Fear For Life

[Kleanbore]

Have you ever been in a traffic accident?

What on earth does that have to do with it?

...I see very little possibility he was aware of the reality of the situation until long after it was over.

Then he should not have had access to a firearm.

Subtleties such as the person turning to grab something off the shelf probably wouldn't even register.

"Subtleties"? Really! It is essential that one who uses deadly force know what is going on and react accordingly.

His entire world at that moment was "I'm being attacked, put rounds on target."

I'm not sure about the "I'm being attacked" part. but it does appear that the stimulus caused him to default to his square range training and to start putting rounds on target. That's why he has been charged with murder.

 

[grampajack]

Age doesn't matter at all, I assume that is brought up to pull some emotional heart string. Had they killed him it wouldn't have been the first time a teenager or group of teens killed someone.

Absolutely. Plenty of 14 year olds have put able-bodied people in the hospital with a single punch while playing the "knockout game." I would never presume that I could win a fight with two 14 year old boys (or even two 14 year old girls for that matter).

And this is assuming he even registered their age in the first place, which I find laughable. In all likelihood, given their speed and the fact that they were intentionally obscuring their faces with hoods, all he saw were two full grown males taking the most advantageous route possible, with all possible speed, directly to him in the most aggressive manner possible.

What on earth does that have to do with it?

Then he should not have had access to a firearm.

"Subtleties"? Really! It is essential that one who uses deadly force know what is going on and react accordingly.

I'm not sure about the "I'm being attacked" part. but it does appear that the stimulus caused him to default to his square range training and to start putting rounds on target. That's why he has been charged with murder.

It has everything to do with it. You clearly don't appreciate how the human brain works under life or death stress. You're analyzing the situation and judging this man with parts of your brain he did not have access to at the time. By failing to put yourself in his shoes you're being totally unrealistic in your expectations.

 

[Kleanbore]

It has everything to do with it. You clearly don't appreciate how the human brain works under life or death stress. You're analyzing the situation and judging this man with parts of your brain he did not have access to at the time. By failing to put yourself in his shoes you're being totally unrealistic in your expectations.

If a store clerk perceives "life or death stress" when people run into his store, he is in the wrong business, and he sure shouldn't have a gun.

The effects of stress on the shooter could bear on the nature and the severity of the charge, but they are unlikely to aid in justification.

It is fundamental to a successful defense of justification that the defendant have bases for reasonable beliefs that the persons against whom he used force had the ability and opportunity to kill or seriously harm him at that moment; that he was in fact in immediate jeopardy of such harm; and that he had no other alternative.

That requires the use of his brain. Absent that, he has little in the way of a basis for a defense.

The state believes that the video provides probable cause for a murder charge. Should it go to trial, the jury may agree, or they may not. They may decide to convict, to acquit, or to convict on lesser included charges.

I have no way of predicting it, but I do not think it would be unlikely for the defense team to try to avoid the risk of conviction and to agree to a lesser change, if the states so inclined.

 

[grampajack]

If a store clerk perceives "life or death stress" when people run into his store, he is in the wrong business, and he sure shouldn't have a gun.

That is an entirely unreasonable and fallacious assessment of the situation. Anyone can immediately discern that that was a burglary.

First of all, you have them approaching with their hoods up in a high crime area, which he may or may not have seen. My bet is he did, and that alone would be enough to pique my interest.

Then they tear open the door and sprint at full speed to get behind his only cover. Not the behavior of a patron under any circumstances and you know it!

 

[TomJ]

When I was a LEO it was stressed to us that if we pull the trigger we had better be able to articulate exactly why we were in fear of our life or of great bodily harm (or protecting others from those) at that moment and that we had better have exhausted every other option before doing so. If there are no other facts to consider other than what appears on this video, IMO he was too quick to pull the trigger. I understand how quickly these things happen, but he had alternatives such as taking another second or two to assess the situation or taking cover in the office to his left. If you're going to take a human life, it had better be after you tried every other option and was left only with the option to shoot.

 

[Kleanbore]

Anyone can immediately discern that that was a burglary.

Yes, they entered a shop with the apparent intention to commit theft, and possibly other crimes. That provides good reason to get ready pronto for whatever countermeasures may be required. But burglary is not robbery, and alone, it does not justify the use of deadly force in Nevada.

Note that the subjects did not enter the store forcibly.

But the clerk shot and killed one of them.

Hence the murder charge.

First of all, you have them approaching with their hoods up in a high crime area, which he may or may not have seen. My bet is he did, and that alone would be enough to pique my interest.

Alrighty then! Mine too! I must probably would have armed myself, and then tried to move to the side and not to where I could get a clear shot.

Then they tear open the door and sprint at full speed to get behind his only cover.

They came though the the door and ran behind the counter, where the merchandise is kept. And then the guy stopped. But the clerk fired.

