One of the phrases we hear most often here is "a good shoot is a good shoot", sometimes phrased as "a righteous shoot is a righteous shoot." This comes up in various contexts, and it seems like it comes up all the time.
The counter we see most often goes something like "but it isn't a good shoot until someone else has determined that it was a good shoot", or some variation thereof.
And that's very true--but the same comment seems to come up repeatedly--as if it will always be clear to all concerned that a "shoot" is either "good" or not.
I am concerned that that thought may lead to some imprudent decisions, and perhaps to some very grave consequences, for some of our members. I would like to take a moment to analyze the thought process.
Let's start by asking why it is that some persons hold the belief that what they know to have been a "good shoot" will be so judged by others. I'll throw out a couple of possibilities for discussion and as food for thought.
First, he or she knows that he or she is a "good guy", so that must be obvious to everyone, and it must therefore be the assumption of arriving officers, investigators, and should it come to that, the prosecuting attorney. The other participant in an altercation will of course therefore be regarded as a "bad guy".
Second, he or she knows what happened and can explain it. He or she had to draw, or to shoot. That's all there is to it. He or she says so, so it's true.
Third, there may be some thought that, because a citizen has been issued a permit to carry a weapon, it will automatically be assumed that he or she was, by virtue of being a good guy, acting in the right.
Taking the first one first, I'll use Mas Ayoob's words: the officers cannot see that halo that one knows he is wearing. Put yourself in the position of being a juror: is there any reason that you would automatically assume that someone who is accused of a gun crime is a good guy who acted lawfully? Sure, he or she is innocent until proven guilty, but will you start out by discounting or rejecting the real possibility that a defendant may well be guilty? No. That will depend upon the evidence and testimony presented by both sides. Witnesses on both sides may appear to have equal credibility, and the evidence will not always be clear at all. More on that later.
Moving to the second idea--that of analyzing what happened in an incident--it's just not all that simple in real life. In the movies, there is a sound stage, cameras are rolling and focussed on what is important, the attention of an audience is fixed, nothing happens too fast to comprehend, and of course we know who is the protagonist and who is the villain. There's no question about what happened, and if you happened to miss any of it, you can hit rewind. That's the stuff of fiction. In real life, all we have is what is left at the scene after the action has stopped, and maybe some eyewitness testimony that is likely incomplete and perhaps confusing.
Let's consider some hypothetical "real life" scenarios and see how easily we can determine what is a "good shoot" and what is not.
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
So, why can't we simply rely on the philosophy that a good shoot is a good shoot?
Let's now consider a more ambiguous scenario. This is the kind that many of us worry about when we talk about making sure that evidence is not lost from the scene or is not ruled inadmissible, that witnesses are identified at the scene, and that we are the first to call 911. It is also the kind of thing that would lead many of us to retreat if possible even if we have no legal obligation to do so.
Scenario 3:
What we do need to do is understand is that, though the details will vary from those in this scenario, such ambiguity is not at all unlikely in a shooting that happens in a public place.
We also need to understand that one's attorney has no way of producing evidence that did not exist, or that has not been made available to him or to her. A shooting is not something that we can just "let the lawyers sort out" after the fact.
What does this all tell us? It tells us that the old saw, "a good shoot is a good shoot" really doesn't mean very much at all unless the evidence that supports the claims of the shooter is sufficient to counter that which does not.
And from that, we will better understand some things about the risks attendant in a shooting, and perhaps, how best to mitigate them.
This is more lengthy than I would have liked, but I wanted to cover the subject adequately.
I do hope that this provides some useful food for thought for our members here.
Comments are welcome.
The counter we see most often goes something like "but it isn't a good shoot until someone else has determined that it was a good shoot", or some variation thereof.
And that's very true--but the same comment seems to come up repeatedly--as if it will always be clear to all concerned that a "shoot" is either "good" or not.
I am concerned that that thought may lead to some imprudent decisions, and perhaps to some very grave consequences, for some of our members. I would like to take a moment to analyze the thought process.
Let's start by asking why it is that some persons hold the belief that what they know to have been a "good shoot" will be so judged by others. I'll throw out a couple of possibilities for discussion and as food for thought.
