Shooting in Hollywood - What would you do?

[lemaymiami]

9mm... last post was right on the money. Look at it any way you want you react and deal with situations based on your experience. As a retired cop I'd dearly love to live out the rest of my life without once raising my hand against anyone else... I will not stand idly by and watch someone being hurt or killed, though. Hopefully a phone call is all that's needed but I'll do what's needed unless there's some over riding need in another direction (protecting those with me or my family).

for Justin... one of the tough things about being a cop is the directive to protect life - even some crazy with a gun. You try to do your best not to use the gun you carry... that's the way you're trained. I will say that most training regarding potential suicides (and that's what this shooter surely was...) teaches over and over again just how dangerous they are and that the officer should never expose him/herself to their fire if at all possible. Suicide, by the way is aggression turned inwards in many cases. Doesn't take much for most of them to take someone with them.... Shooting a potential armed suicide isn't much to brag about for any cop. Most are really down about it afterwards. Being involved in a "suicide by cop" leaves most officers badly in need of support and counselling. I think it's a primary example of the kind of stress that ends careers.... I can't tell you how good it feels when you're able to talk one down - and that does happen, just not often enough....

 

[JustinJ]

for Justin... one of the tough things about being a cop is the directive to protect life - even some crazy with a gun. You try to do your best not to use the gun you carry... that's the way you're trained. I will say that most training regarding potential suicides (and that's what this shooter surely was...) teaches over and over again just how dangerous they are and that the officer should never expose him/herself to their fire if at all possible.

What i read was in reference to active shooters. So if somebody has already murdered people and appears to be in search of another victim and then a cop gets the drop on him a verbal warning is not advised because it adds additional risk to the officer.

 

[9mmepiphany]

What i read was in reference to active shooters.

That is the basic difference between ideal and practical. One is read about and the other is experienced

 

[JustinJ]

That is the basic difference between ideal and practical. One is read about and the other is experienced

I'm not arguing otherwise. But the question is wether or not a cop, or citizen for that matter, is obligated and/or taught to demand surrender before acting if the shooter is not engaged in firing at that moment.

 

[Trent]

Justin - I don't argue there are circumstances where it would be unwise to "talk first and shoot later". Multiple opponents, someone actively firing at / beating / stabbing someone, and so on - just a few examples that come to mind.

But someone who's already done shooting and just waiting around in the middle of the street for the cops to show up.. if you are in a position to get a bead on them, it doesn't take much to say "drop it!" If they turn and point at you, yeah, it's on at that point. But, by then you've already got an aimed shot ready and you're on target - and they don't.

Every situation is different and we can't armchair every possibility to death. But given the lack of a truly immediate danger, if I were to choose to intervene, I'm going to give them the benefit of surrender. I'm not going to drop the hammer on someone unless a life is in immediate danger.

If it were early in the engagement and the guy was actively firing on people, and I had a clear line of fire with nothing behind, I certainly wouldn't take the time to talk - dude isn't going to hear you yelling anyway over the noise.

Also, if you come across the situation and weren't there from the very first shot with the subject in sight, with the bad guy visible from the onset, you need to make sure you aren't shooting at a CCW or off duty cop that's already engaged the bad guy who you haven't seen yet!

 

[9mmepiphany]

is obligated and/or taught to demand surrender before acting if the shooter is not engaged in firing at that moment.

I can easily think of a number of instances where I would and a number where I wouldn't. If it were a single shooter...and I was sure it was only one...I think it more likely that I would than wouldn't.

Obligated becomes, with experience, more of an ethical than a moral question.

I don't remember be taught to demand surrender, I remember more being taught the legal justification for using deadly force...but this was 30+ years ago

 

[JustinJ]

The problem with verbal warning is that the target of you're perfectly lined up shot may now be moving quickly to either make you miss, turn to hit your or both. Let's consider to have the drop without being noticed you are obviously going to be farther than 15 yards. And the only effective way to immediately incapicatate is destruction of the key parts of the nervous system so even if you manage to get one or more shots center mass he may still have time to return fire of a whole magazine. And if you were going for a head shot that relatively small target for a handgun is now moving or unavailable. Also, your original shot may have had a clear back stop but now you are firing at a moving target. Even with the drop and clean hits the target may still have time to turn and return fire so why increase his chances?

