Myself, I balance risk-vs-risk. If I wait until I see a weapon, there's risk associated with that. If I shoot before I see a weapon, there's risk associated with that as well. I pocket carry, so I can have my gun in my hand without initiating hostilities, i.e. I can go from no aggression to an empty mag very quickly. 999 times out of 1000, I'd wait to see a weapon.

Pay2Play
July 12, 2008, 02:18 AM
Quote:
FCFC, I think that if you are in the middle of a confrontation, reaching into your bag, pocket, under a jacket, would be considered threatening, this is not just this guy saw someone reach intop a backpack so he shot him, they were in the middle of an altercation from what it looks like
Of course, the context already is that there was a confrontation (the full details of which have not been reported, btw).

So you're saying in such a context, that any reaching into a knapsack, bag, pocket, etc. will be "considered threatening?" And would that be "threatening" enough to justify shooting the reacher?

The police would have done the same thing if put into that situation and would have been justified in doing so.

FCFC
July 12, 2008, 10:04 AM
The police would have done the same thing if put into that situation and would have been justified in doing so.

That's incorrect.

The police would have issued a direct command for the knapsack guy to keep his hands visible before shooting.

A professional LEO is trained to prevent escalation to a shooting situation, if possible. George Harrison apparently was not.

The details of what was said, by whom, and what the deceased actually did are what is crucial to this case as far as judging it a good or bad shoot.

We don't even yet know exactly if the knapsack guy was reaching for anything. The report has been that he was perceived by someone (who?) to be reaching "inside his jacket or backpack." That's pretty vague. Which one was it? Was the guy just taking off his knapsack so he could attempt to fight bare knuckles with the private citizen who he was engaged with? Did he say something like, "I'm gonna get my gun from this here knapsack and shoot you now?" Just what did the knapsack guy do?

I don't think we know yet.

But we do know that the decedent had no weapon. That much we know.

Which increases the likelihood that it is a bad shoot. It's bad practice to go around shooting and killing a guy who has no weapon. People ask questions.

To stop the perceived threat, why didn't the big bad security guard just go and punch the guy in the mouth or something? Why did he have to shoot and kill the guy? Couldn't the the security guard have been a little more flexible in his continuum of force application?

Remember, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

Bowman140
July 12, 2008, 11:57 AM
why didn't the big bad security guard just go and punch the guy in the mouth or something?

In the time it takes to run over and punch the guy, the BG could have pulled a gun or knife and started killing people. Sometimes you have no choice but to go with the information you have at the moment. Hesitation at a moment like this can be fatal. I believe that the security guard did the right thing and it is not our place to judge him for a decision he made in a split second.

Correia
July 12, 2008, 12:18 PM
FCFC,

I am a Utah CCW instructor. I've certified over 2,000 permit holders.

Basically, you're talking out your butt, and your obnoxious devil's advocate roll is annoying the hell out of those of us that actually do this stuff for a living.

Somebody says something pertaining to the law, then you come back that they didn't include EVERYTHING pertaining to that.

Well, guess what? When I talk about the use of lethal force in class, it is about an hour lecture, followed by an hour long role playing session. That comes after a three hour Handgun 101 lecture.

So no, I don't really feel like typing the whole thing out for you.

So in the meantime, you're annoying us. Yes, we all know about reasonable assumptions, the Reasonable Man doctrine, Ability, Opportunity, and Immediate Threat of Serious Bodily Harm. All of these things will be looked at during the investigation.

As for making assumptions as to the shooter's ability, training, or skills, you're just guessing, and don't have jack squat for facts.

From the description I've gotten of this shooting thus far, it sounds like you've got an antognist who's acting in a threatening manner. He's ACTING like he's got the Ability to hurt you. He's within range that would give him the Opportunity to hurt you. And most of all he's acting in a manner that indicates he's an Immediate threat of serious bodily harm.

(BTW the Immediate threat point of that takes care of your idiotic statement about somebody randomly shooting you because you just reached into a backpack. i.e. if you say you're going to kill me, and you're acting in a violent and irrational manner, THEN you suddenly reach into your bag, I'm going to assume that you are telling me the truth and treat you like a threat)

Go over and punch him in the face? Are you serious? I've knocked men unconscious with my hands, and I've been knocked unconscious by blows to the head or by being choked out. I've got some experience on this front, and even then I would NEVER want to go over and try to "punch in the face" some guy that I reasonably believe is pulling a firearm. Tough is great, but bullets don't really care how tough you are.

What you said about law enforcement officers is also incorrect. They work from the Use of Force pyramid. If you suddenly present what is perceived to be a level of lethal force against an officer, he will immediatly respond with lethal force. He might say "stop, show me your hands" right before he shoots you, but if he reasonably believes that he is immediate danger of serious bodily harm, he's going to shoot you.

anarchris
July 13, 2008, 07:10 PM
why didn't the big bad security guard just go and punch the guy in the mouth or something?


I'm new to thr so I don't know you.
I am willing to bet though you've never ever had any training whatsoever on either security or armed security.
Middle school rules do not apply in real life, son.
For instance, if you punch the crazy homeless guy in the mouth you can get a wide array of nasty incurable conditions.

please look up "blood borne pathogens"

never mind, I looked it up.
Think about this next time you punch the homeless guy in the mouth

Bloodborne Pathogens means pathogenic microorganisms that are present in human blood and can cause disease in humans. These pathogens include, but are not limited to, hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

FLA2760
July 13, 2008, 07:22 PM
Correia wrote,"FCFC,

I am a Utah CCW instructor. I've certified over 2,000 permit holders.

