Another excessive use of force

Kleanbore said:

Then it is not at all clear what you were talking about.

Click to expand...

It should be, but here it is once more.:

Snyper said: ↑
The "MMQB" doesn't matter to the person at the time the incident is occurring.

Click to expand...

Kleanbore said:

One more time: that is simply not true.

What the shooter did cannot be changed.

What is decided about it after the fact will determine his fate.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said, which you claimed not to understand.

Kleanbore said:

One can refer to it as "MMQB", but that's how the world works.

The discussions can also teach us something--if we let them.

Click to expand...

I wasn't the one to first use the term. I merely commented on it.
These discussions teach us things, without a doubt.
Much of it though is just affirmation of things we learned long ago.

strambo said:

I'd rather be backing out creating distance with a protective car than getting in a shoot/stick fight. The stick wielding attacker was an incompetent baffoon. Besides, locking the door and getting the car in motion buys time, it does not preclude getting the gun as "Plan B".

Heck, he could have shut/locked the door and grabbed the gun and exited the passenger side. Point still, utilizing the car 1st (even if only to shut/lock door) is still the better and safer play.

This guy chose to fight directly with the gun, not even shut the door (a serious barrier to a stick, window intact or not), not even get out the other side putting a 2 ton vehicle between them. He negated the biggest advantage of his firearm by not closing the door and not getting out the other side keeping himself in range of his assailant.

Click to expand...

I'm all about avoiding a gun fight when possible, but backing out of this situation doesn't look like the best course of action. The victim was clearly blocked in, and I'm not sure he would have cleared that other vehicle from his path even if he slammed it in reverse. Plus, the attacker could still attack him during that time. The idea of getting out of the passenger side of the vehicle is *maybe* viable. But, you don't know how that car's interior was laid out, and that guy didn't look like a nimble and athletic individual to me.

Fighting with a gun was okay here, it's the 3rd and maybe 2nd shot that is going to be in question. The first shot was solid in my opinion, but last 1-2 shots were questionable.

Just IMO, the 2nd shot was defensible. And the guy was likely dead. So who cares about the third shot? (Well the courts of course) How about an autopsy to say he was dead on the 'defensible' second shot?

Yeah, not going to (didnt) happen. But why criminalize the guy for a third shot that most probably (from where I saw the first 2 shots placed) didnt make a difference? It's called fear for your life, adrenaline...if my life is absolutely in danger, am I supposed to stop and take the attacker's pulse? I believe in the American guideline of shooting till the threat is stopped. Not dead...at least that's not how I feel personally...I only want to stop the threat. But if the threat was truly real, it should be up to me to determine that continuing threat as it happens...that person took their life into their own hands when they tried to kill me.

strambo said:

What stands out to me from the beginning...is yet another case of using a "hammer" when another tool is a lot better. This fascination with guns as these magical self-defense tools to the exclusion of all else drives me bonkers.

He was already in the car, how about this genius, instead of taking 5 seconds to get your magic gun...why not just shut & lock the door, start the car and slam it in reverse? Aaaand before someone says he was blocked in, nope, he could have backed out easy, he'd hit the car behind him yes, but he could have reversed out to screen left and out of the immediate area. Now he's surrounded by steel and glass in a running vehicle vs. stick-boy and not facing a murder charge.

There was an incident posted on another forum where some nut, out of nowhere, jumps on a car hood, then runs away. Predictably, members staring talking about guns. Sheesh! Just back away! Guess what Option A always was in Executive Protection training (and in practice in Baghdad for my team), turn around, drive away. We had FA weapons, we still drove away instead of fighting.

Click to expand...

If he didnt know about the cameras (which he probably didnt) he certainly knew he'd be held liable for any damage he did to the car or anyone else in it. It would have come down to: guy broke your window...you did major damage to his car. There would have been no proof of the actual events.

strambo said:

What stands out to me from the beginning...is yet another case of using a "hammer" when another tool is a lot better. This fascination with guns as these magical self-defense tools to the exclusion of all else drives me bonkers.

He was already in the car, how about this genius, instead of taking 5 seconds to get your magic gun...why not just shut & lock the door, start the car and slam it in reverse? Aaaand before someone says he was blocked in, nope, he could have backed out easy, he'd hit the car behind him yes, but he could have reversed out to screen left and out of the immediate area. Now he's surrounded by steel and glass in a running vehicle vs. stick-boy and not facing a murder charge.

