De-Escalation???

his error was not pulling the trigger immediately and neutralizing the threat, instead trying to use his gun as a bargaining chip to 'de-escalate' the situation.

^ If he had "pulled the trigger immediately," he'd likely have been found guilty of second degree murder. You can't shoot someone for wrestling your friend to the ground and hitting him. While possible that there was risk of serious bodily harm, nothing I read in the article pointed toward that being the case.

I'd say his error was in drawing the gun to begin with. Nothing I read indicated deadly force was warranted. Even if legal to threaten deadly force in attempt to stop a crime, it's pretty much a horrible idea. This is a good example as to why.

I've been taught to never make a threat you can't follow up on. You're screwed if they call your bluff.

It wasn't sea turtle guys job to inform the criminal that what he is doing is a felony.

If he was so concerned and wanted to make waves, he should have just called the police. Sit back, relax, observe and been a good witness.

It seems like the whole kerfuffle could have been avoided.
I know Florida laws are different than my states.

But that isn't the question.

If he felt the need to pull his gun, then there should have been a need to make it smoke.

So that's where he failed.

Wasn't his friend the one who initiated the actual confrontation though? Then the "turtle hater" got physical. That's how I read it.

I just skimmed it.

Doesn't matter however, playing wildlife warrior and fish cop is a tough gig when you have no actual authority.

Could have just been a witness and not a gunshot victim.

Guy's biggest mistake is pairing the words "gun" and "de-escalate." To draw before a clear and present lethal threat emerges is to attempt to monopolize force in the situation to take total control. That's EXTREMELY different from de-escalation. Note I'm not saying that there was or was not a lethal threat present at the time in this case; we're not given enough information to know about factors like disparity of force that could cause an unarmed attack to be a lethal attack in the mind of a reasonable person.

In any case, he thought his gun was a talisman and treated is as such. So from there, the mistakes are:

• Treating the gun like garlic in the face of a vampire.

• Not using a firm/secure grip.

• If you're going to take that monopoly approach I mentioned above, do it right with your body language (to include not holding the gun daintily).

• Getting it taken away. Cardinal sin of a defensive gun owner, embarrassing and rightfully so. We, me included, probably don't do as much retention training as we should. At the very least, thought should be given to what your plan is if someone goes for it, in the holster or in the hand.

I know Florida laws are different than my states.

Click to expand...

So are many people in FL. You don't see headlines like this elsewhere.

Certainly a mistake to allow your opponent to close within hand-to-hand distance, thereby negating the advantage you have using a firearm.

He drew too early and was not in a condition to use it. He should have left it concealed until he needed to use it; and then use it. Not before. Walking away is the better course.

Don't pull a gun if you're not prepared to use it. Don't brandish a gun with the hopes that it will scare someone away. Both of those guys got lucky in a sense.

First mistake was even talking to or approaching the idiot. They should've called the police and kept their distance.

Second mistake was pointing a gun at someone and expecting it to calm them down. First, the legality of lethal force in that situation is very questionable. Second, some people become more enraged when threatened by a weapon, particularly if they sense that you don't really intend to use it on them. It can take the "monkey dance" to the next level.

Third mistake was hanging out with turtles, at night. They should know better than to hang out with shady types like turtles.

Pulling a gun is most definitely ESCALATING, not de-escalating.

That's the moment where things went very, very seriously wrong.

Bobson said:

^ If he had "pulled the trigger immediately," he'd likely have been found guilty of second degree murder. You can't shoot someone for wrestling your friend to the ground and hitting him. While possible that there was risk of serious bodily harm, nothing I read in the article pointed toward that being the case.

I'd say his error was in drawing the gun to begin with. Nothing I read indicated deadly force was warranted. Even if legal to threaten deadly force in attempt to stop a crime, it's pretty much a horrible idea. This is a good example as to why.

I've been taught to never make a threat you can't follow up on. You're screwed if they call your bluff.

Click to expand...

his friend was having battery commited on him...

