Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics, and Training' started by RPZ, Jul 5, 2017.
to the exclusion of all else drives me bonkers.
He was already in the car, how about this genius, instead of taking 5 seconds to get your magic gun...why not just shut & lock the door, start the car and slam it in reverse? Aaaand before someone says he was blocked in, nope, he could have backed out easy, he'd hit the car behind him yes, but he could have reversed out to screen left and out of the immediate area. Now he's surrounded by steel and glass in a running vehicle vs. stick-boy and not facing a murder charge.
There was an incident posted on another forum where some nut, out of nowhere, jumps on a car hood, then runs away. Predictably, members staring talking about guns. Sheesh! Just back away! Guess what Option A always was in Executive Protection training (and in practice in Baghdad for my team), turn around, drive away. We had FA weapons, we still drove away instead of fighting.
Nope. He was blocked in. We cannot tell if there is another exit to the parking lot to the left of the video. It looks like there is a tree/berm blocking the parking lot from the building. Also, steel will protect you from a blunt object, but glass will not. The window was already broken, glass flew from the window and hit the defender in the white car. The glass alone could have been easily debilitating if it got in his eye. Would you want to try and drive away, glass in your eye, ramming another car out of the way to escape? I would rather shoot out, just not like this guy did. And besides, how long does it take to start the car again, back out (pushing another car), picking an escape and driving off all while someone is swinging a bat at your face through an open, broken window? I bet it is longer than 5 seconds.
Heck, he could have shut/locked the door and grabbed the gun and exited the passenger side. Point still, utilizing the car 1st (even if only to shut/lock door) is still the better and safer play.
This guy chose to fight directly with the gun, not even shut the door (a serious barrier to a stick, window intact or not), not even get out the other side putting a 2 ton vehicle between them. He negated the biggest advantage of his firearm by not closing the door and not getting out the other side keeping himself in range of his assailant.
Watch the video again. The defender appears to be pulling the door closed when stick guy attacks. Which is why the door catches the stick, saving a blow to the head. Now the intent may have been to drive away and make distance. Or it could have been to buy time to get to the eventually used handgun. We don't know and it is hard to tell the actions and motives of both parties from a 60 second video. Besides, a buffoon with a stick is still assault with a deadly weapon, at least by US standards.
Anything worth shooting is worse shooting twice. There is no such thing as a one stop shot, so a second is understandable and taught by firearms trainers the world over. The hot water starts at the third shot to the back of the skull. Tactically, that was probably unnecessary.
Yes, but you should watch the video again as well, the attacker does nothing to stop him from closing the door after that initial swing. Slamming the door shut and locking it would have bought him time, heck he could have presented the gun from inside the car and potentially de-escalated since a man with a stick outside a locked car door is no longer an imminent deadly force threat.
I can't see how rummaging around for a gun while leaving an open, unlocked door behind you makes any sense at all vs. taking a second to slam it shut and lock it. Unless....you have a history with this clown and really want to hurt him. Then, maybe you'd focus 100% on getting a gun, attacking directly, and shooting him repeatedly even if you could have at a minimum put a door (or even the whole car) between you and them.
I'm not saying the initial swing wasn't a deadly force threat requiring immediate action, just questioning the wisdom in taking 5 seconds to get a gun while turning your back to the threat and leaving the door open.
If the threat stops after the first shot the second shot is not legal.
That's absolutely false. It is true that pistol calibers will not reliably deliver one shot stops but that is NOT the same thing at all as saying that there's no such thing as a one shot stop. There are certainly many instances where a single pistol shot ended a confrontation--sometimes without even scoring a hit.
I disagree with the notion that the victim did something wrong. If the victim was a cop, he would not be in any legal trouble whatsoever because (as we've seen over & over) multiple shots are fired until the threat is gone. Frequently, police will continue firing even after the threat has fallen if he is still moving. This victim has the same right to continue firing until the threat is gone. We all know that someone who is shot once or twice but is still standing & still armed can be considered a threat.
The victim may be charged, but if his attorney is worth anything, he'll be acquitted.
Utter poppycock. Where did you get such ideas?
And what in the world do you mean by "until the threat is 'gone' "? Dead? Dead and removed from the scene?
This happened fast under life or death stress and adrenaline, the spacing of all 3 shots was seconds and the 3rd shot came with the attacker still on his feet (albeit bent over).
That said, the "optic" of the pause between shots 2 and 3 and the gangsta style 1 hand thrust-shot to the back of the head is going to be a big obstacle to overcome and does indicate intent to kill rather than simply stop the threat. Add the history between the two back in and I think manslaughter conviction at minimum and rightfully so.
ISRAEL. Sept. 2016.