Basically, you're talking out your butt, and your obnoxious devil's advocate roll is annoying the hell out of those of us that actually do this stuff for a living.

Somebody says something pertaining to the law, then you come back that they didn't include EVERYTHING pertaining to that.

Well, guess what? When I talk about the use of lethal force in class, it is about an hour lecture, followed by an hour long role playing session. That comes after a three hour Handgun 101 lecture.

So no, I don't really feel like typing the whole thing out for you.

So in the meantime, you're annoying us. Yes, we all know about reasonable assumptions, the Reasonable Man doctrine, Ability, Opportunity, and Immediate Threat of Serious Bodily Harm. All of these things will be looked at during the investigation.

As for making assumptions as to the shooter's ability, training, or skills, you're just guessing, and don't have jack squat for facts.

From the description I've gotten of this shooting thus far, it sounds like you've got an antognist who's acting in a threatening manner. He's ACTING like he's got the Ability to hurt you. He's within range that would give him the Opportunity to hurt you. And most of all he's acting in a manner that indicates he's an Immediate threat of serious bodily harm.

(BTW the Immediate threat point of that takes care of your idiotic statement about somebody randomly shooting you because you just reached into a backpack. i.e. if you say you're going to kill me, and you're acting in a violent and irrational manner, THEN you suddenly reach into your bag, I'm going to assume that you are telling me the truth and treat you like a threat)

Go over and punch him in the face? Are you serious? I've knocked men unconscious with my hands, and I've been knocked unconscious by blows to the head or by being choked out. I've got some experience on this front, and even then I would NEVER want to go over and try to "punch in the face" some guy that I reasonably believe is pulling a firearm. Tough is great, but bullets don't really care how tough you are.

What you said about law enforcement officers is also incorrect. They work from the Use of Force pyramid. If you suddenly present what is perceived to be a level of lethal force against an officer, he will immediatly respond with lethal force. He might say "stop, show me your hands" right before he shoots you, but if he reasonably believes that he is immediate danger of serious bodily harm, he's going to shoot you".


AMEN!

M&PVolk
July 15, 2008, 08:09 PM
I realize I'm a little late to this thread, but FCFC, I find your comments on this shooting to be dubious at best. Are you seriously advocating that justifiable use of force only comes AFTER you are likely beyond the point of being able to actually defend yourself?

The law in my state clearly indicates that the individual need not have a weapon to justify the use of deadly force against him. All that needs to be there is a reasonable perceived deadly threat.

For example, let's say the shoe is on your foot. You find yourself involved in an altercation with Mr. Mays. Let's say he is a man of average build, but is clearly under the influence of "something". Now, let's forget the backpack for a moment. Let's say Mr. Mays retreats from the discussion. You think you are clear. Now, Mr. Mays approaches you combatively, while shouting and verbally threatening to "kick your ass". He quickly draws close to you, and you shout to him "Back Off". He continues coming toward you. You say again "Back Off". He shoves his hand in his pocket and draws within about two inches of your face. Do you pull your gun, or do you "wait and see" if he produces a weapon from that pocket?

Certainly, that choice is up to you, but if he comes out with a knife, there's a good chance you aren't going to survive this encounter. Do you simply draw the gun and try again to get him to back off? Do you shoot?

My friend (a LE officer) told me once that if it's a choice between "me or him, I'm the one going home to my family that night". Valuable words IMO. In this very scenario, he isn't going to engage in hand to hand combat, he is going to shoot. He is going home that night. He can't afford to wait for his assailant to get in the first shot or first cut, and neither can anyone else. That's why the law is what it is. It is designed to save law abiding citizens before they get killed or injured.

You can wait to see that weapon if you want, but might I suggest you trade your CCW license for an organ donor card...at least then your sacrifice would have some redeemable value.

FCFC
July 15, 2008, 09:17 PM
As for making assumptions as to the shooter's ability, training, or skills, you're just guessing, and don't have jack squat for facts.

Here's a fact. And it should be "annoying" everyone: the knapsack guy had no weapon.

Oh, yeah, another fact: He's dead.

Bad shoot.

And it will cost all gun carriers something. There is a cost to these bad shoots.



Rebecca Walsh: Assault with a deadly backpack?
Raving homeless man swinging backpack? Shoot him, of course
By Rebecca Walsh
Tribune Columnist
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 07/13/2008

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9866066

Have you heard about the wave of backpack crime sweeping the nation?

Rampaging criminals breaking into homes, kidnapping, raping and murdering innocents while brandishing deadly Keltys and Jansports?

Yeah. Me neither.

So I'm a little mystified why George Harrison felt so threatened by an obviously obnoxious, apparently aggressive, couch-hopping homeless man who swung his backpack at Mama's Southern Plantation diners last week.

We've all run into mumbling, stumbling misfits on the sidewalks downtown. Some rant and rave. Most of us walk away or call the police. But when 47-year-old Mike Mays reached into his pocket and "intimated he was reaching for a weapon in his pants," the part-time restaurant security guard didn't wait to find out if he was. Harrison pulled his concealed weapon and squeezed the trigger.

A gun will always beat a backpack.

The street fight between Harrison and Mays goes to the heart of our notions of a "reasonable" right to self-defense. Police shifted a good chunk of the blame to the dead man; he "contributed to the confrontation that ultimately led to his death." They tiptoed around the concealed-weapon carrier/Vietnam vet who killed him, questioning and releasing him the same afternoon; he was "very cooperative."

How the case is handled is a matter of public policy and social conscience. Is starting an argument enough to get you killed on the streets of Salt Lake City now? Are concealed-weapon holders going to join the rarified ranks of the police - the only people we give a license to shoot-to-kill outside the battlefield and our own homes?

