Shootout in Walmart parking lot.

No thanks, if I am in my car and I hear shots, my responsibility is to get my family out of there safely, not to try and be a hero.

I won't knock the guy for doing what he did, but if someone in his car would have caught a stray bullet the media would have jumped on this like a fat kid on cake.

"Vigilante gets family member shot trying to play commando"

Some folks run towards danger, others away from it. For those who say he should've run away because it wasn't worth the risk. That's your opinion, and no one would fault you for doing so, but others choose not to run. Your opinion is not the only correct course of action as we see here in this article. Just keep that in mind.

I know his wife is some proud of him.

Click to expand...

Certainly under the circumstances we can forgive his wife for not allowing herself to consider the foolishness of his choices, or for being a fool herself. When you get lucky enough to "win" against the odds, it is hard to understand the dire risks you were just exposed to.

Nearly driving your car off a cliff isn't nearly the teacher that actually crashing and burning would be, and in fact tends to teach entirely the wrong lessons. You aren't a great driver because you escaped. You're a negligent idiot who nearly died. Same idea.

Your opinion is not the only correct course of action as we see here in this article. Just keep that in mind.

Click to expand...

But here we study lethal force encounters to try and determine how we should best learn from them and apply the lessons they teach.

You may choose to cheer the "hero" for his "bravery" but that's not really learning anything from his mistakes, and thus, not why we're here studying these things.

He did little right and much wrong. He took risks that we would hope no one here reading and studying the situation would choose to take.

The benefits of his choice to himself were non-existent (he had no need to enter the fight) and the benefits to society of his thoughtless act were negligible at the very best. MAYBE he prevented one goon from shooting another goon, but so what? Maybe he shortened the time the police would have taken to round them all up by a few hours, but so what? There's some outside chance that further gunfire would have harmed a bystander, but there's no reason to think that was particularly likely.

No, he gained very, very little for anyone except that he gets his name in the paper and internet news sites (yaaay) and he risked things that no sane man has a right to risk.


It was, truly, the Good Samaritan version of a "Hey Honey, hold my beer!" moment.

He should have used the best tool he had available (the car), and just driven away.

He did little right and much wrong. He took risks that we would hope no one here reading and studying the situation would choose to take.

Click to expand...

Who's "we?"

Here's another article on the same incident...

This one shows photos of the trouble makers.

Who's "we?"

Click to expand...

"We" in this case referring to the pool of those who study these incidents and advise (often as a profession) people in the appropriate, lawful, and intelligent application of lethal force in self defense.

Yes, I am presuming to speak for many who are not here responding to this thread. I accept that, and feel that I represent accurately the state of collective teaching on these matters.



EDIT: If you're at a point in life where the things you risk by willfully entering a violent encounter are not so valuable, and if you feel that you do indeed owe society the benefit of laying them all on the altar of "public safety" then so be it. But that isn't where most people are.

You say this...

His actions would absolutely NOT be covered by any self defense law,

Click to expand...

based on what?

When Maine law says this:

Maine Tiitle 17-A 108. Physical force in defense of a person
2. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
A. When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is:
(1) About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person;

based on what?

Click to expand...

Read post 21.

The rest of that block of law reads:

C. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force as provided in paragraph A if:
(1) With the intent to cause physical harm to another, the person provokes such other person to use unlawful deadly force against anyone;
(2) The person knows that the person against whom the unlawful deadly force is directed intentionally and unlawfully provoked the use of such force; or
(3) The person knows that the person or a 3rd person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that the person or the 3rd person is not required to retreat if the person or the 3rd person is in the person's dwelling place and was not the initial aggressor;
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a colorable claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that the person abstain from performing an act that the person is not obliged to perform.

Click to expand...

Now, there's a lot of what this person knows (knew at the time) thrown in there which is all arguable and impossible for us to know here. Maybe I should not have said, "Would NOT be..." Rather, would probably not be. Or "don't bet on it."

Could the good Samaritan make his case (if charged) that he was acting in defense of another in this case? That would be something which would be argued heavily and I wouldn't want my freedom to depend on it.