"Julis Regional Council Head Salman Amar, who was arrested on Monday on suspicion of murder, was recorded shooting to death Munir Labouani, who is seen attacking him with an iron bar; Amar and Labouani were reportedly friendly, and the dispute apparently stemmed from a financial disagreement."
The presiding judge also stated that the current evidence reasonably discredits the claim that Amar acted in self defense. "In order to constitute self defense, several parameters must exist." said the judge. "These are mortal danger, (no) escape route and the immediacy of the event. We can already conclude that some of these did not occur."
And get this:
A second relative of Labouani rejected the claim that Amar acted out of self defense. "I don't believe it. This was murder. He could have shot him in the foot, but instead he shot him several times until he died."
Their laws are not like ours at all. In fact they have no CONSTITUTION. No Bill of Rights. Their courts are more like UK courts.
You have a limited right to remain silent because your silence, your failure to give answers to police questions, can in itself be incriminating. In Israel you have to retreat if you can, even if attacked in public.
I can't find any trial... so who knows how long it takes over there BUT more than 99% of all criminal cases brought before Israeli courts end in convictions (ie a “guilty” verdict)! Hint hint...
True here, too.
Perhaps you have not watched videos of police shootings or followed court cases where police officers justify firing 10, 20, 30 or more shots. In some videos, you can see rounds hitting the ground around the suspect who has already fallen. They usually justify it by saying, "We are trained to continue firing until the threat (not "treat") is gone." And, "As long as the suspect is still moving, he is still a threat." At 1:25 of the video below, you'll count 9 rounds fired after the suspect falls.
These attackers were armed with firearms. They presented lethal threats until they were no longer able to fire their guns.
The Israeli case bears no similarity whatsoever.
Do you have some reason to believe that, had the attacked defenders other than sworn officers, the basis for justification would have differed?
Not sure what you're asking^^^.
A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon - gun, knife, club etc. Type of weapon is irrelevant (at least here)
No, it is not irrelevant when it comes to the assessment of ability and opportunity.
For example, a man with a knife poses an imminent threat when he is within a fairly close range and can move. A man with a knife in a fenced corral some distance away does not.
In the examples at hand, a man with a firearm poses an imminent threat as long as he can pull the trigger. A man with a club who cannot wield the club cannot pose an imminent threat.
Uh no. Here we rely on Ohio v. Reiner... look it up.
In the UK and Israel, among other places, to remain silent under questioning can have big consequences.
Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:
1. Fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
2. Fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
3. Fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
4. Fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
So there is a big difference.
if the suspect has been arrested, and if the suspect has invoked his right to remain silent, his failure to answer police questions cannot be used as evidence of guilt. Otherwise, yes.
I have no idea how differences between that and the law in Israel might be thought to apply to a case in which a suspect has shot a person who no longer posed an imminent threat, when the evidence was on video.
Appreciate yours points, except the third shot was unquestionably unnecessary and unjustified deadly force. How the law is applied to Mr. Joe and civil servants is another issue.
"Cannot wield the club" is open to interpretation. In my view (and in any officer's view), if he is still standing, he can wield the club. If I were in the victim's position & body hits failed to put the aggressor down, I'd also try a head shot, especially when the aggressor shows as much determination as he did. In the video, it looks like he didn't fall until the head shot.
I've also seen videos of attacks where an aggressor with a knife actually fell after being shot, then got up & continued an attack - several times, requiring repeat shots:
The window was broken on the first swing. Vastly decreasing the defense ability of the vehicle. Even with the door closed and locked, it is easy to thrust a stick through an open window to continue the attack. The combination of the partially open door and being pinned against the next vehicle, limited the mobility of the attacker to swing the stick. The door bought him that time to retrieve his firearm.
Which is what I meant. Fingers moving faster than the brain sometimes. But yep, pistols don't reliably offer a one shot stop. Even with a rifle, especially at close range, a single round has a less chance of stopping a target. This is why the non PC term Double Tap or (more PC) Controlled pair came into being.
The only thing the defender did wrong was the shot to the back of the head. If someone busts my window with a stick trying to re arrange my face, he is getting shot to stop the threat. The execution shot to the back of the head was the wrong and unnecessary portion. Which is what the presenters of the video are demonstrating.
In some cases, dead does mean the threat is gone. If the threat is stopped with one shot or two, that is it. If you dump 4 rounds into someone and they still want to fight, their next trip may be to a coroner, assuming you have the rounds.
In essence the difference between self defense, police, and courts in general between the US and Israel differ greatly. It is mere speculation and a fun thought game on how this case might play out in the US.
At which point repeat shots would be justified.
But not before.
Separate names with a comma.