All of that was there for the proswcutors to view, review, study, and discuss, and should it ever get to trial, the jurors will do that too.

Not the behavior of a patron under any circumstances and you know it!

What does that have to do with the lawful justification for the use of deadly force?

 

[grampajack]

When I was a LEO it was stressed to us that if we pull the trigger we had better be able to articulate exactly why we were in fear of our life or of great bodily harm (or protecting others from those) at that moment and that we had better have exhausted every other option before doing so. If there are no other facts to consider other than what appears on this video, IMO he was too quick to pull the trigger. I understand how quickly these things happen, but he had alternatives such as taking another second or two to assess the situation or taking cover in the office to his left. If you're going to take a human life, it had better be after you tried every other option and was left only with the option to shoot.

And yet LEOs, even despite their advanced training for working in a civilian environment, do screw up from time to time, and are forgiven for it as a rule. For example, I recently read about a case where a SWAT team got the wrong address. The homeowner was asleep and was just waking up when they entered his bedroom. He starts reaching for something in his haze and one of the cops ventilated him. Turns out there was no weapon, they were at the wrong address, and he wasn't their suspect. I don't know if it was ever discovered what he was reaching for, or if it was even established that he was in fact reaching for anything at all, or whether he just made a movement that the officer found threatening (they had been told to expect their suspect to be armed). Maybe he was reaching for glasses or something, I don't know. The point is that the officer was cleared of any charges, and I've read about numerous similar situations over the years. Civilians on the other hand, who do not possess the training police get, are rarely forgiven for mistakes, even in cases like these when it was the "victim's" own criminal actions that won them the Darwin award, as opposed to just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yes, they entered a shop with the apparent intention to commit theft, and possibly other crimes. That provides good reason to get ready pronto for whatever countermeasures may be required. But burglary is not robbery, and alone, it does not justify the use of deadly force in Nevada.

Note that the subjects did not enter the store forcibly.

But the clerk shot and killed one of them.

Hence the murder charge.

Alrighty then! Mine too! I must probably would have armed myself, and then tried to move to the side and not to where I could get a clear shot.

They came though the the door and ran behind the counter, where the merchandise is kept. And then the guy stopped. But the clerk fired.

All of that was there for the proswcutors to view, review, study, and discuss, and should it ever get to trial, the jurors will do that too.

What does that have to do with the lawful justification for the use of deadly force?

They gave every impression that they were rushing the clerk, and any rational person in his position would have perceived it in that way.

 

[Kleanbore]

Turns out there was no weapon....I don't know if it was ever discovered what he was reaching for, or if it was even established that he was in fact reaching for anything at all, or whether he just made a movement that the officer found threatening...

That's where defender's reaction to a furtive moment comes into play.

That has to do with a basis for a reasonable belief regarding ability. It has nothing to do with "fear". It is one well established element of a defense of justification for anyone.

Do a little reading on defending the self defense case, or better yet, take the time to attend MAG-20 Classroom.

They gave every impression that they were rushing the clerk, and any rational person in his position would have perceived it in that way.

But they stopped, and the prosecutor and his or her staff and the rest of us can see that.

They can also see the clerk's movements, and what the narrator described as his failure to attempt preclusion.

But it is not our call to sit in judgment of the sore clerk, or to advise his defense team about a possible plea bargain.

Rather, it is up to us to understand the elements of justification and to act accordingly.

The first of such elements (after innocence, actually) is immediate necessity.

 

[grampajack]

That's where defender's reaction to a furtive moment comes into play.

That has to do with a basis for a reasonable belief regarding ability. It has nothing to do with "fear". It is one well established element of a defense of justification for anyone.

Do a little reading on defending the self defense case, or better yet, take the time to attend MAG-20 Classroom.

But they stopped, and the prosecutor and his or her staff and the rest of us can see that.

They can also see the clerk's movements, and what the narrator described as his failure to attempt preclusion.

But it is not our call to sit in judgment of the sore clerk, or to advise his defense team about a possible plea bargain.

Rather, it is up to us to understand the elements of justification and to act accordingly.

The first of such elements (after innocence, actually) is immediate necessity.

You're holding the guy to impossible standards for the average armed citizen. When he drew and made the decision to fire he had every reason to believe in that moment they meant him bodily harm. Once that switch is flipped, he's not going to stop shooting right away just because the threat has ended. There is going to be a delay. Just like you continue to smash on the brake after the accident is over, he continued to fire. It's a totally natural response of the limbic system.

Now if he had come back inside and put a coup de grace in the kid's head that is not explainable as a limbic reaction. That is a meditated, conscious, and voluntary action by all accounts. But everything in that video is consistent with how the human brain works when it goes into survival mode, and his brain going into that mode was a direct and reasonable result of their stupid, criminal actions.

