Family friend in shoot-out

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know what I would want to do.

But

I don't know what I would do, and I bet that most of you who haven't been in these situations or haven't been trained for it wouldn't know how to react.
 
IMO, Rick did extremely well. Most police officers never have to draw their weapons in the line of duty in their entire career.

My first experience with live rounds whizzing past me, was shock and disbelief, then reality hit, and I hit the dirt before firing back from the ground as trained. Without formal training, instinct takes over, and it's usually going to be a "flight or fight" response.

If you're going to be armed, practice, practice, practice, and do "dry runs" to drill it in.
 
I agree ! You can say what you think you would do,but it ain't gonna happen that way! I was in spec forces,and trained to fight to the death,but the first time I felt the bullets passing close to me,I still crapped my drawers,just like all the others!!!!! Anyone that says they're not scared at a time like that is either a fool ---- or a liar!
 
Here's a rundown on the thoughts of people in a shootout situation like that...

Fantasyland mall ninja: "Account for all rounds fired..."

Average Joe: "Don'tgetshotdon'tgetshotdon'tgetshot..."

"Rick" : "I'mgonnagetthatsumB!I'mgonnagetthatsumB!I'mgonnagetthatsumB!"

"Rick" is alive and not in jail! KUDOS!
 
I would have done the same. I would have been pretty angry if some scum bags tried to rob me and got away as far as i knew. They have to be stopped eventually, if not him, the next business owner
 
Too often we would choose to criticize something like this by saying he should have done this or maybe should have done that.

The fact is, if criminals think a person is going to shoot back and then pursue you out the door still shooting back, they may just think of taking up a new line of business.

I am of the school of thought that criminals live and die through evolution. The ones that dont have the traits to survive die.
 
Good for Rick! I'm 100% behind what he did to stop those guys. I think I'd give him a new gun - maybe a semi-auto - and lots more ammo if I worked with him!
 
I disagree. "Rick's" 'pursuit' was arguably quite reckless. Has he accounted for all his shots and where they impacted?

Considering he was cleared by the sheriff, I'd say so.
I wonder what would have happened if he killed the guy. Chasing them out the door could be considered excessive force.
There are probably some states DAs that would charge you.
Just for the record, I think Rick is one brave guy and lived to tell about it.
 
I wonder what would have happened if he killed the guy. Chasing them out the door could be considered excessive force.

See post #25. They were still firing at him.
 
PLUS 1 for Rick

Yep. a lot of expert Internet gunfighters with their "high speed low drag chicks dig it factor" responses. Rick did fine and wasn't reckless in my opinion, he didn't leave his property and fired until the threat was gone or stopped.
He did what a lot of men dream about doing if caught in that situation but really wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to really do it. Rick did.

Have a good day Rick
 
Is there a link to a news article or a police report on this incident?
 
Is there a link to a news article or a police report on this incident?

The TV affiliate reported on it, but I don't know if there is a link. Regardless, I'm not going to give out his actual name/location.
 
Sometimes when I read reports similiar to this and take in the view points of some of the posters it makes me truely worried about ever appearing before a jury of my "peers".
 
Rick did great. Those that think letting criminals be dealt by the police are dreaming. While the police do the best they can the chances are slim to none of them being caught. The police typically operate in a reactive manner versus proactive, i.e arriving after the crime was committed. Or arriving to dead bodies.

It's too easy to speculate how one would react since one does not know how many people were committing the crime. 2 people came in, but Rick had no idea how many were outside. I was a kid when my family's store was robbed at gun point. Robber said he had another shooter outside covering us. Very difficult decisions to be made, so I respect Rick's. I hope he gets better armed with a hi-cap semi-auto pistol and a shot gun.

If more people took responsibility for their protection, the criminals may think twice.
 
Good for 'Rick'.

It really isn't funny having someone point a loaded gun at you when you're just minding your own business. It is actually very disturbing. I hope he's ok after that.
 