This will come down to an interpretation of Utah law, which does not require a person to retreat if feeling threatened.

"We're dealing with a human life here. From a moral standpoint, people ought to be willing to run away in the face of this kind of threat," says Steven Gunn, a board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. "The shooter should have retreated. He should never have allowed the situation to escalate to the point where he had to use deadly force. He had no duty to do that."

Concealed-weapon instructor Clark Aposhian says he always teaches his students to disengage, to "warn and retreat." His classes also role play to-shoot-or-not-to-shoot situations.

"You don't have to wait until a person pulls out a gun or a knife or chokes you to death. You don't have to wait until they are actually harming you," says Aposhian. "But you can't just say, 'I don't like the look of that guy, I'm going to shoot him.' It has to be somewhere in between. Some people are easily frightened, but that doesn't mean they can pull a gun."

A lot is at stake at the conclusion of this investigation. Concealed-weapon carriers boast that they are five to seven times less likely than the rest of us to commit crimes. But if Harrison's hair trigger creates a firestorm, lawmakers may face pressure to scale back the state's free-wheeling concealed-weapon permitting program.

"I want [the shooting] to be justified, because I don't want this to have an air of criminality about it," says Aposhian. "Honestly, I'd love to see the police report and witness statements."

Salt Lake City police are being circumspect, cautious, careful.

They will work "closely" with District Attorney Lohra Miller to determine if any charges should be filed against Harrison. Just because he was not arrested doesn't mean this is over.

"We're trying to be very thorough. If we don't get it right, we don't get a do-over," says police spokesman Jeff Bedard. "We rely a lot on witnesses."

So my question for the witnesses is: How threatening was that backpack?

walsh@sltrib.com

Rugerlvr
July 15, 2008, 09:49 PM
FCFC, quoting Rebecca Walsh's story is a bit like quoting Democratic Underground. She is completely anti-gun, and she is not in possession of the facts. She is also an opinion writer.

You are starting to piss off a lot of people with this devil's advocate crap. Why do you do it? It's like poking an angry bee's nest. Do you like crapping where you eat?

GingerGuy
July 15, 2008, 09:49 PM
So, let me get this right, if I am outside of a restaurant minding my own business, and some guy starts yelling at me, threatening me with violence, yells more and comes at me in an extremely threatening manner...I am supposed to let him continue at me and then do what? Let him attack me?

It was an unprovoked attack, an assault. I don't know if he has a gun, knife or another weapon in his possession. When he is within 15' from me, he can be on top of me within 1.5 seconds, should he have a lethal weapon, I am a goner.

Why is the benefit of the doubt always given to the bad guy? The guy that started this whole thing, the guy that assaulted Mr. Harrison...what Mays did was wrong, and if I was in a similar situation you can bet, I will defend myself as well. At my age, one blow could be fatal.

There is NO reason that anyone has to endure assaults like this and be a sheep. I value my life and I will not let some homeless guy determine whether I live or die.

There are many people that will let fate, and a crazy homeless guy determine their future of life or death.....but I am not one of those.

One of Many
July 15, 2008, 10:05 PM
FCFC, according to the article by Walsh that you posted, the shooter was a SECURITY GUARD for the restaurant. His job was to protect the clients from threats. The guy who was shot threatened to use deadly force (reached into his pocket to simulate grasping a handgun), after already having committed violent assault without a weapon. The security guard had no duty to turn his back and take a bullet while running away. He had a right to defend himself and those placed under his care (as a security guard).

This looks like it may be a justified shooting, based solely on the article that you posted, even though it was written with the intent to make the guard look like a cold-blooded killer with not justification.

GingerGuy
July 15, 2008, 10:06 PM
Here's a fact. And it should be "annoying" everyone: the knapsack guy had no weapon.

Oh, yeah, another fact: He's dead.

Bad shoot.

And it will cost all gun carriers something. There is a cost to these bad shoots.

What really annoys me is your opinion that this is a bad shoots (shooting).

This case costs gun carriers nothing, but the satisfaction in knowing another bad guy is dead. Mays harassed and assaulted many others before this, including members of his own family. Our courts, again, did little to correct his criminal behavior.

Bad people need to learn there are consequences for their actions and should they threaten the safety of people, assault them, that men and women will protect themselves and their family members with lethal force when necessary.

Some where I remember reading something about…. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That word life refers to my life, that word liberty refers to my freedoms and I have more happiness now since I pointed out how wrong your thinking is, with all due respect.

GearHead_1
July 15, 2008, 10:06 PM
I wonder if Rebecca Walsh understands that you can't retreat faster than a bullet travels and there is only a split second to make the determination whether or not one may be coming. I believe the shooter chose the safe side of that split second.

FCFC
July 15, 2008, 10:15 PM
The security guard had no duty to turn his back and take a bullet while running away.

I wonder if Rebecca Walsh understands that you can't retreat faster than a bullet travels ...
Bullet?

From where? From what?

This?

http://www.photoshoptalent.com/images/contests/bullet%20holes/fullsize/bullet%20holes_481fa71496cea.jpg


I think it's a bad shoot.

Rugerlvr
July 15, 2008, 10:19 PM
I think it's a bad shoot.

Yes, we're all well aware of that now. How about you let the DA, with all the facts in front of her decide whether or not to press charges, and then we'll have an opinion from someone who knows a hell of a lot more about the situation than you do.

