A "Righteous Shoot"?

[Sam1911]

Creature, I've posted this before, but it bears repeating:

The old truism about "better judged by 12 than carried by 6" holds little water here. Successful self-defense involves surviving the encounter AND surviving life afterward. If you prevail in a shooting only to lose tens (or more) of thousands of dollars in legal fees, months of income, your job, your marriage, your home, relationships, and/or your psychological well-being -- even if you DON'T end up serving a term in prison and becoming a felon for life -- then how "good" was that shoot?

We tend to like to boil our discussions down to the easy conclusions -- "better alive than dead" -- and stop there. That can lead to worlds of bad decisions and avoids the rigorous and challenging work it takes to understand an area of study that is not simple and clear cut.

To paraphrase on the words of one Mod's sig: Don't let your conclusion become the place where you stop thinking.

 

[rangerphil]

I think this thread is a reminder of the solemn responsibility we assume when we exercise our right to carry a weapon. I, like the rest of you, would not hesitate to defend myself or my family using deadly force if there were no other option. But its also true that the decision made to use deadly force can literally destroy your life financially and emotionally. That's why I think it is critical for each of use to train and prepare for the unthinkable, while praying that it never occurs.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Creature: I will still defend my life with deadly force if needed despite the possibility that my actions could land me in prison because I will have no way of PROVING that I was justified.

Most reasonable persons would defend themselves from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm if it became immediately necessary.

That's not the point here.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A shooting where I prevent a criminal from killing or maiming me is a "good shoot". No matter how anyone else looks at it.

Not if there was a way to solve the problem by not shooting. Look at the Abshire case for example. When two cars of six guys pulled up cussing at him, he could have gone back in his house, closed the door and called police. It isn't the Hollywood way to do it; but I bet Mr. Abshire has spent a lot of time wondering how things would have played out if he had made that choice. Maybe he would still have his house, a job, and not be six figures in debt? Which brings me to my next point...

I for one doubt that a "good shoot" will somehow become a "bad shoot" after a reasonably normal, fair and equitable trial in a US court of law.

Relying on a jury trial to save the day is like planning to win the war by retreating to the mountains, burning all your factories, homes and crops, and waiting for winter to kill off your invaders. It will work and it beats being massacred; but it probably shouldn't be Plan A.

 

[Creature]

It all comes down to the simple question "Why carry?", doesnt it?

 

[mljdeckard]

I very much agree. A 'good shoot' is only that way in a vacuum. It is only as rigid and unaffected by politics as the laws, police, prosecutors, and judges examining it. You don't want to be the test case for anything. Alive is better than dead, and you do have to survive before you get acquitted, that doesn't mean that you will be, or that it will be painless.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Creature: It all comes down to the simple question "Why carry?", doesnt it?

I'm not sure what you intend for that to mean, but the original intent of the thread had nothing to do with pondering the question "why carry".

The intent was to try to explain that "a good shoot is a good shoot" is not a viable argument for or against any strategy.

The reasons have been explained quite well by others, and they lead one to two recommendations:

• Do not do anything that could either (a) deprive yourself of something that could prove helpful for your defense or (b) help strengthen a case against you, and
• ...do not shoot if you can possibly avoid it, or as Cop Bob put it , "Try not to play if it can be avoided in any way".

The first of these can apply to many things, including what one may post or say before or after an incident; what one may say at the scene before the shooting; what one may choose to say or not to say to arriving officers; whether one is first to call 911; or the choice of weapons or ammunition, etc. None of these pertain at all to doing something questionable or actually unlawful.

The second is in many circumstances really pretty close to a basic legal principle anyway, but from the tactical standpoint, it may also lead one to retreat when it is not legally required, and it may cause us to not go to certain places at certain times of day.

Regarding the question of why we carry, we just may have no choice but to employ deadly force to defend ourselves.