OK, battery is being committed on his friend. Should he have waited until his friend was seriously injured before pulling his pistol?

phil dirt said:

OK, battery is being committed on his friend. Should he have waited until his friend was seriously injured before pulling his pistol?

Click to expand...

Yes, but that isn't to say he should have stood there with his hands in his pockets waiting for it to happen.

This is a tough one. While I agree that he probably drew to early, something needed to be done about the attack on his friend. Calling the cops should have been the first step when the guy showed up and started being a weiner.

I am a smaller dude at 5' 8" and 130 lbs. I am fit, but I do not have a body type that is built for taking blows. Most grown men are bigger than me and outweigh me by a fair margin.

I am NOT going to get into a tussle. If I am in a tussle, that is a panic situation and I will deal with it as if my life depended on it. Because honestly, it probably does at that point.

So you have a guy struggling with you friend on the ground. I would probably try and get the guy off physically at first but if the situation becomes more serious than that, I would be ready to stop the threat by any means necessary.

Like others have mentioned, guns do one to two things: end the threat or start a serious fight. You have to be ready for both.

De-escalation would have been to tell the guy that the cops are on the way, leave the area, etc.

Kleanbore said:

One should never, ever start a fight.

Click to expand...

Of course.

I should have phrased that better. The point was that the brandishing of a firearm can escalate a confrontation. The man in the story was trying to De-escalate the situation and it is my understanding that sometimes, that works. But sometimes it goes the other way entirely.

I sincerely hope that no one read my post and got the impression that I was advocating starting a fight of any kind.

Lord Teapot said:

his friend was having battery commited on him...

Click to expand...

In certain areas, it may be legal to use deadly force to stop a forcible felony. In many it is not. If there is any question that the fight is a mutual affray after the fact, then even in those areas where it's legal to use deadly force to stop a forcible felony, then you could find yourself in serious legal trouble.

Unless the situation is very clearly life-threatening, it's a very bad idea to introduce deadly force into a fist fight.

It's better to call 911 and let the guy know the cops are coming. That's the most likely option for deescalation.

Of course, one guy taking a picture or video of the crime with a smart phone while the other guy calls 911 would have been a better course of action. Any contact should have been started with the phrase, "The police are on their way..." (Even then, they may have gotten into a scuffle, but that has better odds of success if their goal is to stop the damage to the nests.)

Where are the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles when you need them?

Kidding aside, it was a mistake to draw the gun and then a mistake to allow the assailant to close and take the gun.

However, neither are fully indefensible. I've forgotten their names, but in a longshot, if there are credible witnesses to the violent felony behavior by the assailant - in first attacking the turtle nests and then attacking the individual, the lawful citizen with a gun would have the legal right to prevent such actions. I would NOT advise this 'law enforcement' activity because it does put a person in deep and stressful peril, but it can be defensible gray area (with a lot at stake if you lose).

Always ask yourself, as a mental exercise, is my intervention fully necessary and am I prepared to either kill someone or be killed myself, or spend $50,000 on a felony defense trial over this issue? That answer will illuminate the path forward.

A better option here is to stand back, take pictures, and call the police. Let law enforement deal with it and use your pictures and witness testimony as evidence.

According to his buddy, the guy drew the pistol, stopped the fight, then put it in his pocket whereupon the baddie waylaid him, got the pistol from the pocket (or from the man's grip as he was drawing it a second time), then shot him.

If you have to draw for heaven's sake don't put the pistol back into the pocket with the cause still standing there.


As to not shooting, in my family drawing a revolver stopped: a home invasion, post hurricane looters, and an attempted car jacking. No shots were fired. The situation was de-escalated in each case. The first recorded firearms self defense in my family did involve a shooting, but that happened only after my great great grandfather had been shot at three times before he returned fire.

Some may disagree, but I believe the gun is the last resort. You must exhaust all other options before pulling the gun out. Two guys wrestling with your friend on the losing end? Grab one and pull him off.
Too many people think only of the gun and use it as the first option. It has to be an unambiguous matter of life or death before the iron makes its appearance.

I stopped at: "He drew the gun to de-escalate the situation".

And yes, I would be willing to bet he had little if any retention training.