Very bad tactics...

Status
Not open for further replies.
lemaymiami

lemaymiami

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
3,528
Location
south Florida
After watching the small film clip of the Georgia incident that resulted in homicide charges against a father and son... It looks to me as a clear case of what can happen if anyone allows themself into close contact range while armed... In a confrontation situation.....

The two would certainly have faced charges without the killing. That close proximity was the primary factor that escalated the situation into a killing in my opinion.

I’d like to hear from trainers and others about maintaining distance from others in any confrontation situation.
 
I haven't seen any video from that incident, but the first thing they taught me in my first LE defensive tactics class was to open a reactive gap when interacting with anyone. I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to charge in.
 
I saw the video and read the back story. The two killers were tracking the victim because as they indicated he was a back man running down the street. The lead up details are not clear in the the video. The victim ran by the killers’ truck Ana’s the vest thing you see is that he is wrestling with a man with a long gun either trying to get the gun away or at least trying to keep from being shot. There are the father of the attacker is in a truck with a handgun. It is not clear if. He shot the victim or his son did. The victim was seemingly ambushed as he ran by the truck. He had little to no time to do more than try to protect himself. Or as an alternative not respond and hope that he did not get shot. We will never know what the victim was experiencing. No point in speculating whether he could have kept a distance fro the shooter.


I do agree with the OP and @Jeff White that extreme CQB is to be avoided when possible. Distance allows time for reaction and space to maneuver. I do not think the victim had an opportunity to create that distance, and being unarmed it would have had to be a lot of distance to survive. That is why I EDC.
 
1942bull said:
he victim was seemingly ambushed as he ran by the truck.
Click to expand...
According to the charged persons, the victim had run out of a house under construction. Suspecting burglary, they pursued, intending to effect a citizens' arrest..

That is lawful in the jurisdiction--and unwise anywhere.

The victim grabbed the gun, and was shot.

The video is not determinative. What is shown is consistent with the story told by the shooters, and with the charges filed.
 
Kleanbore said:
According to the charged persons, the victim had run out of a house under construction. Suspecting burglary, they pursued, intending to effect a citizens' arrest..

That is lawful in the jurisdiction--and unwise anywhere.

The victim grabbed the gun, and was shot.

The video is not determinative. What is shown is consistent with the story told by the shooters, and with the charges filed.
Click to expand...


In other words two men failed to consider that a person going jogging would run upon leaving the house. In turn they decided to make an arrest even though there was no evidence of a crime. They had other options with the best being to call the police if they suspected a crime might have been committed. They made an armed stop of a person with no apparent cause other than suspicion. The two are not the brightest bulbs in the light bulb store. At best I see it as negligent homicide.
 
On the subject of tactics, I agree that the shooting victim made some very bad choices. If there had been a previous encounter with the suspects, then why continue into CQB range with them? Granted, he couldn’t run forever, but given the location of the truck (and even with a second vehicle behind him), he had plenty of options to veer off the line of approach (or even reverse course) much faster than the vehicles. I have to assume there was some trigger that caused him to believe that wrestling for control of the gun was his best choice...but avoiding the situation in the first place would have been a much better move.

The shooters made bad choices, too. The biggest advantage of having a gun is to create standoff distance. That’s especially true with a long gun. Moving into contact range with the subject you’re trying to control is another tactical error.
 
What I was writing about was the part of the clip where the one with the shotgun in hand grapples with the unarmed man... Then, of course a struggle occurs... and the last comments that I saw, the victim was shot three times with that shotgun...

Absent the close quarters, that unarmed man might have a chance of surviving the incident.

I can’t in any way justify any part of the father and son’s actions that day - after they called in a suspicious incident. What occurred during the later confrontation should be a topic to consider for anyone choosing to carry a firearm. Not a bad teaching moment for weapons trainers as well...
 
Kleanbore said:
According to the charged persons, the victim had run out of a house under construction. Suspecting burglary, they pursued, intending to effect a citizens' arrest..

That is lawful in the jurisdiction--and unwise anywhere.

The victim grabbed the gun, and was shot.

The video is not determinative. What is shown is consistent with the story told by the shooters, and with the charges filed.
Click to expand...
And according to the police logs in the past few months,the ONLY crime that there was a lookout for was --- the theft from the young mans truck of a 9MM pistol.

I will NOT make any judgements.

But my observation of the video shows me the 'jogger' saw that there were armed men in the truck,and they stopped to confront him.

As stated,I will await ALL the information,especially as to who and WHY there was video ?.

And do note that the older man charged was a recently retired detective of the local vintage.

In my book,justifying the taking of life of an unarmed man who posed NO THREAT is going to take a great story before that fat lady sings --- to make me see a convincing case.
 
I would think introducing a shotgun is a bad tactic when you have no idea if there is a threat. Confrontations can escalate quickly enough, that I'd rather no jump straight to show of deadly force if the situation doesn't warrant such.
Once guns are drawn, deescalation becomes very difficult.

If he was leo in a uniform and cruiser, it would be justified in a heartbeat. Maybe he forgot he wasn't leo anymore?
 