Regardless of what one chooses i think it very innacurate to refer to choosing to act in the scenarios we are discussing as an assasination or being a judge, jury and executioner.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Regardless of what one chooses i think it very innacurate to refer to choosing to act in the scenarios we are discussing as an assasination or being a judge, jury and executioner.

Well assassination would certainly be inaccurate as it would neither be "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons." nor "the act of deliberately killing someone, especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."...

However, deciding guilt after weight what you perceive as the facts (jury), pronouncing a punishment (judge) and carrying it out (executioner) is too far off from the truth...except you are not affording the suspect due process.

One should not delude oneself about what you are doing when you use deadly force against someone not actively harming another. That is why there is a process to judge those actions following use of deadly force to see if that force was justified...that is another reason why civil recourse should remain available to other injured parties

 

[Trent]

Lining up and shooting a guy in the back of the head (CNS shot), or a head shot with a scoped rifle from a 4th floor window out of a building, may not be an assassination, but ... the shooter is dropping a target without the bad guy seeing it coming, or knowing you are there. Sure, they may be in the act of doing something that justifies it - and the situation may indeed call for that action to be taken. But there's no doubt - a shot made against a bad guy in that capacity is, in effect, playing the role of judge, jury, and executioner.

With no opportunity to surrender in the face of deadly force, the bad guy is denied a right to his trial, appeal, and his trip to the lethal injection chamber.

It may be legal, yes. It may be the correct action to take, and it may be justified in every way - but like someone mentioned earlier - it's no small thing to take a life.

It's a position that any CCW may end up in some day. And, ultimately, it's a choice that each individual will have to make on their own. No single act is the right one - but there are three choices to make.

1. Take the target
2. Demand surrender and hope your reactions are good if they turn on you.
3. Retreat and escape the situation.

Depending on the situation, not all of the options above may apply. You may not even have a millisecond to *consider* the choices.

The longer you have to consider the choices, the less danger you are in, and the further across the lines your actions go towards becoming "premeditated."

Not that it'd matter if it was a justifiable shooting - but you aren't always guaranteed a fair trial, you know?

 

[Trent]

PS - I completely agree "assassinated" wasn't the correct terminology.

But, if you play the role of sniper from a high window, as a civilian, that's how it's going to come across in the public eye. There are exceptions - the guy mentioned above, with the 243 rifle, that shot the guy that was shooting the cop, etc.

It's all situational though.. but I'd think a long range head (CNS) shot in downtown Hollywood, from the POV from where that camera was, wouldn't be looked at too kindly by the local LEO or the public eye. Then again, maybe it would make a good argument why people should be allowed to own EBR's and such?

Never know!

 

[Loosedhorse]

pronouncing a punishment (judge)

Punishment and defense are completely different. A by-stander-rescuer deciding to shoot an active rampager is NOT pronoucing a punishment. He is making a moral decision that he must act to prevent more murder and mayhem, and making a tactical decision that shooting is his best option. Both are judgments, but they are not "acting like a judge."

If the rampager stops, puts down his weapon, goes to his knees, raises his hands, and announces, "I surrender," and then the by-stander walks up, decides he doesn't deserve to live, and shoots him dead? That would be acting as jury, judge and executioner, "taking the law into your own hands"....

And murder.

Too many people (usually anti-gunners) use "taking the law into your own hands" when referring to protecting yourself or other innocents from violent crime. That implies that only "the law" is allowed to protect you--not you yourself.

That is incorrect, and we, as gun-onwers, should be very clear on that, IMHO.

 

[Zoogster]

Trent...

There is a few things that are important in this scenario.

One of the most blatant is that the guy doing the filming and talking was clearly aware of what the shooter was doing. He knew he was randomly shooting at cars as they passed who were oblivious that he was holding a gun.


Knowing this he was beyond sure of the immediate lethal threat to anyone that happened to come down that street.

In light of the criminal's clear willingness to shoot at anyone, even those who have done nothing to him nor are trying to apprehend, the person filming understanding this all, and the ongoing nature of the threat, calling out for him to surrender is not morally or ethically required.
In fact with everything known, except hindsight that he didn't shoot at the person filming, the reasonable expectation of someone randomly shooting at anyone is that they will shoot at you as soon as you call out to them. Or run to cover and then continue their lethal rampage from a position that may be more difficult to stop them from.