His acts did not have the outward appearance of coming to the defense of any person, but of merely stopping a public disturbance/violence.

If you want to make a successful claim of lawful lethal-force defense of another you REALLY want to find out that the person you were defending was not in on some criminal mischief at the time.

"I'm sorry your honor, I didn't know they were ALL druggies!" is a lousy defense.

Well, all well and good from a classroom standpoint, but here's the Chavannes' explanations*:

Daniel Chavanne:

“That was the moment, that was the situation that was there and I reacted. All life is valuable. All lives matter,” Daniel Chavanne said in an interview with television station WCSH. “If a situation is there, you have not just a personal responsibility but a civil responsibility to uphold the sanctity of the community.”

Click to expand...

Mrs. Chavanne:

Thinking about it now, she said, she realizes the people in the cars could have shot anywhere.

Even so, she said, they would intervene again.

“We value human life, and every life is worth saving,” she said. “It’s really easy to step in and help when someone needs groceries, but it takes someone special to step in and help in a situation like this. It wasn’t his job, but it was something he believed in. We’re very proud of him.”

Click to expand...

I don't really have a dog in this particular fight, but I'm reminded of the old expression, "Vas you dere, Charlie?" (See REF.)

I rest content in the fact that, despite the obligatory cautions of the police about the dangers of such actions, there were no charges filed against the private citizens.

That is, until the "public" makes a big outcry about it and they (or the DA) feels it necessary to "do something."

Terry

ETA REF (Source of "Vas you dere, Charlie?"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3FPleejIEg

*Thanks to:
http://www.centralmaine.com/2016/06...redited-with-breaking-up-shooting-in-augusta/

All life is valuable. All lives matter,” Daniel Chavanne said in an interview with television station WCSH.

Click to expand...

"All lives matter" sounds a lot like a good sounding story to explain why you just played cop. If "all lives matter" so much, maybe putting your wife and kids in harm's way was an incredibly imbecilic thing to do.

But they'll tell the story their way and be proud of themselves. And many will miss the lesson entirely.

“If a situation is there, you have not just a personal responsibility but a civil responsibility to uphold the sanctity of the community.”

Click to expand...

"Uphold the SANCTITY of the community?" Seriously? Please. I don't think he quite grasps the definition of the word. The "sanctity" of the community was not under threat from these smack heads. And if there is "sanctity" at risk in this situation it would be that of his family who's would have been sorely ruined if one of those heroin dealers had managed to put a bullet through pop ... or baby sister in the back seat.

I'm reminded of the old expression, "Vas you dere, Charlie?"

Click to expand...

No, I wasn't there. And being there, at the scene, might shed a little light on technical details, but could hardly explain away the bigger picture choices our hero made.

And that's exactly NOT the reason we discuss things like this here at THR. We don't come here to cheer the good guy and boo that bad bad baddy. This isn't a Gene Autry western. We come here to analyze tactics and the laws and principles of self defense.

This guy blew it and got lucky. Bully for him.

Sam1911
Moderator



Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 32,551 Quote:
All life is valuable. All lives matter,” Daniel Chavanne said in an interview with television station WCSH.

"All lives matter" sounds a lot like a good sounding story to explain why you just played cop. If "all lives matter" so much, maybe putting your wife and kids in harm's way was an incredibly imbecilic thing to do.

But they'll tell the story their way and be proud of themselves. And many will miss the lesson entirely.


Quote:
“If a situation is there, you have not just a personal responsibility but a civil responsibility to uphold the sanctity of the community.”

"Uphold the SANCTITY of the community?" Seriously? Please. I don't think he quite grasps the definition of the word. The "sanctity" of the community was not under threat from these smack heads. And if there is "sanctity" at risk in this situation it would be that of his family who's would have been sorely ruined if one of those heroin dealers had managed to put a bullet through pop ... or baby sister in the back seat.


Quote:
I'm reminded of the old expression, "Vas you dere, Charlie?"

No, I wasn't there. And being there, at the scene, might shed a little light on technical details, but could hardly explain away the bigger picture choices our hero made.