Last edited:
The origin of citizen's arrest stems from the extreme shortage of lawmen which was true for most of the 16-19th centuries in the US. In addition, the police and/or sheriffs lacked the ability to rapidly respond to potential crimes. Thus, citizens, more or less, had to do a lot of the dirty work in arresting because no one else was available or would be available for awhile. For the most part, that is no longer true of most of the United States anymore.

These laws have persisted more or less because of the rare exception where citizens more or less had to hold an alleged criminal in order to protect themselves. These laws, in part, make it difficult to mount a false imprisonment tort against citizens post hoc if probable cause exists for the citizen's arrest.

It is exceedingly unwise for any citizen to do what the individuals being charged in this case did in the event of a non-forcible misdemeanor or even a non-forcible felony. This is true, even if one of the individuals is a retired law enforcement officer.

First, a citizen is risking life and limb from a confrontation with a potential suspect. Second, there could be legal jeopardy such as what occurred here risking being charged with a crime. Third, there will probably be a civil action as well against the individuals based on their actions. Fourth, even if exonerated by a jury, the individuals will bear the mark of Cain and have to deal with societal disapproval of their actions. The predicate action was that the deceased apparently went into a house under construction and appeared to have nothing visible on him when he left the house. Thus, it is an open question whether or not a crime was committed and whether probable cause existed for the charged individuals to stop him. If what the deceased did was no crime, then the individuals were stopping him without the shield of being law enforcement officers investigating a 911 call.

As far as self defense goes, the question will be who started the altercation, did the charged individuals have legal justification to attempt a stop of the deceased, etc. Timing, actions taken by all individuals within the compressed time frame, pertinent Georgia laws, forensic evidence, and what the charged individuals knew at the time of the altercation are going to be critical in resolving this case.

We will get more facts as time goes by, but it is extremely imprudent legally as well as dangerous to attempt to corral an alleged burglary suspect on a public road if one is not a law enforcement officer. This is true even if the burglar was caught in the act by the person being burgled. Let them go, it is not worth the hassle legally or safety wise to risk death, prison, and bankruptcy over what a burglar could carry away with them. Concentrate on being a good witness for the police when they arrive and call your insurance agent.
 
Tactics aside, the strategy of pursuing someone for the purpose of effecting a citizens' arrest make no sense to me whatsoever.

All downside, no upside.

We have covered that subject here in some depth over the years

OOPS--i see that boom boom has explained that and more, very well.

The charged individuals now face significant legal risk, and I think that was a rather likely outcome.

They also put themselves at risk of being shot.
 
Kleanbore said:
According to the charged persons, the victim had run out of a house under construction. Suspecting burglary, they pursued, intending to effect a citizens' arrest..

That is lawful in the jurisdiction--and unwise anywhere.

The victim grabbed the gun, and was shot.

The video is not determinative. What is shown is consistent with the story told by the shooters, and with the charges filed.
Click to expand...

a big long and detailed response got deleted when the browser crashed.

essentially everybody made mistakes.

joggers only mistake was not giving a wider berth to a truck parked in the middle of the road. He died because of it.

truck team are idiots. Guy in the bed had a handgun even though he had room for a long gun. Guy on the ground set up a close encounter scenario and had a long gun. He’s lucky it wasn’t taken away and used against him and his buddy because buddy couldn’t support him because there was a truck in the way. No cover, wrong selection of weapons, poor layout, no planning... and a guy died because of all this and these asshats only “suspected” that he was a burglar?

The video shows an ambush. The jogger comes to them and is suprised and shot. Just like spot and stalk hunting. A “pursuit” which is what the media is reporting means that the truck chases the runner down and they talk to him, not the other way around. I still haven’t heard any solid reasoning for why they decided to be heroes... maybe they got bored and took neighborhood watch to a new level.
 
Last edited:
MCFLYFYTER said:
If he was leo in a uniform and cruiser, it would be justified in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Attempting to take someone into custody with a long gun (or any gun) in your hands is just inviting a tragedy like happened here. I once held a suspect proned out on the ground at gunpoint from the cover of the corner of a building for nearly 10 minutes until backup arrived to assist with taking him into custody. Getting into grappling distance with a gun in your hand is just plain stupid.

As private citizens the two had no business confronting the suspect at all and the father definitely should have known better. I wouldn't have confronted them if I was still working and off duty. If they wanted to facilitate an arrest they very easily could have stayed back from the suspect and guided on duty officers to him via cell phone. I have done that myself when off duty.

One man is dead and two men are having their lives ruined and that toll doesn't even take the families of the three into account.......For what?
 
As has been pointed out, a number of tactical decisions to be made in this scenario:
- Decision to pursue a suspect
- Decision to introduce open carry firearms into the situation
- Decision to try to apprehend a suspect

A classic case of an “error chain”...break any single link, and the incident doesn’t occur.

As @boom boom points out, the decision to pursue a suspect is fraught with danger. Deciding to include weapons in the mix is like pouring a gallon of gasoline on your charcoal. Now the decision to try to apprehend is like breaking out a flame thrower to start the grill!