First, he or she knows that he or she is a "good guy", so that must be obvious to everyone, and it must therefore be the assumption of arriving officers, investigators, and should it come to that, the prosecuting attorney. The other participant in an altercation will of course therefore be regarded as a "bad guy".
Second, he or she knows what happened and can explain it. He or she had to draw, or to shoot. That's all there is to it. He or she says so, so it's true.
Third, there may be some thought that, because a citizen has been issued a permit to carry a weapon, it will automatically be assumed that he or she was, by virtue of being a good guy, acting in the right.
Taking the first one first, I'll use Mas Ayoob's words: the officers cannot see that halo that one knows he is wearing. Put yourself in the position of being a juror: is there any reason that you would automatically assume that someone who is accused of a gun crime is a good guy who acted lawfully? Sure, he or she is innocent until proven guilty, but will you start out by discounting or rejecting the real possibility that a defendant may well be guilty? No. That will depend upon the evidence and testimony presented by both sides. Witnesses on both sides may appear to have equal credibility, and the evidence will not always be clear at all. More on that later.
Moving to the second idea--that of analyzing what happened in an incident--it's just not all that simple in real life. In the movies, there is a sound stage, cameras are rolling and focussed on what is important, the attention of an audience is fixed, nothing happens too fast to comprehend, and of course we know who is the protagonist and who is the villain. There's no question about what happened, and if you happened to miss any of it, you can hit rewind. That's the stuff of fiction. In real life, all we have is what is left at the scene after the action has stopped, and maybe some eyewitness testimony that is likely incomplete and perhaps confusing.
Let's consider some hypothetical "real life" scenarios and see how easily we can determine what is a "good shoot" and what is not.
Scenario 1:
Let's start with an easy one. A citizen is taking money from an ATM. Two men in ski masks rush him with guns. The citizen is able to draw and fire, perhaps hitting one or more of the attackers. The whole thing is recorded by a security camera.
Is it a "good shoot"? Of course! We know what happened. We can see it on the camera footage. It all happened just like the movies.
Is it a "good shoot"? Of course! We know what happened. We can see it on the camera footage. It all happened just like the movies.
Scenario 2:
Let's take another fairly easy one. Two armed men break through a window of an occupied home. The occupant is awakened, goes to get his children to safety, and either in the process of doing that or otherwise, engages at least one of the criminals and shoots him.
Is it a "good shoot"? Yep, in many jurisdictions anyway. More than likely there will not be any camera footage, but the actor was in his own home, the person shot was in the house at the time and should not have been there, and there is physical evidence of forcible entry. It's an unfortunate event, but reasonable persons can readily judge that it was that proverbial "righteous shoot". Relatives of the person shot will see it differently, but that's another matter.
Is it a "good shoot"? Yep, in many jurisdictions anyway. More than likely there will not be any camera footage, but the actor was in his own home, the person shot was in the house at the time and should not have been there, and there is physical evidence of forcible entry. It's an unfortunate event, but reasonable persons can readily judge that it was that proverbial "righteous shoot". Relatives of the person shot will see it differently, but that's another matter.
So, why can't we simply rely on the philosophy that a good shoot is a good shoot?
Let's now consider a more ambiguous scenario. This is the kind that many of us worry about when we talk about making sure that evidence is not lost from the scene or is not ruled inadmissible, that witnesses are identified at the scene, and that we are the first to call 911. It is also the kind of thing that would lead many of us to retreat if possible even if we have no legal obligation to do so.
Scenario 3:
A person has shot and killed or wounded another in a public place. The shooter is at the scene.
Is it a good shoot?
Obviously, we do not know. There's no camera footage to review, and either person could be the "good guy". So we (actually, arriving officers, probably supported by detectives) try to piece together what happened. One thing is certain: that the shooter may be a "gun guy" who had a clean record at the time he received his CHL does not automatically make the incident a likely case of a justified shooting, regardless of what some of us might like to think.
So--here's the shooter's account: two men stepped up to him from behind, one with his hand in a pocket, demanded his wallet, and threatened to kill him. Due to the disparity of force, the closeness of the men, the verbal threat, the likelihood that one had a weapon, and the fact that his car prevented him from evading or escaping, he had to draw and fire. One was hit, the other dropped a knife and ran off.