So this even goes beyond just witnessing a criminal trying to murder someone where lethal force would be justified, the individual watching even knew he was trying to murder random people in whatever random car just happened to drive past. This isn't a situation he could have in any way been misinterpreting, and was someone that randomly opens fire.

As a result the intelligent and reasonable thing to do would be to shoot them without announcing anything to them. Unless you want almost a certain result of them turning and firing in your direction before you open fire.
Gunfights are not like in the movies, and people can take multiple rounds before being incapacitated, and can continue firing at you even after taking such rounds.
So you don't just get to drawn down on an active shooter and then if they don't comply after you announce yourself be the fastest gun in the west and not get shot. That is from Hollyoowd fantasy where the first person struck drops as if hit with a death ray.
In fact we have had threads about CCW holders that have pulled a gun on robbers robbing someone else, demanded they surrender, and then proceeded to exchange fire with the robber, with both robber and CCW holder taking multiple hits. Giving the bad guy additional intel and situational awareness by announcing your presence to him when he is already posing an immediate lethal threat to someone else's life is risky. Doing it to a spree shooter you can cleary see is randomly shooting any innocent person or vehicle that goes by is just beyond stupid.
You may cost not only yourself greater risk by insuring you are shot at first, but cost others by giving the active shooter an opportunity to realize their vulnerability and continue their slaughter after reducing their risk. Losing an opportunity to end an ongoing lethal threat and perhaps costing more lives.
For example calling out to him may have just caused him to dart into the nearby building and continue shooting people at random indoors out of your sight instead of at random on the street.
He has demonstrated a willingness to randomly shoot innocent people that just go by, yet you feel some sort of obligation to give him more options?


All this talk of using a rifle from a building is also silly. These are office buildings, the time taken to respond with a rifle for someone working in an office building who may have one down in a car is longer than the active shooting is likely to last, and probably after several more lives are lost. It is possible but unlikely someone would be in a position to respond with a rifle from within a non-residential building.
Instead the option to engage the threat would likely be with whatever concealed handgun they had with them, or not all all. From the position of the one filming he could have easily shot and stopped or at least injured and reduced the danger posed to others from the bad guy if he had had a handgun, and had a pretty safe background as well.

 

[Loosedhorse]

it's no small thing to take a life.

Very true. It is also no small thing to stand idle when you could have prevented the taking of a life--maybe many lives.

 

[Trent]

Zoog -

You present a brilliant argument there. I've tried to think of additional material to throw out from the devil's advocate (peaceful response) perspective - and can't come up with anything that would further the line of argument I was pursuing. I concede the debate at this time.

Keep in mind I gave my thoughts on what I'd do awhile back in this thread - I was wanting to examine the surrender route though, as I had never given it much thought before. We aren't allowed to carry in public in IL and scenarios like this have never even entered my consciousness until recently. I know what my rights are in home defense and defense of my business, but beyond that.. no idea.

I don't know what the laws are like in IL for "public" engagements. I know we are allowed to defend our homes and businesses with lethal force from people who we believe are entering with an intention of committing a felony (castle doctrine), and have no duty to offer retreat, but I have absolutely NO clue as to what is allowed in public places. I'm hoping to find training next year to investigate the questions I have and to gain a more thorough understanding of our specific laws.

Thanks for the insight and great conversation, guys!

 

[9mmepiphany]

Punishment and defense are completely different. A by-stander-rescuer deciding to shoot an active rampager

The part of my post you quoted was a response to an on-going question by JustinJ concerning "...if the shooter is not engaged in firing at that moment".

I think actively shooting and having surrendered are pretty clear cut situations. It is the situation between these two that is being discussed.

Remember in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting that folks took down the shooter and one of them wrestled the gun out of his hand. A responding CCW carrier almost shot him, thinking he was the original shooter (as he was holding a gun). The hesitation to shoot without challenging prevented a horrible mistake

 

[Loosedhorse]

The hesitation to shoot without challenging prevented a horrible mistake

Completely different scenario.

Hesitation to shoot an active shooter you've observed and just confronted should be expected to result in the hesitater's death. Hesitation to shoot when you come on a scene and have no idea what is going on or who is who is appropriate--although perhaps less appropriate than just staying out of it.