And that's exactly NOT the reason we discuss things like this here at THR. We don't come here to cheer the good guy and boo that bad bad baddy. This isn't a Gene Autry western. We come here to analyze tactics and the laws and principles of self defense.

This guy blew it and got lucky. Bully for him.

Click to expand...

OK, I'm done risking the ire of an emotionally-involved moderator.

I'm just saying that I might well have reacted as Mr. Chavanne did. Depending.

Depending.

And remembering that their shots might hit other innocent bystanders in the parking lot or the store itself.

Terry

Well, having waded through all the info, I'm in agreement with SAM1911's thoughts and comments on the matter. Lucky individual, and lucky family.

Acting "instinctively", taken to mean acting without having thought something out, may result in unwanted and tragic consequences, especially if someone doesn't have any training and experience to fall back upon in any specific circumstances.

An urge to act doesn't necessarily mean the urge, or the unthinking actions, are correct for all circumstances.

Surprised no-one has yet brought up the other incident that was recently discussed at length. A perfect example of what can also happen when you intervene. Link to article. http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/05/03/marine-killed-trying-intervene-domestic-dispute-texas-walgreens

I could see where you could argue that he feared the shootout could have the potential to injure innocent bystanders, but really if you're not running away that bystander could be you.

Sam1911 said:

The benefits of his choice to himself were non-existent (he had no need to enter the fight) and the benefits to society of his thoughtless act were negligible at the very best.

Click to expand...

The benefits to society when a citizen stops an active shooter(s) (regardless of who they're aiming at) is definitely on the up side. "Rushing in" is pretty much how it mostly happens, it's easy to dissect every detail from our computer chairs later, but when shots start being fired, I doubt many people spend more than a few seconds deciding what to do.

You can say it was dumb and careless, I say for all we know if those two had continued shooting, it could have been a little kid or even one of my friends (I'm from Maine) could have gotten killed. So I'm glad he did what he did.

OK, I'm done risking the ire of an emotionally-involved moderator.

Click to expand...

Oy.

I'm just saying that I might well have reacted as Mr. Chavanne did. Depending.

Click to expand...

Yes, certainly, we all might react that way, depending. We're discussing how to figure out what one SHOULD do, not necessarily to default to what one might do.

And remembering that their shots might hit other innocent bystanders in the parking lot or the store itself.

Click to expand...

Yes. Theirs, shooting at each other.
Or their's, shooting at HIM as he enters the scene and changes the dynamics.
Or HIS, shooting at them because they start shooting at him.

One of those two possibilities is not his responsibility and he didn't influence. The other two...

Sam1911 said:

Fair point, but, aside from the fact that all four of the fighting parties were arrested for various things, we really don't know any facts about who was doing what -- and he certainly wouldn't have, either.

Click to expand...

Well, he was there, and he seemed to get that part right, maybe he knew more than you think?


Unnecessarily risky for me.

The benefits to society when a citizen stops an active shooter(s) (regardless of who they're aiming at) is definitely on the up side.

Click to expand...

That's quite a blanket statement and I'd surmise you don't have any actual data to support your belief that the benefit is greater than the damage. (I tend to agree with you, but that's my gut talking, not data.) And "active shooter" is generally meant to indicate a very specific situation (i.e. a mass murderer) not a momentary shootout between disgruntled drug dealers.

"Rushing in" is pretty much how it mostly happens, it's easy to dissect every detail from our computer chairs later, but when shots start being fired, I doubt many people spend more than a few seconds deciding what to do.

Click to expand...

But deciding what to do, as best as we're able, BEFORE HAND, is exactly why we come here and discuss these things. If the only lessons we could ever learn are the ones that arise right in the middle of a crisis, we'd all have shorter life spans, I'm sure. Hopefully we can critique and analyze and do better than the plan of action this guy jumped to in the spur of the moment.

You can say it was dumb and careless, I say for all we know if those two had continued shooting, it could have been a little kid or even one of my friends (I'm from Maine) could have gotten killed. So I'm glad he did what he did.

Click to expand...

Could have. Sure. He could have made the situation worse. As it is, nothing happened at all and we can be very thankful for that. Sometimes we are very lucky.

.

...emotionally involved moderator...