GearHead_1
July 15, 2008, 10:24 PM
FCFC, I'm with you brother. I only hope that when your "Oh Crap!" situation presents itself you patiently wait until a gun is produced before you decide to reach for yours. Oh wait! Then we wouldn't be able to read your posts anymore. Well... ummm... well, no go ahead be patient. By the way Rebecca was speaking about this type of situation in general when I spoke about bullets. Many of BG's really do pull guns with bullets that travel faster than you can retreat.

Poor East Texan
July 15, 2008, 10:32 PM
It's so dang easy to second guess something like this.

I wasn't there and don't know the history of the two men.

But based on the fact that the guy was reaching into a backpack while moving towards the shooter I'd say "good shoot".

brighamr
July 15, 2008, 10:33 PM
3 pages of arguing and second guessing? :rolleyes:

Anyone who thinks this shooter was in the wrong, by all means if you get threatened, just wait until the BG has shot or stabbed you a couple times before you try to defend yourself. Seriously, do you really think in this situation that you would wait to see what he was pulling out of his bag? Keeping in mind he is actively yelling and advancing towards you???

If you follow the wait and see philosophy, you should probably use mace as a first line of defense... or better yet, try to "reason" with your attacker. These are both very effective, as numerous studies have illustrated.

Flame me all you want, I like breathing and intend to do so. (I also payed attention in my CCW class :neener: )

FCFC
July 15, 2008, 10:35 PM
I wasn't there and don't know the history of the two men.

But based on the fact that the guy was reaching into a backpack while moving towards the shooter I'd say "good shoot".

"Yes, we're all well aware of that now. How about you let the DA, with all the facts in front of her decide whether or not to press charges, and then we'll have an opinion from someone who knows a hell of a lot more about the situation than you do."

Rugerlvr
July 15, 2008, 10:38 PM
You don't know when to quit, do you?

brighamr
July 15, 2008, 10:52 PM
"Yes, we're all well aware of that now. How about you let the DA, with all the facts in front of her decide whether or not to press charges, and then we'll have an opinion from someone who knows a hell of a lot more about the situation than you do."

When will the brady trolls leave? :barf:

FCFC
July 16, 2008, 12:13 AM
Many of BG's really do pull guns with bullets that travel faster than you can retreat.

This one didn't. He had no bullet launcher.

Anyways, feel free to vote your position at:

Poll: Utah Shooting, Good or Bad?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=378204

siglite
July 16, 2008, 12:32 AM
I've drawn on a guy in a similar situation, years ago. Guy went crazy in the lobby of the place I worked. Threatening employees, threatening me. I helped escort him outside. He walked about twenty feet towards his car then turned, and started coming at me while reaching under his shirt like he was carrying in the common method criminals carry. Front, behind the waistband.

I drew, but I didn't fire. I was yelling for him to stop and waiting to see what appeared from underneath the shirt. But I had a good bead, and he would've been *gone* if anything dark or shiny had come from under there.

Fortunately, the guy stopped and reconsidered his options. His hand appeared from under the shirt empty, and he turned and walked away, still yelling threats.

I was *this* close to dropping the hammer.

I still get a little (bad) adrenaline rush thinking about it. Blech.

Quinch
July 16, 2008, 12:42 AM
If you are near Las Vegas, I'd be willing to set up the same scenario and we can do it on camera.
We can recreate the situation and repeat it until we get a solid trend.
Simunitions. Or airsoft, if you're not up to the cost. Same deal.

FCFC
July 16, 2008, 12:49 AM
I've drawn on a guy in a similar situation, years ago. Guy went crazy in the lobby of the place I worked. Threatening employees, threatening me. I helped escort him outside. He walked about twenty feet towards his car then turned, and started coming at me while reaching under his shirt like he was carrying in the common method criminals carry. Front, behind the waistband.

I drew, but I didn't fire. I was yelling for him to stop and waiting to see what appeared from underneath the shirt. But I had a good bead, and he would've been *gone* if anything dark or shiny had come from under there.

Fortunately, the guy stopped and reconsidered his options. His hand appeared from under the shirt empty, and he turned and walked away, still yelling threats.

I was *this* close to dropping the hammer.

I still get a little (bad) adrenaline rush thinking about it. Blech.


And they said it couldn't be done! :banghead:

Excellent handling of the situation, siglite. There was no compelling reason to kill a man for being stupid.

Quinch
July 16, 2008, 01:08 AM
Still waiting fcfc.............
I'm sure other TFLrs in other states will offer to meet with you to let you prove your prowess if you're not near Nevada

dogmush
July 16, 2008, 01:37 AM
And they said it couldn't be done!


No one said it couldn't be done. Many said it Shouldn't be done, and we all said it wasn't Leagaly Required to be done.

I'm glad Siglite's situation worked out for him, and truth be told I've been in similar situations where I did the same thing, but there are plenty of sound tactical reasons never to do that starting with the guy accusing you of brandishing and ending with an ambush outside your building later that night.

The fact of the matter is every situation is different. The CCW Holder in this situation says he felt threatened for his life. The DA is evaluating that claim.

For you to condem the shoot from the internet based on a 4 paragraph news bit and an op ed is beyond arrogant.

For you to do it EVERY time a SD shooting comes up on this board is just annoying.

siglite
July 16, 2008, 09:13 AM
FCFC,

You should be aware that the variables in my situation allowed it. The most important of those being distance. If that had occurred at a range of four or five feet instead of twenty, I can't say whether I would've fired or not. And we don't know any of the variables in this shoot.

arthurcw
July 16, 2008, 09:30 AM
Here’s a handy little sequence of mouse clicks and KBD commands:

Click User CP
Click Buddy / Ignore Lists
Enter “FCFC” into the Add New User to List text box in the Ignore List section.
Click Save List

Better than Bromo for that acid stomach feeling you get sometimes.