I simply fail to see how the two "victims" don't deserve the full responsibility for everything that happened to them. You rush out into a busy street, you are likely to get hit by a car. It's the not the car's fault, it's not the driver's fault. And if you rush at a clerk behind the counter in his own establishment in what can only be described as an aggressive manner, then you are very likely to get shot.

 

[Kleanbore]

You're holding the guy to impossible standards for the average armed citizen.

No. These are the standards of the criminal justice system.

When he drew and made the decision to fire he had every reason to believe in that moment they meant him bodily harm

That would be necessary for justification , but it would not be sufficient.

I simply fail to see how the two "victims" don't deserve the full responsibility for everything that happened to them.

????

And if you rush at a clerk behind the counter in his own establishment in what can only be described as an aggressive manner, then you are very likely to get shot.

That may well be, but it is not enough to justify the shooter' s actions.

This is from the report by the detectives who viewed the video:

"Both boys ran just behind the counter and began to grab items off the wall.

"Sunna fired at [redacted] while he was taking items off the wall.

"[Redacted] was at lest 40 feet away and was not approaching Sunna as he described.

[Redacted] began to run away as the shooting started but was shot several times and collapsed to the ground.

"At the time Sunna shot [redacted] was not advancing on Sunna as he described.

"[Redacted] was only stealing property and did not appear to be a threat to Sunna."
​

That and the video led to the decision to charge Sunna with murder.

The testimony and the video will be very difficult for the defense team to counter.

 

[RPZ]

When he drew and shot, at that time, they were making

When he drew and shot, at that time, they were making a beeline for him. How close should he have let them get before making the decision to fire?

One of these guys had already stopped to the right just inside. The one to the left advanced for a short distance and appears to me to have stopped, or almost stopped, either to grab an item, or perhaps because he realized there was a pistol pointed at him. Regardless it was only one coming down the left side, and at that point no weapons visible.

Tough call but based on what I see here this was not a justifiable shooting.

 

[TomJ]

And yet LEOs, even despite their advanced training for working in a civilian environment, do screw up from time to time, and are forgiven for it as a rule. For example, I recently read about a case where a SWAT team got the wrong address. The homeowner was asleep and was just waking up when they entered his bedroom. He starts reaching for something in his haze and one of the cops ventilated him. Turns out there was no weapon, they were at the wrong address, and he wasn't their suspect. I don't know if it was ever discovered what he was reaching for, or if it was even established that he was in fact reaching for anything at all, or whether he just made a movement that the officer found threatening (they had been told to expect their suspect to be armed). Maybe he was reaching for glasses or something, I don't know. The point is that the officer was cleared of any charges, and I've read about numerous similar situations over the years. Civilians on the other hand, who do not possess the training police get, are rarely forgiven for mistakes, even in cases like these when it was the "victim's" own criminal actions that won them the Darwin award, as opposed to just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.



They gave every impression that they were rushing the clerk, and any rational person in his position would have perceived it in that way.

LEO's are also charged in wrongful shootings. The Laquon McDonald case in Chicago is the most recent case I'm aware of. A bad shoot is a bad shoot, regardless of who the shooter is and that person should be charged regardless of who they are.

 

[fastbolt]

I think a number of folks either aren't familiar with the difference between a reasonable and a bare fear ... or if they are, they don't think it matters, for whatever reasons appeal to them ... or they don't understand how the definitions and applications of laws are carefully explained to jurors, and the reason for detailed instructions given to juries.

The individual in the video is going to require a very good lawyer, and spend a lot of money in legal fees ... and it's going to be a difficult legal fight to stay out of jail and/or prison ... and that's just for the criminal charges. (Dunno what the laws are like for civil suits in whatever state it happened.)

 

[RPZ]

LEO's are also charged in wrongful shootings. The Laquon McDonald case in Chicago is the most recent case I'm aware of. A bad shoot is a bad shoot, regardless of who the shooter is and that person should be charged regardless of who they are.

I have to agree in part only. I have seen quite a number of cases where some may well have been charged, but have walked in cases where any fellow citizens would definately have not. This is a serious issue, but the remedy is strict application of law for all, rather than extending the bending of it for the criminal acts of everyone.

 

[Kleanbore]

The individual in the video is going to require a very good lawyer, and spend a lot of money in legal fees ... and it's going to be a difficult legal fight to stay out of jail and/or prison ... and that's just for the criminal charges.

Thats' probably quite an understatement. Again, however, that case will turn out however it turns out.

What we have to do into avoid following in Sunna's path. That means that we have to understand the law of self defense, and we have to program ourselves to abide by it.

 

[jmorris]

Another thought, an LEO's place of business is where he/she is at on duty.

Next time you see one working pull over put something on to mask your identify, get out of your auto and run full speed towards him. I wonder what he/she will do?

In my teenage years I ran up to one when another person I knew needed help, I stopped short of conversation distance when his hand went for his sidearm.