There was an incident posted on another forum where some nut, out of nowhere, jumps on a car hood, then runs away. Predictably, members staring talking about guns. Sheesh! Just back away! Guess what Option A always was in Executive Protection training (and in practice in Baghdad for my team), turn around, drive away. We had FA weapons, we still drove away instead of fighting.

Click to expand...

The assailant clearly broke the window. Even if the defender did back out with his car, it would be a delayed exit since he is blocked in and can still sustain injury.

Firing in self-defense until the threat is over is justified. But he went overboard, obviously.

9MMare said:

If he didnt know about the cameras (which he probably didnt) he certainly knew he'd be held liable for any damage he did to the car or anyone else in it. It would have come down to: guy broke your window...you did major damage to his car. There would have been no proof of the actual events.

Click to expand...

Umm...he didn't know about the cameras when he pumped bullets in his chest either then...an insurance claim and ticket beats a murder charge. I can't imagine liability for a fender-bender is going to factor in to how someone handles a deadly force threat...but then you posted that so maybe people would choose a gunfight over a fender bender?

In any case, I think slamming the car in reverse as a tactic in this exact situation is certainly debatable. I still don't see how locking the car door wouldn't have been a much better 1st thing to do when someone has an impact weapon. Any comment about how he could still jab with the stick etc. goes double for just leaving the door open behind him. Heck, the guy could have jumped in after him and chocked him from behind with the club while he was fumbling around for the gun.

Frank Ettin said:

You need to understand the social, legal, and moral context.

Our society abhors one human intentionally threatening, harming or killing another human. Such actions are, on their face, crimes. But our laws will let someone avoid criminal responsibility for an act of intentional violence against another if certain, narrow criteria are met. One criterion is that one uses only such violence as is necessary to keep someone from hurting you. If you use more violence than necessary, you will have crossed a line that is not to be crossed.

There's nothing new about this. It goes back hundreds of years as part of the Common Law.

How you think things should be is irrelevant. Whether your act of violence against another was justified will be decided by others after the fact,

Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much what I think. Still had a point to make...you cant commit murder if someone is already dead. So it's kind of knee-jerk on the part of the justice system. A) it wasnt them in danger & B) it seems unlikely anyone actually considered if the attacker was already dead....which *just IMO* is a actual legal point.

And our society also abhors (and fears) people who to around attacking and threatening the lives of people. We all know it could be us next time.

strambo said:

Umm...he didn't know about the cameras when he pumped bullets in his chest either then...an insurance claim and ticket beats a murder charge. I can't imagine liability for a fender-bender is going to factor in to how someone handles a deadly force threat...but then you posted that so maybe people would choose a gunfight over a fender bender?

In any case, I think slamming the car in reverse as a tactic in this exact situation is certainly debatable. I still don't see how locking the car door wouldn't have been a much better 1st thing to do when someone has an impact weapon. Any comment about how he could still jab with the stick etc. goes double for just leaving the door open behind him. Heck, the guy could have jumped in after him and chocked him from behind with the club while he was fumbling around for the gun.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the cameras didnt matter regarding him shooting to save his own life (if he knew or not). It's an acceptable act, to defend yourself. The imminent life threatening acts hadnt occured yet.

For myself, if I could back out..and I dont know that I would have there, could I tell if there was someone else in the car? Is destruction of property a legitimate defense for self-defense? I would have waited (if trapped) until it looked like he could get into the car (after getting through the window) and either shot from there or THEN, tried ramming the way out. I would not have exited the car, period.

Frank Ettin said:

But he's not dead unless he's been examined by a qualified medical professional and pronounced dead.In any case, since you're the guy committing acts of violence against him, we're certainly not going to take your word for it.

Click to expand...

Of course not...but that's what the expensive attorney you have to pay for will do....find the autopsy and see if the 1st or 2nd shots were lethal. If they were...there's no murder. THere might be other charges.

And it's not about dead when it comes to 'stopping' the threat. The guy was still on his feet (maybe dead on his feet). There was another man in the way...did the shooter 'know' that the threat was disabled? Or was he reaching for his iron bar again? He turned away...yes the shooter shot him in the back of the head...so how would he know if he was unconscious or disabled? Just things to introduce that may indeed have factored into the shooter's mind...I mean, if normal civilians are in legitimate 'fear for their lives,' they are likely functioning on overdrive, adreneline-dump....things are perceived differently, even time.