Ta

M&PVolk
July 16, 2008, 10:31 AM
I'm tired of the bleeding heart mentality that is so prevalent today. Why are we so eager to defend the criminal and punish the just?

My personal theory on why this seems to scare some people is that because they lack a moral foundation. They want to be allowed to do whatever they want without fear of consequence.

Maybe FCFC is one of those people that just brings out the worst in others. Obviously he enjoys inflaming situations. Those are the kinds of behaviors that lead to these exact types of altercations. Maybe he has sympathy for the criminal in this case because he believes he himself could have easily been this guy.

I think it's about time that criminal elements of society be put on notice that their actions have consequences. Is it so bad a thing for someone to think "maybe getting violent with this guy would be a mistake"? I don't think so.

I will never advocate unnecessary shooting, but I don't believe I have to wait until the gun is against my forehead before I can judge the intent of my assailant. I'm sorry if that frightens you, but if it's between me and him, I am going to take my LE buddies advice....I'm going to make sure that I'm the one that goes home that night.

GearHead_1
July 16, 2008, 10:51 AM
I used to frequent the FALFiles. There was a certain individual (eventually banned) that spent a great deal of time doing what is being done in this thread. The dialog is so similar it's sad. He was a lawyer or so he claimed. He was bright and up on current events. I found a little quote on how this same individual was handled on yet another forum. I was so tired of seeing him troll the forum that I just quit going there. I guess that would make me one of the people mentioned in the second paragraph of this quote. That's when I found THR. I've only been back a couple of times since I registered on The High Road. The person mentioned in this quote is the same person that caused grief over at FALFiles, I've XXXXX'd his name as a simple matter of courtesy. Anyway heres the info:

Back in the late 90s this was a pretty good forum with a lot of interesting people. Then GWB started his presidential run and a troll named [XXXXX] came on the forum and started spewing hatred for Bush. A lot of us responded and pretty soon there was a pretty good pissing contest going on.

By the time it was over and Gloria had stepped in and banned [XXXXX] we noticed something. A lot of very good posters had gotten tired of the back and forth insults and just left. They never bothered to come back and it took a couple of years to bring this forum back up to where it is now.

The lesson we learned is that you don't feed trolls. There are two ways to feed a troll. One is to respond to what he posts so he knows he's getting to you and the other is to click on his posts and up the view count. This one is the easiest because we are anonymous when we do it. You think, "I'll just read what he has to say and not comment on it." but you are still feeding him because he knows that you read his post and, comment or not, he had an opportunity to make you give him a chance to influence you.

The ONLY way to get rid of a troll is to totally ignore what he posts. You don't click on it and give him the satisfaction of thinking he is influencing you. It's that simple, no clicks and no comments...

It's up to you. This can be your forum or JohnQ's forum but it can't be both. I don't want to see this forum ever again go through what we went through six years ago but it's totally up to you. Everyone here is supposedly an adult and if you are, and if you want this to be our forum, then don't click on the posts and quit feeding the troll by commenting at all.

FCFC
July 16, 2008, 07:06 PM
Fcfc
If you are near Las Vegas, I'd be willing to set up the same scenario and we can do it on camera.
We can recreate the situation and repeat it until we get a solid trend.
Simunitions. Or airsoft, if you're not up to the cost. Same deal.



Still waiting fcfc.............
I'm sure other TFLrs in other states will offer to meet with you to let you prove your prowess if you're not near Nevada

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

weisse52
July 16, 2008, 07:26 PM
FCFC
Could you please share your purpose with this poll?

I have read your input on the related thread and am trying to understand what is to learned here?
__________________

Since you are reading this post I thought I would bring my question to you.

So, what were you wanting to learn from the poll you started and promoted on this thread?

FCFC
July 16, 2008, 07:26 PM
The fact of the matter is every situation is different. The CCW Holder in this situation says he felt threatened for his life. The DA is evaluating that claim.

I have no doubt that George Harrison said he felt threatened. But did he "reasonably believe[s] that force [was] necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person" per the Utah code?

A lot has to do with something we don't know yet: What did Mike Mays say to George Harrision?

Did Mays say "I have a gun" and to then proceed to reach into his a) jacket, b) knapsack, or c) pants--whichever one it was? What did he say?

Unfortunately, SLCPD is stonewalling on this critical point. Rebecca Walsh asked the SLCPD straight out, "Did he [Mays] say, 'I have a gun'" or something like that? SLCPD declined to respond to that question.

Why, I wonder? Why would SLCPD not offer up a crucial and easily ascertainable piece of information within 4 or 5 days?

One of the news stories says Mays "intimated he was reaching for a weapon in his pants." What the heck does that mean? That was the watch commander's word: "intimated."

"Intimated," how? Did Mays make a gun with his finger? Did Mays take an art pad and draw a revolver like Bugs Bunny in the Yosemite Sam cartoon someone cited yesterday?

The delay in the release of info on exactly what constituted Mays' intimations is possibly indicative that they are favoring Harrison's position in this case. Maybe not.

The criterion is not whether Harrison felt threatened for his life. It is whether he "reasonably" feared for same.

We'll see what happens. It's an interesting case. And certainly it is broadly representative of a major type of easily conceivable CCWer/assailant deadly force situation: CCW has a gun and shoots--assailant has no weapon. That's why it is important to all in the CCW community.