 

[X-Rap]

There is good info here, I still think that it is worth saying that the way we live and how we present ourselves is part of any outcome of a legal battle of any type.
I believe the things we say and post on the www, the stickers on our cars, race & ethnicity, affiliations would all play a part in the way a witness or investigator may perceive us in a pre and post shooting.
What would a warrant to our home reveal about us? Would it show a bias for or against a certain race or ethnic group? Would it show you to be more prepared that the "average reasonable person". Look around and see little nuances that might lead an investigator to paint you as a vigilante, racist, survivalist and how that information could taint the jury pool or judges opinion and the outcome of your prosecution.
What you say in the aftermath of a SD shooting will no doubt weigh heavy but so will things you did and said months and years prior as well as what is in your drawers at home.

 

[Sam1911]

... as well as what is in your drawers at home.

I understand the point you're making, but remember that there are limits to an investigation of a violent encounter.

If you shoot someone breaking into your home, that's not a valid reason for an investigation of your private possessions, nor for procurement of a search warrant to go through your home and see what turns up.

If you shoot someone in a mugging on a city street, there would be very little reason for an investigator to ever see the inside of your house, let alone peek through your drawers.

If there is some reason for the investigators to believe you had prior contact with the person you claim attacked you -- maybe some longstanding dispute, relationship strife, etc. -- or you've given them some reason to think you were out looking for this kind of trouble -- and they think that there is relevant evidence that they should gather to bring to trial, then yes they could obtain a warrant to search a specific location for that specific item/info.

But (in general) if you shoot someone who is mugging you, the police aren't going to go to your house and rifle through your undies.

 

[Sam1911]

... as well as what is in your drawers at home.

I understand the point you're making, but remember that there are limits to an investigation of a violent encounter.

If you shoot someone breaking into your home, that's not a valid reason for an investigation of your private possessions, nor for procurement of a search warrant to go through your home and see what turns up.

If you shoot someone in a mugging on a city street, there would be very little reason for an investigator to ever see the inside of your house, let alone peek through your drawers.

If there is some reason for the investigators to believe you had prior contact with the person you claim attacked you -- maybe some longstanding dispute, relationship strife, etc. -- or you've given them some reason to think you were out looking for this kind of trouble -- and they think that there is relevant evidence that they should gather to bring to trial, then yes they could obtain a warrant to search a specific location for that specific item/info.

But (in general) if you shoot someone who is mugging you, the police aren't going to go to your house and rifle through your undies.

 

[X-Rap]

So in the type of investigation and subsequent trial that has been hypothetically presented in this thread it is doubtful that a persons personal life would not be intruded upon by LE with a warrant?
Since this is all hypothetical I will be blunt and propose a SD shooting like the one that has been described only place it in a black neighborhood of a black juvenile by a white adult male in a pickup truck with inflammatory bumper stickers. Perhaps the other way around and it is a young black man in a BMW who shoots a middle aged white man in Idaho, and he happens to have a "Change we can believe in" bumper sticker. The witness bias in either of these situations would be frightening to me.
I guess my presumption if being charged with taking the life of another human would be that the prosecution would certainly take advantage of any avenue they thought could be used to show me as not innocent of SD including delving deep into my personal life. If that is incorrect I am very pleased and have renewed faith in our legal system.

 

[mljdeckard]

Imagine the police trying to get a warrant for your house after a shooting out in public.

"Your honor, I need to search his house."

"Why? Was the shooting in his house?"

"No sir, we are just trying to make sure we have all of the evidence related to the event."

"What evidence is it you think you will find that is related to this event? Or is it that you don't have any evidence of a crime NOW, and you are HOPING that you will find some in the house?"

This is also a reason to not say anything you don't need to. If you start running your mouth at the scene, and talking to a friendly cop, about how you normally carry a different gun, or a different kind of ammo, because of various circumstances, you have cracked the door to give him a reason to verify whether the details you have told him match up. The cop who didn't have jack to present to the judge before, now knows where to look for something to present.

 

[X-Rap]

Your person and vehicle as presented in this situation will become evidence in a crime scene, I am just trying to explore and understand the ramifications of what we today may view as simple statements or worthless bits of information being used to incriminate us while it had now bearing on what happened.
I can see that a shooting in your home could be different but what is seen and in the open during the investigation might well become a problem. I'm sure if you move things post shooting you would be changing a crime scene so that wouldn't be advisable.

