Concealed carry gun-wielder intervenes in domestic dispute and is shot dead

[alsaqr]

This is another account of the incident:

http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...ath-after-parking-lot-confrontation/83874872/

BTW: The incident happened after the wife of the perp took a selfie at a downward angle, perhaps showing some skin, and posted it online.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article75505472.html

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

The selfie is still on her facebook page. Sad what things will lead to a mans death these days. Sad a man sought to murder his wife over such a trivial thing. Interesting times we live in.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Any person with a sense of decency finds abuse of another person or animal repugnant. We must remember, however, private citizens have no legal obligation or duty to use lethal force to intervene in a situation such as the one described. Inhibiting the urge to offer help is very difficult, but providing physical description, license plate number, and direction of travel of the fleeing person is often much more valuable to police.

I will state again: license plate number and vehicle description. Vehicles are tied to people in many ways. If you have a vehicle description, or only a license plate number, then you may also have access to addresses, telephone numbers, and names of current and past registered owners of the vehicle.

I am a police officer. I have been involved in many investigations of domestic disputes and very often the male half is gone when we arrive. I cannot stress enough the importance of being a good witness if you are a civilian who encounters a crime in progress. Provide information. Your information helps police to find the other party, and keeps you out of court and above ground.

Your concealed carry gun is for your personal protection. There is no obligation to use it for the protection of another person. Be safe out there.

 

[buck460XVR]

now an interesting question.......at what point does the attacker( man who shot the woman), have a right to self defense?

I was thinking the same thing. I would think it stops the minute you are in the act of committing a criminal offense. How sad would that be if the shooter got off the murder charge because he had a right to stand his ground and defend himself because of fear of grave bodily harm.

Kudos to the victim for trying tho. He was an ex-marine and knew the shooter was armed and dangerous and still put his life on the line for it. While it may have been against common sense, he died a brave death, and he should not be chastised for it.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

How sad would that be if the shooter got off the murder charge because he had a right to stand his ground and defend himself because of fear of grave bodily harm.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

You have no right to self defense while engaged in shooting his wife who has not illegally used or attempted to use lethal force against you. Any third party may at that time legally use lethal force against you, which you have no right to defend against.

Furthermore, if his defense attorney attempts to argue that he had abandoned that encounter and therefore qualifies for use of force again (note Texas law only applies the abandoned encounter standard to normal force, not lethal force so he's still hosed), he still has to counter the claim that he shot Mr. Antwell after disarming him, and thus again not having a valid claim to self defense.

And if you are wondering:

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

Mr. Atwell did have the lawful right to attempt to detain Mr. Bradden, so any questions relating to Mr. Bradden having the right to use lethal force response to Mr. Atwell attempting to arrest him are moot.

The best Mr. Bradden can hope or is a good plea bargin, which is not likely given the evidence apparent in the case. This is about as easy as it can get for a DA to get a conviction.

 

[ThomasT]

It was on the radio all day yesterday. It was reported that the shooter slapped the gun out of the hands of Atwell and then shot him in the head. Why would you get close enough to have personal contact? That was stupid. Sounds like he had the gun but didn't have the nerve to use it. A sad story on all accounts.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

the article says this



Is this actually true or just a blatant lie?

What happened is we both got suckered into reading a Washington post article. That will never happen to me again. The anti gun trash in there made me sick.

 

[Poper]

He didn't try to intervene - he tried to apprehend.

Good point.

 

[orionengnr]

CCW holders are not cops, we need to stop acting like it.

Later reports have stated that he WAS NOT a CHL holder.
So, no training, no guidance on what (or what not) to do.
Just a guy with a good heart and poor judgement.
Unfortunate, but let's not mis-represent the situation.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Another thing to think about here..."domestic dispute".

Getting involved in a domestic dispute is akin to rubbing yourself down with fresh liver and jumping in amongst a river full of piranha.

God bless the man for trying, but as several have already pointed out here...you need to use your brain and figure out the RIGHT actions to take.

Hopefully his tragedy will serve to reinforce that and prevent one of us from doing something horribly stupid.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

This seems pretty cut and clear to me.

Although I am somewhat new to gun law one basic fact of the "101's" of SD stand out to me here. The aggressor was retreating. As some have mentioned at that point the best thing you can do is be the best witness you can.

My guess is that the "aids" former Marine training kicked in and that is what ultimately made his decision for him choosing his actions. Unfortunately military law and civilian are not the same.

I'm all for offering assistance to the community but every gun owner should be educated on when and to what extent it's appropriate.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I thought I'd share a recent situation I was placed in.

I was leaving a restaurant about 8:00 pm with my girlfriend. As we got up to my vehicle I noticed a blonde woman sort of running up the sidewalk that was down the hill from the parking lot. I heard her say something like "It's in the room." over her shoulder and then she kept going. That's when I noticed a man running behind her. I wasn't sure if they were just being goofy and playing around, or what. When she saw him coming though, she picked up the pace and let out a sound that sounded like fear to me. I stood next to my vehicle and my girlfriend was on the other side.

I saw him run up and grab her from behind. From my perspective it looked like he grabbed her around the neck and shoulders. However, I was 100 ft away or more, and lighting was dim, so I couldn't be sure. I couldn't tell for sure if he was choking her, or just holding her. I heard her say something like "It's in the bathroom!" and there was a sound of fear and desperation in her voice.

At that point I realized there was a domestic dispute happening right before my eyes, and someone was being physically accosted. I turned to my girlfriend and said "I don't know what the hell is going on here." "She replied "I'm calling the cops." I said "Good, but get in the truck." I wanted a physical barrier between her and this guy, should the guy decide to tangle with me when I stepped in.

When I turned back to the incident, I was really getting tense as I was about to yell "Get off of her now." At that point I saw the woman stager and slump to the ground. He didn't throw her down or anything. Then I saw her hand him something and he started walking away. He turned back and tossed something her way before leaving.

She immediately started picking up whatever it was, and getting up. I can't even tell you all how grateful I am that the incident ended there. If he had touched her again in any way, I would have been in it, but he disengaged and walked away. I saw her get up and walk towards a small casino door, and the man went walking back down the sidewalk. I made sure to get a really good look at him and so did my GF as she was describing what was going on to the police.

Now in the few seconds he had her, he could have killed her, but I didn't think that was about to happen. She didn't scream out or anything when he grabbed her, so I had to restrain myself because I didn't know what was going on. When he let go of her and she fell to the ground, I was waiting for him to lay hands on her aging..... All of this spanned maybe 20-30 seconds. It seems longer in retrospect, but I don't think it was.

The investigating police officer called back shortly afterwards and informed us that he needed a clear description of what had happened, and that a patrol officer was with the victim, and she was alright.

I'm sure there are some folks who think I should have stepped in the second he laid hands on her, but in an ambiguous situation, you really need to be careful. I think I and my GF responded appropriately.

In the case of the story the OP shared, there was clear intent to kill, and if the gentleman who ended up dead had had is gun on him and tried to stop an active shooter situation, I guess I'd feel he acted a little more appropriately. However, when an attack is over, and an assailant is leaving, it becomes a police matter.