Siglite detailed an informative story above in post #73. His story is in a slightly different category: CCW has a gun and draws only--assailant has no weapon

It's better to have a SD event in the latter category than the former.

weisse52
July 16, 2008, 07:37 PM
First,

Quoting Rebecca Walsh for anything will not gain you credibility points with any thinking people in Utah. If you want I will quote some of her other "hard hitting, investigative reporting" reports and then tell me if you want to take her opinion on anything.

The point is most people here, including those who have voted on your poll, are keeping an open mind and waiting to see what the offical outcome is. You seem to want to hang the man.
To quote you:

Why, I wonder?


Back peddling is tough work.....

Correia
July 16, 2008, 07:47 PM
Why, I wonder? Why would SLCPD not offer up a crucial and easily ascertainable piece of information within 4 or 5 days?

Maybe because it is none of your damn business...

SLCPD is a very professional department. I've worked with them a bunch. They're going to do their job, and that's it. The only people who's opinions matter right now are all in various police stations and government buildings in the SLC area.

Luckily for us, guilt or innocence is not decided by a bunch of doofi on the internet and our opinions on anything.

And FCFC, I don't think you would know reasonable if it bit you on the butt. Your mind is already made up, but if it wasn't I would invite you to come take one of my classes, and then I could run you through some realistic self-defense scenarios, and you could maybe 'educate' me on what was reasonable and prudent.

Oh wait, I forgot one other opinion that actually mattered. The shooter. He apparently thought he was in danger. But what does he know. He should have gone over and kung-fued the guy into submission or something.

God bless teh Interwebs.

weisse52
July 16, 2008, 07:51 PM
Rebecca Walsh highlights:

Walsh: Women become trophies, targets at the Legislature
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9884286

Walsh: Drive-by instills its goal: fear
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9835924

Rebecca Walsh: Assault with a deadly backpack?
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9866066

Walsh: State cars and turkeys have a bit in common
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9813738

Walsh: Time to grow up and put your guns away
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9662672

Walsh: I get mail, lots of it
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9692463

That last one is my personal favorite. I really enjoyed that one. Everyone should read it.

So go ahead, keep using her as your source.....

FCFC
July 16, 2008, 07:54 PM
Quote:
Why, I wonder? Why would SLCPD not offer up a crucial and easily ascertainable piece of information within 4 or 5 days?

Maybe because it is none of your damn business...
SLCPD is a very professional department. I've worked with them a bunch. They're going to do their job, and that's it. The only people who's opinions matter right now are all in various police stations and government buildings in the SLC area.

Luckily for us, guilt or innocence is not decided by a bunch of doofi on the internet and our opinions on anything.

No, that's not it. The public is entitled to get a reasonable amount of information from the investigating department about the incident. SLCPD is stonewalling. The watch commander is wordsmithing. Something's up.

The public has a right to know. This is not a trial we're talking about. A court is the place for the innocence-guilt determination. This is simply a reporting of events that took place seven days ago now. The longer they wait to release crucial information about the shooting incident, the less professionalism SLCPD is displaying.

Oh wait, I forgot one other opinion that actually mattered. The shooter. He apparently thought he was in danger. But what does he know. He should have gone over and kung-fued the guy into submission or something.
As stated previously, the criterion is not feeling in danger. The criterion is reasonably feeling in danger of life or limb.

But your idea of the tactic of Harrison going over to Mays (perhaps with his two companions) and kicking Mays' butt--well that would have been a very good idea. Too bad Harrison rejected that option. I think he rejected it because he simply thought about the gun first.

Remember: When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

Correia
July 16, 2008, 08:11 PM
We'll see what happens. It's an interesting case. And certainly it is broadly representative of a major type of easily conceivable CCWer/assailant deadly force situation: CCW has a gun and shoots--assailant has no weapon. That's why it is important to all in the CCW community.

And once again, if you had a clue you would realize that the lack of weapon does not make it a bad shoot.

Ability, Opportunity, Immediate Threat. That's what you need to be legally justified in shooting somebody in the state of Utah.

Okay class, do you need a weapon to have the Ability to cause Serious Bodily Harm? Nope. So take that Strawman Argument and knock it right back down.

You do not need a weapon to have Ability. Yes, it helps in the eyes of the jury, but is not mandatory. I could beat you to death with a fluffy pillow. And I would probably really enjoy it too...

So your point above is utter nonsense.

Next, you intimate-- (see that word? it's your vocabulary word for the day. When the police officer in the story used it, you didn't understand it, so you might want to check that one out, but I digress). When you intimate that you have the Ability to harm me, and you have the Opportunity to harm me, and you are acting in a manner that suggests you are an Immediate threat of harm, then I will treat you as such.

So he didn't need to say he had a gun. He just had to be acting in a manner that reasonably suggested that he was going for one. In other words, if you're freaking out, acting like a whackadoo nutjob, and I'm in fear for my life, don't make sudden scary movements, 'cause you might get shot.

If you wait to see the gun, you're dead. If you wait to make sure the gun isn't a toy painted black, you're dead. If you live in a delusional fairy-land where you can walk over to the violent criminal aggresor and "punch them in the face" while you reasonably believe he's pulling a gun, you're dead.

And if he's pulling a knife, and he's close enough to converse with, and you wait too long, you're dead. I've gutted probably 300 students with a rubber knife in various Tueller drill scenarious over the last few years. I start at about the 20-25 foot mark based on the scenario. It's a piece of cake.

And when you come onto a gun board, and your backup is an article written by somebody who is downright notorious for being both A. Anti-Gun and B. Full of crap, don't expect that to somehow prop up your pathetic arguments.

SLCPD will do their jobs. Prosecutors office will do theirs. Folks on the internet who don't know anything about law, violence, or self defense will continue to bloviate uselessly.