Now, the account of the wounded man and his accomplice: We stopped for a moment to light a cigarette, and a man shot us without warning and for no reason.
The testimony of the one witness who came forward: I was unlocking my car and I heard three shots. I turned and saw that man holding a gun, and another man on the ground. The shooter was standing there (when I first saw him), which contradicts the shooter's account of where he had been standing when he fired.
The forensic evidence shows that actor's gun was used in shooting the victim, and GSR shows that the actor had fired a gun, as he said. There is no GSR on the victim. No other weapon was found at the scene.
Now, based on all of that, was it a "good shoot"? Not so obvious, is it?
To get a better idea, one might need to have (1) the account of that other witness who drove off, never to be found, while the shooter was saying that he would not say anything; (2) or that knife that was not secured at the scene, because the arriving officers had absolutely no indication that this might have been a self defense shooting, and later disappeared; or (3) just maybe, some tests of the shooter's ammunition to show whether GSR would have been expected on the victim at the distance claimed by the shooter.
And of course, other things may come to light. Perhaps the shooter has posted something like, "if anyone tries to break into my car, I'll shoot to kill! No one deprives me of my property". That, combined with his use of Black Talons, for example, might give some idea regarding the shooter's state of mind.
So, what happened? We still cannot tell, and had it happened, others would have to decide. We don't need to trouble ourselves with it, because it was a hypothetical scenario anyway.
Is it a good shoot?
Obviously, we do not know. There's no camera footage to review, and either person could be the "good guy". So we (actually, arriving officers, probably supported by detectives) try to piece together what happened. One thing is certain: that the shooter may be a "gun guy" who had a clean record at the time he received his CHL does not automatically make the incident a likely case of a justified shooting, regardless of what some of us might like to think.
So--here's the shooter's account: two men stepped up to him from behind, one with his hand in a pocket, demanded his wallet, and threatened to kill him. Due to the disparity of force, the closeness of the men, the verbal threat, the likelihood that one had a weapon, and the fact that his car prevented him from evading or escaping, he had to draw and fire. One was hit, the other dropped a knife and ran off.
Now, the account of the wounded man and his accomplice: We stopped for a moment to light a cigarette, and a man shot us without warning and for no reason.
The testimony of the one witness who came forward: I was unlocking my car and I heard three shots. I turned and saw that man holding a gun, and another man on the ground. The shooter was standing there (when I first saw him), which contradicts the shooter's account of where he had been standing when he fired.
The forensic evidence shows that actor's gun was used in shooting the victim, and GSR shows that the actor had fired a gun, as he said. There is no GSR on the victim. No other weapon was found at the scene.
Now, based on all of that, was it a "good shoot"? Not so obvious, is it?
To get a better idea, one might need to have (1) the account of that other witness who drove off, never to be found, while the shooter was saying that he would not say anything; (2) or that knife that was not secured at the scene, because the arriving officers had absolutely no indication that this might have been a self defense shooting, and later disappeared; or (3) just maybe, some tests of the shooter's ammunition to show whether GSR would have been expected on the victim at the distance claimed by the shooter.
And of course, other things may come to light. Perhaps the shooter has posted something like, "if anyone tries to break into my car, I'll shoot to kill! No one deprives me of my property". That, combined with his use of Black Talons, for example, might give some idea regarding the shooter's state of mind.
So, what happened? We still cannot tell, and had it happened, others would have to decide. We don't need to trouble ourselves with it, because it was a hypothetical scenario anyway.
What we do need to do is understand is that, though the details will vary from those in this scenario, such ambiguity is not at all unlikely in a shooting that happens in a public place.
We also need to understand that one's attorney has no way of producing evidence that did not exist, or that has not been made available to him or to her. A shooting is not something that we can just "let the lawyers sort out" after the fact.
What does this all tell us? It tells us that the old saw, "a good shoot is a good shoot" really doesn't mean very much at all unless the evidence that supports the claims of the shooter is sufficient to counter that which does not.
And from that, we will better understand some things about the risks attendant in a shooting, and perhaps, how best to mitigate them.
This is more lengthy than I would have liked, but I wanted to cover the subject adequately.
I do hope that this provides some useful food for thought for our members here.
Comments are welcome.
Last edited:
