Hypothetical From A TV Show

[Treo]

I saw this scene on a T.V. show the other night (Bones). And while it's not real I think it brings up a good point. Here's the scenario:

Group of friends at a bar, they all just arrived haven't even had time to order drinks ( so no ETOH involvement).

A person, who has been stalking one of the friends, walks into the bar produces a handgun threatens to shoot one of the friends but instead mistakenly shoots the person she's been stalking.

At this point everything freezes for a second then the intended victim begins to perform first aid on the actual victim , 911 is called & the intended has time to actually speak to the actuall.

During this time the shooter (who appears to be in shock) is standing imobile W/ the revolver dangling from her hand. She has not threatened violence or brandished her weapon to any other patron of the bar.

At this point the intended looks up, sees the shooter, reaches over the actuall ( who's a cop) grabs his gun and puts a round right through the shooters throat ( the intended has been presented as an expert shot previously)

Now here's the question :
Given the information you have was the return shot justified ? Why or Why not?

 

[ilbob]

its a tv show.

 

[TX1911fan]

I'd say yes, especially because he was the intended victim. She still has the gun, so is still a threat.

 

[3KillerBs]

Once the bad guy has fired his gun the question of whether people are in reasonable fear of "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault" has been answered and the use of deadly force is justified.

The stupid and unjustified part is they way they ignored the criminal while doing a slew of other things (and that none of those other things involved anyone screaming and running). But what would you expect from TV anyway?

 

[Treo]

I am aware that it' s a tv show , the reason I used it as example is because it played out the way the script writers wanted it to, not the way I wanted to tweak it to make my point.

I offered it for discussion because it made me think. maybe a minute after I watched it, it occured to me that the scene as shown might have been a textbook example of unjustified use of force.

It brings up a good question in that you don't have a whole lot of time to decide "Is this person a threat to me still"

 

[Ron James]

Sigh, discussing Hans Solos Broomhandle Mauser is more fun and realistic, but, once the gun is removed form the shooters hand and no other violence id offerd, the new shooter just committed murder, Like it or not

 

[Treo]

Oddly enough what caught my attention was that I didn't think the shooting was justified, because I didn't think the shooter was capable of firing again due to a state of physcogenic shock.

As for what the others did that didn't seem to make sense I was involved in a shooting many,many years ago. Nobody acted the way you'd think after the shots were fired. I ran INTO the kitchen where the shooter was at & my roommate actually sat up in bed and yelled at the shooter to be quiet because he was trying to sleep. So the things people do after a shooting don't surprise me

 

[Treo]

Hey,Ron & Bob if you think it's a stupid thread that's your perogative. I got a really cool solution don't participate

 

[arthurcw]

Saw the show.

First off, if I remember correctly, the whack-job was in the process of taking a follow up shot so it was justified. She was stunned but came out of her stupor and was in the obvious process of Target Acquisition.

Before that, she was still holding the gun out and any sane person who had a gun would be drawing down on her since she showed no signs of dropping the gun and all signs that she was a whack-job with a gun.

Now, not knowing the particulars of their state laws (can't remember if the bar was in VA or MD), it seems that it was very justified for the main character to pick up the gun and cover the shooter. If the shooter was stupid enough to point the gun back at the main character, Oh well. Darwin at work.

Now is the time for the, "In Texas..." addition to the thread. Sorry.

As I understand it, it would be a good shoot because the original shooter was still considered a threat under Texas law (having just shot someone and was still pointing a gun around) and a REASONABLE person could fear for their life and the lives of others.

Add to that that the director was happy to show the shooter in the process of gettin' all evil again and targeting the main character after recovering from her, "oh my, I just shot my hunky fantasy lover" moment.

Now add to the list that the person shot was an FBI agent (who showed all manner of stupid throughout the show with regard to the shooter) and unless the shooter had dropped her gun, was on the floor sobbing praying for Jesus to forgive her, and the main character walked up to her, yelled, “that was MY MAN BEY-OTCH!” while emptying the entire mag (reload, lather, rinse, repeat); it would have been a good shoot.

 

[Treo]

There you have it folks two people (disinterested third parties who were sitting cool calm & collected at home I might add) who saw the same thing, from the same angle, and both remember it differently. Cause I don't remember the phsyco getting evil at the end and based on what I remember it wasn't a justified shoot.
Now imagine trying to sift through the reall thing

 

[csmkersh]

It was a righteous shoot. Booth was down; the whack job had just brought the revolver back up to shoot Bones when Bones picked of Booth's GLOCK and shot the whack job.

Go here and select full episodes.
​

 

[Treo]

I have an advantage over real witnesses YOUTUBE!!!!!! I went back & watched the scene again & like I said in the first post "It played out the way the scriptwriters wanted it to, not the way I tweaked it to make my point."

It also happened a lot faster than I remeber it from watching the first time.

I gotta think that had I been Bones (God that's an ugly picture) I'd be dead (or a millionaire actress) Cause I totally missed the threat.
Which could be another intresting discussion

 

[mekender]

well, in your scenario, the person that was shot was an FBI agent and the person doing the shooting was not... the person that returned fire was not an FBI Agent, but was working under contract with the FBI and has repeatedly carried a gun on the show so the assumption is that she is issued that guy by the FBI as an armed consultant...

so in an officer/agent down scenario, with the armed assailant still in possession of the gun... yes the shoot is justified...

though the agent shooting the clown head off the top of the ice cream truck in a previous episode would have landed him ass deep in trouble

 

[csmkersh]

though the agent shooting the clown head off the top of the ice cream truck in a previous episode would have landed him ass deep in trouble.

It got Booth into mandatory counseling for a while. The psychiatrist was slightly twisted himself. And no, it's not the kid they have now.
​

 

[Ron James]

Mr.treo, If you post something I feel is silly, then I have the right to imply that. As long as I'm civil and you can't see me laugh, then you do not have the right to tell me not to participate, only the moderator has that right.

 

[Treo]

double tap

 

[Treo]

I didn't tell you not to participate I merely suggested it. One of the most consistant complaints I read here is people filling a thread W/ usless posts about how stupid they are. It's kinda common sense if you think a thread is stupid , don't get in it
BTW welcome to ignore

 

[TX1911fan]

+1 on Treo's posts, especially if you are going to get the facts wrong. No one ever said the shooter dropped the weapon, so your dramatic sigh was not only wasted, it was superfluous.

 

[Don Gwinn]

As a moderator, and by the authority vested in me, I urge you all to lighten up.

Oh, and this isn't really a legal question. Armed person who just shot someone=threat.