The differences between strategy and tactics are in the timing and their relationship to the end game. Do you think these guys actually had a “strategy” - or did they just react to what they saw that day and took action? That’s a tactical decision, not a strategic one. If they did have a strategy that they formulated ahead of time that said, “Arm up, load up, and take him down”, then that just shows very poor understanding of the risks and consequences of their actions.

I might consider following a suspect (from a distance) and relaying the information to 911...but only if doing so isn’t going to put me in direct contact with the suspect. But I’m not a LEO and I’m not trained (or indemnified) to engage in an apprehension.

These guys made poor choices - whether they were strategic, tactical, or both.
 
Jeff White said:
Attempting to take someone into custody with a long gun (or any gun) in your hands is just inviting a tragedy like happened here. I once held a suspect proned out on the ground at gunpoint from the cover of the corner of a building for nearly 10 minutes until backup arrived to assist with taking him into custody. Getting into grappling distance with a gun in your hand is just plain stupid.

As private citizens the two had no business confronting the suspect at all and the father definitely should have known better. I wouldn't have confronted them if I was still working and off duty. If they wanted to facilitate an arrest they very easily could have stayed back from the suspect and guided on duty officers to him via cell phone. I have done that myself when off duty.

One man is dead and two men are having their lives ruined and that toll doesn't even take the families of the three into account.......For what?
Click to expand...
Very wordy, but yes that is essentially what I said.

As to your question, they were looking for a fight, and they found one. Their fantasy became reality.
 
Jeff White said:
Attempting to take someone into custody with a long gun (or any gun) in your hands is just inviting a tragedy like happened here. I once held a suspect proned out on the ground at gunpoint from the cover of the corner of a building for nearly 10 minutes until backup arrived to assist with taking him into custody. Getting into grappling distance with a gun in your hand is just plain stupid
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, and in my opinion the same concerns apply when someone decides to try to detain someone who has unlawfully entered his home.
 
Kleanbore said:
Yes indeed, and in my opinion the same concerns apply when someone decides to try to detain someone who has unlawfully entered his home.
Click to expand...
A 'few' years back when I was an LEO, and taught HANDS ON defensive tactics at the academy [ means I got LOTS of practice ]
I took more than a few "off duty jobs" to pay the bills [ there was no glory ].
I devised a manner of taking subjects into custody while totally alone.
It required the perp to be COMPLIANT and possibly afraid that I would shoot or Mace them.
It was not a thing to be attempted by anyone with less experience and the ability to play MMA with a perp.
I would not try that today AT ALL,but I might try to see if a perp were complaint enough and kind enough to wait for the po po.
 
scaatylobo said:
...I might try to see if a perp were complaint enough and kind enough to wait for the po po.
Click to expand...
Not I.

Trained officers have been shot by perps with hidden weapon when their attention has wandered.

A sudden move could lead to an unjustified shot.

I might not see his accomplice come in to see what was going on.

The unexpected arrival of someone else could precipitate real problems.

I might be misidentified by arriving first responders.

I do not want to extend the time of exposure to an ND.

A real or faked medical emergency could derail plans to wait for the law

I want 'em gone.
 
1942bull writes:

The two killers were tracking the victim because as they indicated he was a back [sic] man running down the street.
Click to expand...

If the only reason they tracked him was because he was a black man running down the street, why is there all this discussion about a suspected burglary? Where did that come from, if the McMichaels never mentioned it?
 
From what I have read and seen, somebody "jogging" in leather work boots and carrying a hammer would seem suspicious. Unlike the father in this situation, I don't have a background in law enforcement, but even if I did, I would have followed from a discrete distance after having called 911. Keeping eyes on this person W/O interacting with him would probably been the best course of action the father & son could have done.
 
Kleanbore said:
Not I.

Trained officers have been shot by perps with hidden weapon when their attention has wandered.

A sudden move could lead to an unjustified shot.
Click to expand...
AND "trained officers" have shot for no cause too.

If your not able & willing to watch a THREAT with distance & from behind cover = then ok,good for you to ask him /them to leave.

And even better if they do leave and not return to take out their only witness !.

IF your finger is off the trigger [ and if not = DO NOT CARRY A GUN ] then a 'sudden movement' will not result in a discharge.

And IF you have not gotten any training is stopping a crime with a gun = why even bother to carry a gun to address a threat ?.

If your only possible reaction to a criminal ,is to draw& shoot,your not one I want to see armed.

You should have already 'gamed' in your mind YOUR worst scenario,and come up with a few answers to your second plan hitting that fan ,with the rest of the manure.

If not,your just a holster for a useless tool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Parking lot attendant uses lethal force to defend himself.
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
mortablunt
M
O
  • Locked
Force on Force simunition training in MN
Replies
1
Views
624
strambo
S
R
  • Locked
Man dead in road rage incident
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
c_yeager
C
C
  • Locked
Concerning the rule about constructive tactics
2
Replies
26
Views
987
notorious
N
T
  • Locked
2006 Tactical Conference
Replies
1
Views
412
mike benedict
M
Back
Top