"...if the shooter is not engaged in firing at that moment".

I think actively shooting and having surrendered are pretty clear cut situations. It is the situation between these two that is being discussed.

If you (as a non-LEO) have observed the rampager shooting innocents, you decide to intervene rather than leave, you have a shot, and he is still armed but currently not shooting anyone, then you should shoot him immediately, without warning, challenge or hesitation.

Or stay out of it. If LEOs do it differently, that's fine.

 

[Bobson]

Hesitation to shoot an active shooter you've observed and just confronted should be expected to result in the hesitater's death.

I have to agree with this. My LEO instructors have advised us (criminal justice students) to never hesitate or ask a subject to drop his weapon in a witnessed active shooter situation.

If that means you shoot a man in the back, so be it.
If that means you shoot a helpless madman who is ready and willing to surrender, because he ran out of bullets and is holding an empty rifle, so be it. Its not my problem at the moment.

Any after-the-fact consequences of saving a life can be dealt with later, and I firmly believe in that mindset, or I wouldn't be pursuing this career. Its an attitude I'll carry daily for the rest of my life; on or off duty; while actively employed, laid off, or retired.

I realize not everyone would agree with this, and I have no problem with that whatsoever.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It boils down to the same question that is always at the center of "intervene/don't intervene" scenarios. Do you risk your like to possibly save others or do you take up a defensive position and only use your gun to save your own life as a last resort.

There are going to be many different answers because no one's life is the same. The 35 year old with a wife and 3 kids is not going to have the same view as the 22 year old single military vet. One has other priorities, such as the family, to make sure they survive to take care of them, and charging into a risky situation might mean their own family loses a dad or husband. The other might see the protection of innocents as more important that his own life, and with no family to tie one down, he might be more willing to risk his life.

Neither answer is "right". Your priorities are your own. You're not obligated to pick one or the other. Your firearm is not a contract to act a certain way. It's your choice. I don't have a family, and I will act to preserve other lives even at the cost of my own. That's my personal code. It might not be yours. It doesn't have to be.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If that means you shoot a man in the back, so be it.

A man after my own heart!

I wouldn't enjoy doing that--and I would enjoy explaining my action even less. But I would believe to my core that was the right move.

If I'm lucky, my certainty might impress my jury!

Neither answer is "right". Your priorities are your own.

I have thought about this a lot, and I still am not sure what I would do. I know what I hope I would do, but reality can change your plans.

 

[Bobson]

Definitely true. I agree there's no right answer. Its not something to take lightly, and one size doesn't fit all in this situation.

 

[HOWARD J]

1967 riot in Detroit- cops raid illegal all nite joint--riot starts
Driving to work in AM--I-94 freeway-- wondered why holes were appearing in my car or was it raining lead--people in their houses were shooting at the cars on the freeway.
I was a couple years away from my first CCW---I would not have shot back anyway as
they were about 75 yards away & using hunting rifles.
That was a year before we won the world series--Detroit was always busy--something going all the time.-

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Bobson: My LEO instructors have advised us (criminal justice students) to never hesitate or ask a subject to drop his weapon in a witnessed active shooter situation.

Excellent advice.

If that means you shoot a man in the back, so be it.

Right. The "code" of movie gunfights means nothing. If the shooting is justified (and if the location of entry wounds does not cast doubt on the justification), it makes no difference whether one shoots an active violent criminal actor in the front, side, or back.

If that means you shoot a helpless madman who is ready and willing to surrender, because he ran out of bullets and is holding an empty rifle, so be it. Its not my problem at the moment.

If you do so knowingly, it will become your problem.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

No.
Having a CPL does not mean I am police.
I would get out of the way. Unless YOU are directly threatened by a deadly weapon then you can take action.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I would get out of the way. Unless YOU are directly threatened by a deadly weapon then you can take action

Well, MI law allows you to use deadly force to protect others. Whether you want to is up to you, but you can.

 

[Smith]

I wasn't there, so I can't say anything for certain. But if I had been the guy in the 4th story window I think I would have taken the shot. If I had been on the ground level, though, that's a much more fuzzy situation that I would have to interpret on-the-fly.