 

[Kleanbore]

Imagine the police trying to get a warrant for your house after a shooting out in public.

Unlikely, but if there is any indication that the victim had been in the house on previous occasions, or if the incident bears considerable similarity to an unsolved murder except for the gun used, or if something (incorrectly) seems to reek of a drug deal gone bad or an unpaid debt...

The trick would be to list what is to be looked for and to substantiate the need for looking for it.

The risk to the defendant goes beyond admissible evidence. Something seen that cannot be admitted can put the investigators on the trail of something that can.

Not very likely in most cases.

 

[mljdeckard]

That is what I meant to say.

 

[Uteridge]

Good reminder that lethal force is only used as a last resort. If you are in a shooting that is not in your house, against an armed intruder, you are quite likely to discover more than you ever wanted to know about the criminal justice system. In most cases you will not be convicted of anything if you made the correct decisions before, during, and after the shooting. It could still cost you a lot of money and grief to get to the point where you can sleep well at night in the knowledge that you are absolved of wrongdoing.

Also a good reminder that you may not be, likely will not be, seen as the good guy right away in the eyes of the law. You are unlikely to get into a gunfight right in front of a video camera or five witnesses all paying attention. A criminal will most likely find a better place to ply their trade if there are a lot of cameras and/or witnesses around. That just leaves two guys in an alley, parking lot, or park; one is alive and armed and one is dead, and hopefully armed. More than likely no one saw the entire incident. If there is a witness how much did they see? How much could they see due to lighting and/or objects in the way? The testimony of a witness is just as likely to work against you as for you if all they saw is a small part of the event and they didn't hear you yell commands or at least show remorse and care for your opponent after the fact. Best things you have going for you are; hopefully you got a call in to the police (first call is complainant), you stayed at the scene (most criminals don't), you made sure to point out all possible evidence that corroborated your story to the police investigators, and you showed concern for the well being of your assailant (asked for ambulance for assailant).

Being in the military, this is quite a bit different than my experience at work. If I am involved in a social situation at work in Afghanistan or Iraq there will probably be a lot of witnesses who are very favorable to me, almost any ROE is going to be less stringent than civilian law requirements in the states, and all of my legal bills are covered as long as I don't get a civilian lawyer. That said, even with all of these things in our favor I have still seen Marines run through the military legal system for shootings that seemed good at the time. My last unit had five high profile incidents in three years (all in Iraq) that led to murder charges despite the fact that as U.S. military in a combat zone we are card carrying members of the good guy club. Most of those men have been found not guilty so far but I can tell you that it takes a huge toll on them and their families.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Youre all still missing the tree for the forest. Its not about the "aftermath". A bad day living is better than a bad day dead. A shooting where I prevent a criminal from killing or maiming me is a "good shoot". No matter how anyone else looks at it.

You're missing the point that you can win the battle and lose the war, spending the rest of your life behind bars or with a backbreaking civil penalty crushing you.

Does that mean you should instead be robbed/killed/etc? Obviously not.

Does that mean that thumping your chest about how it was a good shoot (right before the cuffs go on) is anything but the most pointless of moral victories? Yes, it does.

 

[Creature]

No chest thumping here. Let me try a different tack: do you CC?

If you do, knowing that there is a very good chance that you will end up completely wrecked by 'inevitable' civil lawsuits, why do you choose to carry?

 

[Cosmoline]

If you do, knowing that there is a very good chance that you will end up completely wrecked by 'inevitable' civil lawsuits, why do you choose to carry?

So I will have a chance to live when faced with imminent, unlawful deadly force. Or imminent mauling for that matter. Worry about the big issues. Do you have to shoot to survive? Are you confronted with deadly force? Can you escape in safety? Do not waste time worrying about minutiae. Do not rehearse little mantras you plan on telling the police afterwards. That's a recipe for disaster. Don't try to clean out your sock drawer in advance. That's just silly. Shoot so you don't die.