 

[grampajack]

Another thought, an LEO's place of business is where he/she is at on duty.

Next time you see one working pull over put something on to mask your identify, get out of your auto and run full speed towards him. I wonder what he/she will do?

That's what I've been thinking this whole time. Or do it to anyone for that matter. If you're lucky the average person would try to run, but some of the time you're definitely going to get shot or beat to a pulp.

 

[Kleanbore]

Another thought, an LEO's place of business is where he/she is at on duty.

Next time you see one working pull over put something on to mask your identify, get out of your auto and run full speed towards him. I wonder what he/she will do?

In my teenage years I ran up to one when another person I knew needed help, I stopped short of conversation distance when his hand went for his sidearm.

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

 

[jmorris]

It it has to do with perception and reaction.

There are people that could honestly fear for their life when in fact it was never in danger and their are certain things some people do that are natural reactions that others might not do.

 

[fastbolt]

Thats' probably quite an understatement. Again, however, that case will turn out however it turns out.

What we have to do into avoid following in Sunna's path. That means that we have to understand the law of self defense, and we have to program ourselves to abide by it.

I know. It's often either preaching to the choir or it falls on deaf ears, though.

The thing is that many people seem to have this mistaken belief that just being able to own and shoot a gun somehow means they also have an innate grasp of the law, and what it means when it comes to determining reasonable and lawful actions and conduct during highly stressful moments.

Some folks who seem to go to great effort to choose some gun, ammo and holster combination can get a bit annoyed, and even confrontational, if they're asked whether they've actually prepared themselves for such situations by seeking to acquire professional training and knowledge in this regard.

The cost of getting some professional (and vetted) training - no matter the added cost of taking a day or two off work, and travel, lodging and meals - would seem to pale when considered against the likely costs of even the most affordable legal representation fees. (Let alone considering the potential for losing a job, because you're incarcerated for a while, and probably losing housing, some possessions, bank accounts, etc.)

 

[jmorris]

We are Monday quarterbacking a 5 second event. From the time the bad guy enters the doorway to the time he jumps over whatever was there to prevent him from gaining access behind the counter was two seconds.

The gun was already drawn while he was still in the air jumping said obstacle.

Then we have seven shots inside 3 seconds because he is down in that amount of time.

IF he were going after the man he certainly would have reached him in that 3 seconds.

 

[Kleanbore]

It it has to do with perception and reaction.

There are people that could honestly fear for their life when in fact it was never in danger and their are certain things some people do that are natural reactions that others might not do.

"Reaching for his sidearm" when someone running has reached "conversation distance', which happens to be the subject of training drills, is not at all the same as shooting someone who is stealing property.

Whether Sunna should have drawn when he did has not been discussed. It's debatable. But it is not what he has been charged with.

Someone may "honestly fear", but raw fear is never a justification for the use of force. And some "natural reactions" do end up bringing criminal charges.

It appears that Sunna, who stood up and drew when the subjects entered the shop, then defaulted to what he had practiced at the square range. He moved into a good shooting position, and he started firing, obviously without thinking. He than tried the "I feared for my life" mantra, popular in some lesser training course but listed as one of the "myths" in Ayoob's latest book.

He is now where he put himself with his actions.

Might someone else do that? Of course. Then we would have one more accused criminal and/or civil defendant.

How can we avoid falling into that trap?

Learn the law, and understand it; train, properly; practice; and program ourselves to act correctly.

 

[jmorris]

Just so we are all on the same page we are talking about two masked people.

Entering

And he likely noticed the masks when they looked in from the outside because he had already completed his draw when the fellow was in the air and that's 2 seconds in.

How close would you all have let him get?

 

[Kleanbore]

I know. It's often either preaching to the choir or it falls on deaf ears, though.

The thing is that many people seem to have this mistaken belief that just being able to own and shoot a gun somehow means they also have an innate grasp of the law, and what it means when it comes to determining reasonable and lawful actions and conduct during highly stressful moments.

Some folks who seem to go to great effort to choose some gun, ammo and holster combination can get a bit annoyed, and even confrontational, if they're asked whether they've actually prepared themselves for such situations by seeking to acquire professional training and knowledge in this regard.

The cost of getting some professional (and vetted) training - no matter the added cost of taking a day or two off work, and travel, lodging and meals - would seem to pale when considered against the likely costs of even the most affordable legal representation fees. (Let alone considering the potential for losing a job, because you're incarcerated for a while, and probably losing housing, some possessions, bank accounts, etc.)

Well stated. Very well stated indeed.

 

[Kleanbore]

How close would you all have let him get?

The detectives who analyzed the video reported that the subjects were not advancing and did not pose a threat to Sunna, and that he fired at a distance of forty feet.

The video supports that. It also will harm Sunna's credibility, which is about all he might have going for him.