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, you will hardly find a moderator with a more-balanced perspective, and on many issues as he is not only well-informed but also a pretty bright guy possessing a somewhat-gifted pen. And, no, he's not paying me to say this. In fact, I don't know him "in real life", but it's safe to say based on the content of his many intelligently-written missives that he's a pretty solid guy.


Meanwhile, back at the local Walmart...

Our Hero of Walmart featured in the OP largely had luck on his side that day. Here's why: So much could have gone wrong which very well could have resulted in more shots fired where the collateral damage may have included his own vehicle with his family inside, not to mention other bystanders.

As civilians who are permitted to carry concealed, it is not our job to do police work. We may only present our weapon when the threat of grave bodily injury or death is immediately upon us [Edit: or upon an innocent non-combatant, such as a victim of felony assault]. As responsibly-armed citizens, it behooves us to remember this.

Sam1911 said:

Fair point, but, aside from the fact that all four of the fighting parties were arrested for various things, we really don't know any facts about who was doing what -- and he certainly wouldn't have, either.

Click to expand...

Well, he was there, and he seemed to get that part right, maybe he knew more than you think?

Click to expand...

I really don't know, to be honest. He hasn't said he was rushing to the defense of one of the parties. Some have suggested that this was a case of defending lives, but since they were all mutual combatants engaged in illegal activities, that would have been a mistaken assumption, IF that's what he thought he was doing.

If he was simply stepping up as a good citizen to make a citizen's arrest and preserve the public peace (and "sanctity" ) then maybe he was covered by ME law, or maybe not. I don't know what ME law says about citizen's arrest type activities, but it is something we caution against even considering, generally speaking.

We know that the police have not expressed any interest in pursuing any charges against him, and that's good.

Unnecessarily risky for me.

Click to expand...

Me too.

This was done completely wrong.

1. Hear shots
2. Run away immediately
3. Go home and make a grilled cheese sandwich.
4. Watch news about mass slaughter at the local Walmart
5. Post on Facebook about how close you were and lucky to be alive.
6. Get tons of likes and concerns from friends.
7. Live to fight another day

AR-Bossman said:

This was done completely wrong.

1. Hear shots
2. Run away immediately
3. Go home and m̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶r̶i̶l̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶c̶h̶e̶e̶s̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶n̶d̶w̶i̶c̶h̶ drink a beer.
4. Watch news about mass slaughter at the local Walmart
5. Post on Facebook about how close you were and lucky to be alive.
6. Get tons of likes and concerns from friends.
7. Live to fight another day

Click to expand...

Yep. That pretty much sums it up except for one minor point which has been corrected. When the state/municipality starts offering survivor benefits to my family for my heroic actions of stopping drug dealers from shooting each other then I will consider stepping in. Otherwise my gun is simply a tool to help me get home at the end of the day.

This guy is a fool. I would have gunned it out of the parking lot.

HB

This thread has developed an undertone of the morality of 'getting involved or not'.

I do agree that if everyone keeps turning the other way, criminals get more brazen as they know the culture has become.


Having said that, I don't see a very good chance of myself getting involved in this scenario. 2 guys and 2 girls fighting, let alone gun shots, is not something that I think I would have a good chance of bettering.


However, herkeyguy in post #6 paints a scenario that potentially a good Samaritan may make the difference for the better or just prevent something from having a worse out come.


Reminds me of the Stanford rape case.

Carl-Fredrik Arndt and Peter Jonsson told the Swedish paper Expressen Tuesday that they were riding their bikes through campus in January of last year when they saw Turner “aggressively thrusting his hips” on top of a woman behind a dumpster.

The two students realized that something was wrong as they observed the woman motionless, and decided to confront the man.


“When he gets up, we see that she still is not moving in the slightest" <snip> said Arndt.

Then, he described Turner taking off to escape. Jonsson gave chase, catching up to Turner and pinning him to the ground until authorities arrived at the scene

Click to expand...

I believe in treating others like I would like to be treated. Karma pays off.

Sometimes you need to get involved. Sometimes you have to get involved otherwise the bad guys will win.



But in the scenario of this thread, I don't think my moral compass points to them.