I think some overestimate the chances of a civil suit arising. Most of the time, there is no suit unless there are sufficient funds to go after. That means government money or insurance money.

If it does come to that, the best defense against aggressive prosecution and civil suits is to live in an area with a good jury pool and sensible laws.

 

[Sam1911]

If you do, knowing that there is a very good chance that you will end up completely wrecked by 'inevitable' civil lawsuits, why do you choose to carry?

Because if there is really no option left but to shoot (or threaten to shoot in some instances) then having a gun could mean the difference between survival and death.

Understanding that some day I may be forced to shoot to save a life, I try to educate myself as much as possible to better understand how, when, and WHY I could have an affirmative defense for gravely injuring or killing another person -- and what I need to do or say, or not do or not say to improve my standing with investigating officers, district attorneys, and/or a jury.

When treading in very dangerous territory (like being involved in a shooting) if you don't understand the legal landscape into which you've wandered, you will be subject to horrible pitfalls and snares which may render your 'victory' over evil men Pyrrhic, hollow, and nearly worthless.

Educating yourself to the risks doesn't mean that you'll necessarily be capable of avoiding them all, but at least you'll have a chance of staying on the right side of the fine line between legal, justified self-defense and felony manslaughter.

Hence ... threads like this!

 

[1911 Fan]

I agree with Creature. I will take the possibility of incarceration to protect loved ones. My measure... if my weapon HAS to come out of the holster the situation is so dire I don't see another way out. I have always maintained that if I catch people leaving my home I will deal with the insurance company... If I catch them coming in I will deal with the undertaker. I have never had to use deadly force, or even the threat of deadly force, but I have dealt with the aftermath of a shooting accident (Military) and I can say without a doubt that that is not something I want on my conscience. Even if completely justified it will still weigh heavily on the mind and soul, and if it doesn't... you probably shouldn't carry a weapon. That's my two cents.... just sayin.

 

[FriedRice]

Kleanbore and others, thank you for this most excellent discussion. I live in a very grey world. I decided early on into my carrying concealed life to assume I would have to prove a good shot in court. Anything less than that will be a bonus. Will it change my tactical assessment? No. That's part 1. Part 2 is the life I intend to lead after, which I've decided to lay groundwork for. That may look different for everyone but what that looks like to me is keeping all of my training materials, and certificates in a notebook, documenting the dates I read self defense books, keeping the boxes of my SD ammo of my carry weapon, using SD ammo that has a record easier to defend in court so I can spend my money on other aspects of my case, retaining a lawyer who specializes in defending armed citizens, having her card everywhere, having a privileged safety network in place for emotional and legal support immediately after, managing carefully my statements about self defense online and in writing, etc. Once I put all those parts in place, I don't have to think about them anymore. It's given me peace of mind. Now I focus on part 1. I hope I never have to use what I have set aside. Thank you again for posting this. I'll sound less like a paranoid armed citizen on the board now. Whew.

 

[1911 Fan]

So I just took my CCW course and shortly will have the permit... The instructor, over the last 20 years, has had 10 people USE their permit in shootings. Four of them are in prison and a couple have dealt severely with civil suits. Here is a reality for all of us... train all you want, we are not the police, even an officer that has not had to fire his gun in the line of duty for 20 years has to pull it, in some cases, on a regular basis. We can go to the range, shoot IDPA, do pretty much any "practice" you want to... we will not come close to the police who pull that weapon in public and are constantly worrying about whats beyond his target, fellow officers and innocent bystanders. We practice on a range or even a hot range during IDPA or any other tac shoot you may attend. We hit the wrong target there, we are out.... thats it, no harm and we what, loose a match. I am not saying not to carry... I am just saying to think about weather it is worth it.

 

[Nivek]

Very good thoughts and discussion here! This thread got me thinking about knowing what exactly defines & justifies deadly force (I know it will vary slightly based on the person & situation). Didn't want to hi-jack this thread though, so I made a new one HERE

 

[kilo729]

I'm gonna go ahead and add this -

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1.

Edit: The best part is 9:20~ in.