Posted by heeler: Sometimes when I read reports similiar to this and take in the view points of some of the posters it makes me truely worried about ever appearing before a jury of my "peers".
The phrase "jury of 'peers' " is oft repeated, but what the constitution actually provides for is a speedy trial by an impartial jury.

We have all seen or heard of trial outcomes that seem entirely unfair.

With a fair and balanced jury, a trial outcome would depend upon the facts presented and upon the law; the judge serves as the gate-keeper for admitting evidence, and he or she also gives instructions to the jury. The latter can permit a jury to consider whether a shooting involved lawful self defense, or conversely, prevent the jury from doing so; that will depend upon the evidence presented by the accused.

Laws vary among jurisdictions, but the one common denominator is that deadly force may be used when immediately necessary to prevent certain serious crimes, and it may not be used to punish someone for a crime that has already been committed, or because the criminals may commit another crime at a later time.

One cannot judge an incident based on anecdotal descriptions of what happened. From the original description of the case at hand, one might infer that the shooter may have fired at escaping felons without justification, but no one here has heard either a detailed description of exactly what happened or the shooter's account of why he did so.

Nor do we want to hear it. The fact that no charges have been filed does not mean that the shooter is free from the risk of prosecution. Only a trial and acquittal, a pardon, the expiration of any applicable statute of limitations, or death can eliminate that risk.

That's why we must all realize that the need to limit one's statements (after telling arriving officers that one is the victim and will press charges, and pointing out evidence and witnesses) to those made with legal counsel does not stop when it appears that no charges will be filed.

And yes, if one ever does happen to find himself or herself in the position of being tried by a jury, one should be very worried indeed. Even if the jury is fair minded and the facts seem very favorable, one's fate is out of his or her hands, and enough evidence has been accumulated to convince at least the state that the defendant committed a crime.
 
I hope he's ok after that.

He seems to be taking it in stride. He told me and my father that he's lived a good, full life and he's not afraid to stand up for what's his. He said "if it's my time, then it's my time."
 
I hope that when I'm in a situation like that, I'll react in a similar manner. Glad Rick made it through O.K. and I'm really glad Rick decided not to be a victim.

As far as going outside to return fire, in all honesty I probably would have done the same thing. I haven't seen the elephant so I can't say for sure - I guess I should say thats what I hope I would do.

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson
 
the judge serves as the gate-keeper for admitting evidence, and he or she also gives instructions to the jury. The latter can permit a jury to consider whether a shooting involved lawful self defense, or conversely, prevent the jury from doing so

In the American court system, the judge cannot prevent the jury from ruling any way they please, no matter what the law is, no matter what the facts of the case are, and no matter what the judge instructs or orders. When you sit on a jury you have 100% of the power in the courtroom. The judge has none, and you have no requirement to follow his instructions.

There isn't 1 person in 100 that knows this, though - and nobody in the courtroom is going to tell you.
 
In the American court system, the judge cannot prevent the jury from ruling any way they please, no matter what the law is, no matter what the facts of the case are, and no matter what the judge instructs or orders. When you sit on a jury you have 100% of the power in the courtroom. The judge has none, and you have no requirement to follow his instructions.

There isn't 1 person in 100 that knows this, though - and nobody in the courtroom is going to tell you.


Not so fast. True the jury can rule any way they please, but if there is an obvious error in the way the law was applied, the judge can damn sure overturn their decision.

There is a doctrine called "judgment non obstante veredicto" which is translated, "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" in which a civil judge may reverse or ammend the verdict. This is asked for regularly and VERY rarely granted. It isn't put in place for the judge to follow his moral instincts, but to guard against extreme errors in law. It is determined by what a reasonable jury would have found. This decision is subject to appeal and may be overturned there. It goes without saying that the judge cannot do this if the original decision is not guilty.

At least that's what they're teaching right now. Maybe when you were in law school it was different.

It doesn't happen very often, but it is on the books. If you walk into court with the attitude that the judge has no power in a courtroom, you will be humbled in a hurry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top