And there is no one else's word to take that challenges if the shooter was legitimately in fear for his life and didnt know if the threat was stopped. Not one person on a jury was there to *experience it*. They can only "judge it." And as you say...they sure will. Doesnt mean they are always correct.

9MMare said:

Just IMO, the 2nd shot was defensible. And the guy was likely dead. So who cares about the third shot? (Well the courts of course) How about an autopsy to say he was dead on the 'defensible' second shot?

Click to expand...

After the second shot he was bent over. Dead? Maybe. It is hard to tell damage from 2 gunshots from a surveillance camera. More than likely just out of the fight. The third shot is probably what killed him and brought the murder charge.

strambo said:

In any case, I think slamming the car in reverse as a tactic in this exact situation is certainly debatable. I still don't see how locking the car door wouldn't have been a much better 1st thing to do when someone has an impact weapon. Any comment about how he could still jab with the stick etc. goes double for just leaving the door open behind him. Heck, the guy could have jumped in after him and chocked him from behind with the club while he was fumbling around for the gun.

Click to expand...

Because you aren't getting the point that a broken window is a tactical weakness. Get in your car, roll the window down, lock the door. Can a bee still fly inside? Yes. Because the window is wide open. Same thing when a window is broken. Then you have the added danger of glass shards going after your face when a window is broken by a blunt force from the outside.

herrwalther said:

After the second shot he was bent over. Dead? Maybe. It is hard to tell damage from 2 gunshots from a surveillance camera. More than likely just out of the fight. The third shot is probably what killed him and brought the murder charge.

Click to expand...

Sure. And if it's your life in danger...are you taking the chance he's not dead or disabled? As I wrote to Frank, he cant see the guy's face. Maybe he's reaching for that iron bar or another weapon.

It's definitely about what's 'not known,' but what you are willing to risk your life on.

Kleanbore said:

You have that right!

The other man having been in the way would mitigate against having a basis for reasonable belief that a person with a contact weapon still constituted an imminent threat possessing the ability and the opportunity to do serious harm.

And so would the fact of the first shot or shots. We are not speaking of an attacker who only had to be able to press a trigger here.

Click to expand...

The other guy was trying to stop him from defending his life also. Again...it's what risks are you willing to take with your life? And will the jury accept that you truly believed such risks existed?

Is that guy in the middle going to take some hits from an iron bar to save you? (If attacker was actually going for it again) I wouldnt bet on that.

Again, once you have tried to kill me...I am not giving you a SINGLE advantage to take up that attack again and I believe that I would be justified in that. You gave up your right to the benefit of the doubt when you tried to kill me.

Will a jury see it that way? Not necessarily.

Kleanbore said:

From attorney Lisa Steele, in Defending the Self Defense Case:

"...it is not a self-defense case if: .....

• The client continued to use force after the aggressor fell unconscious, surrendered, or began to flee. Self-defense has to cover every wound inflicted on the deceased."

Was the victim in this case dead? How would the defendant have known that? What would that mean?

Click to expand...

It's not clear cut if an attacker is running away...there are many arguments that discuss the fact that, depending on circumstances, they could be running for a place of cover to resume an attack or get another weapon.

So that may be a legal opinion but it's not the only consideration.

And with a guy in between them and the attacker's back turned....the shooter didnt "know" anything about the attacker's status "for a fact."

Frank Ettin said:

You watch way too much television.

First, autopsies and medical evidence is seldom that clear.

Second, even if a particular wound would be considered mortal, it doesn't mean that the subject is "dead" at the time he receives the injury. Mortal injuries often take a certain amount of time to finally result in death. And under the law an act of another which deprives one of even a moment of life is homicide.

Third, attorneys don't work miracles. We do the best we can with the facts our clients create for us. But bad facts are bad facts.

Click to expand...

Hey, if it was me in court...those would be things I would use for reasonable doubt. You are welcome to act in your own best interests. (btw, the jury also watches TV)

9MMare said:

Sure. And if it's your life in danger...are you taking the chance he's not dead or disabled? As I wrote to Frank, he cant see the guy's face. Maybe he's reaching for that iron bar or another weapon.

Click to expand...

I have been there. You cover the threat until police arrive. You may be holding a gun over a corpse. Or someone unconscious. If they get up, shoot them again. Likely they won't. Making an execution shot to the back of the head, even under adrenaline, is implication for murder.