Carry on, FCFC. :)

FCFC
July 16, 2008, 08:24 PM
Quote:
We'll see what happens. It's an interesting case. And certainly it is broadly representative of a major type of easily conceivable CCWer/assailant deadly force situation: CCW has a gun and shoots--assailant has no weapon. That's why it is important to all in the CCW community.

And once again, if you had a clue you would realize that the lack of weapon does not make it a bad shoot.

Ability, Opportunity, Immediate Threat. That's what you need to be legally justified in shooting somebody in the state of Utah.


No immediate threat. No gun. No knife. Not even a Snickers bar.

No "I have a gun and Ima KILL you!"

Sounds like the dreadful gun first approach to SD so so popular with the homeboys.


If you wait to see the gun, you're dead
What gun? Also, see siglite's post # 73 above, won't you?

And if he's pulling a knife...
What knife?


SLCPD will do their jobs. .... Folks on the internet who don't know anything about law, violence, or self defense will continue to bloviate uselessly.
Including those same people, hopelessly biased and invested, who accuse others of doing so. :D

SLCPD is stonewalling. The question is: Why?

Correia
July 16, 2008, 08:35 PM
Oh, I missed your last post!

That there is Fisking Gold!

The public is entitled to get a reasonable amount of information from the investigating department about the incident. SLCPD is stonewalling. The watch commander is wordsmithing. Something's up. Apparently wordsmithing = using a word from 5th grade vocabulary.

Give me a break. Stonewalling? If you had a clue you would know that is ridiculous. The SLC admin is about the most liberal you will find in any department in the state. The street officers have to put up with admin and city leadership that is doesn't really like CCW or guns or any of our Utah typical red state values.

Trust me on this one. SLC admin won't go out of their way to protect a CCWer, no more than they would go out of their way to crucify one. If this shooting had happened in rural Utah, they would have just pinned a medal on the shooter and called it good. What you're seeing here is a professional department going about their jobs.

The public has a right to know. No. Actually, you don't.

See, most people who talk about their "Right To Know" only care about stories that validate their preconceived notions. Just like the press decides that the only gun related stories that are fit to print involve bad shoots or massacres at elementary schools or other things that fit their agenda.

Once this shoot is gone over and the shooter is aquited, the press will forget about it, until the next thing comes along that they can get their knee-jerk reactions on about.

This is simply a reporting of events that took place seven days ago now. The longer they wait to release crucial information about the shooting incident, the less professionalism SLCPD is displaying.

Nope. I've never once, in my entire life, EVER, seen a newspaper report the facts of a violent encounter with anything that even approached what actually happened. And this includes situations that I was involved in myself.

A good rule of thumb. If it is about self-defense, guns, or law, and you read it in the paper, it is probably wrong.

I was once involved with a SWAT team raid where NOTHING happened. It turned out that no crime was committed. Nada. Zip. Zero. It was a false call out based upon a Federal Agent committing perjury on the search warrant. However the next day I got to read in the paper about how this SWAT raid turned up surface to air missiles, RPGs, hand grenades, and anti-tank mines.

Why? Because the paper was too lazy and stupid to check their facts. And just took the perjured information and ran with it.

So if you're expecting factual info about a shooting from the paper, keep wishing. Even if the SLCPD released a report that read like an issue of the Ayoob Files from American Handgunner, the paper would report it to say whatever mood they wanted to create in the grass eating populace anyway.

And SLCPD is a very professional department. Except for Rocky Anderson's old psych-eval guy. He sucked. Luckily professionalism is not graded by people like you.

As stated previously, the criterion is not feeling in danger. The criterion is reasonably feeling in danger of life or limb And that tidbit out of the way, how exactly does that change anything that I've said before? Not at all. Like I said in my first post. You take something somebody said, and then chastise them for not putting down EVERYTHING.

Wee... that was fun.

Reasonable doctrine goes along with Ability, Opportunity, Immediate Threat. Obviously, unless your a troll... Then you need to be beaten over the head with it like a sack full of rocks.

When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. But sometimes a nail is just a nail, and then you can hammer the ever livin' hell out of it.

(and he'll come along and chastise me about this too, I'm certain, even though I usually teach hours of how to AVOID shooting people)

Your little bit of homespun wisdom is noted. However in this case, it has nothing to do with justification or not. Here in Utah we are not required to wrestle somebody if we feel that we're in danger of serious bodily harm. There is no legal requirement to meet like force with like force. No law in Utah says that you have to go hand to hand with the crazy guy filled with blood-borne pathogens, just because it makes people like Rebecca Walsh all warm and fuzzy inside.

I think he rejected it because he simply thought about the gun first.

Wow, for all of your pontificating I thought for sure you would KNOW. Well, regardless, your opinion is less than useless. Your points are duly noted, and dismissed. Thank you for sharing.

I consider myself a patient man. But I have zero patience for devil's advocates with no wisdom, facts, or original ideas, who's only argument is to slander somebody braver than they are, or question the integrity and professionalism of their betters.

Correia
July 16, 2008, 08:37 PM
What gun? Also, see siglite's post # 73 above, won't you?

If you think he's got one, and you wait to see it, I'm not going to take bets on your odds of living.

Oh wait, let me type your next post for you.


If you REASONABLY think he's got one, and you wait to see it, I'm not going to take bets on your odds of living.

There you go. Saved you some time.

Including those same people, hopelessly biased and invested, who accuse others of doing so. Nope. I just don't tolerate idiotic misconceptions about self-defense very well.

FCFC
July 16, 2008, 08:43 PM
And SLCPD is a very professional department. Except for Rocky Anderson's old psych-eval guy. He sucked. Luckily professionalism is not graded by people like you.
...
I consider myself a patient man. But I have zero patience for devil's advocates with no wisdom, facts, or original ideas, who's only argument is to slander somebody braver than they are, or question the integrity and professionalism of their betters.


Yep, invested.

Apparently wordsmithing = using a word from 5th grade vocabulary.
You wrote a book and you don't know the word wordsmithing? Hope you had a good editor...:D

Correia
July 16, 2008, 08:49 PM
Yep, invested in my deep disdain for trolls.

My little self published book got up to #4 on the Entertainment Weekly Bestseller list before I pulled it to sell the rights to a large publishing house. So, yes, I had an excellent editor. She also is the editor for Concealed Carry magazine, which you probably haven't read, because you seem to have a deep disregard for that kind of thing.

But you wouldn't like my book. The characters like to carry guns and do insolent things like defend themselves with them. Plus it has many large words, and no pictures. So you should probably skip it.

GearHead_1
July 16, 2008, 08:51 PM
Larry, I have one question for you, what's the point? We have the power, see my previous post.

Correia
July 16, 2008, 08:53 PM
I type fast and enjoy my collection of stuffed troll heads that I keep above my mantle.

Point taken Gear. I'm walking away from this one. I shouldn't feed the trolls.

FCFC
July 16, 2008, 08:54 PM
She also is the editor for Concealed Carry magazine, which you probably haven't read, because you seem to have a deep disregard for that kind of thing.
Seem?

Wrong again. As per usual. :eek:

I carry a firearm every day of my life. I first carried a gun 40 years ago.

No, you are wrong again. I think that carrying a gun is a fine idea.

You're invested, not only in kissing up to SLCPD, but ialso invested in assidously self-serving speculation and instantaneous strawman arguments, both the commonest tools for making life soooooo simplistic....

Ah, life can be so pleasingly simplistic sometimes, eh?

alligator94
July 16, 2008, 10:07 PM
I have a question for anyone who thinks it is a bad shoot. Do you think that a police officer would have done any different if you pretend that you are going to pull a gun on him?

weisse52
July 16, 2008, 10:16 PM
Here’s a handy little sequence of mouse clicks and KBD commands:

Click User CP
Click Buddy / Ignore Lists
Enter “FCFC” into the Add New User to List text box in the Ignore List section.
Click Save List

Better than Bromo for that acid stomach feeling you get sometimes.

Ta\


Very good advice...I think I will follow. Everyone else should consider.

weisse52
July 16, 2008, 10:19 PM
Quote:
Here’s a handy little sequence of mouse clicks and KBD commands:

Click User CP
Click Buddy / Ignore Lists
Enter “FCFC” into the Add New User to List text box in the Ignore List section.
Click Save List

Better than Bromo for that acid stomach feeling you get sometimes.

Ta
\


Very good advice...I think I will follow. Everyone else should consider.
__________________

THAT WORKS GREAT!!! SOLVES THE PROBLEM WITH TROLLS.....

Rugerlvr
July 16, 2008, 10:27 PM
Ignored. FCFC has nothing to say I'm interested in hearing.

FCFC
July 16, 2008, 10:28 PM
I have a question for anyone who thinks it is a bad shoot. Do you think that a police officer would have done any different if you pretend that you are going to pull a gun on him?
Excellent question.
I hope we get some LEO(s) to answer it. It would be interesting for them to address your question.

siglite
July 16, 2008, 10:44 PM
:D

Correia...

If you somehow convince FCFC to swing your way for some FoF training/demonstrations, PLEASE POST TO YOUTUBE.

I can't wait to see whether he shoots or is killed by the guy reaching for something in a bag.

Then I can't wait for his justifications on why he's reasonably dead or not.

FCFC
July 16, 2008, 10:51 PM
Correia left.

He had to look after his investments... :D

Mossberg535
July 16, 2008, 10:53 PM
That would be interesting...I guess I better be careful when reaching into my knapsack, bookbag, briefcase, shopping bag...
Im sorta confused. Why would you be careful in such a case if you were just reaching in ?

If you were reaching into a bag DURING what appeared to be an assault, you'd be lucky to be alive at the end of the day, in my opinion....even a cop may shoot you at that rate since they hardly know what it is you might be pulling out.

Poor East Texan
July 17, 2008, 06:39 PM
Against my better judgement I sent this to Rebecca Walsh:

'Lady, I must admit I don't know you.

I was blessed to be born and raised in Texas!

I am perfectly fine with it if you don't like or own guns. I don't try to legislate that everyone has a gun.

Therefor if you would refrain from mentioning how bad guns/gun owners are, we'd all get along just peachy!

MAYBE just REPORT the news without SLANTING it to your idea of right? That's what the great reporters USED to do.

I HATE giving my real email addy to anyone. I'd like to think I can trust you not to share it.


And got this back:

I was a great reporter--if I do say so myself.


Now, I'm a great columnist. Which means I get to slant what I write however I want.


I will not share your email address.


Rebecca



Some piece of work eh?

GearHead_1
July 17, 2008, 06:57 PM
A legend in her own mind. I've watched her, she wasn't a great reporter. She must not be a great columnist either. I don't read her. :D

Poor East Texan
July 17, 2008, 07:03 PM
Yeah, we have our own communist rag here.

I still say based on what early on "Good Shoot".

Justin
July 17, 2008, 07:08 PM
I'm going to do FCFC a favor and put this thread out of its misery.

If you enjoyed reading about "Lethal shooting in Salt Lake City, UT; CCW holder was the shooter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!