Man threatened with pliers is charged after drawing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hopefully more info will become avaliable on this as time goes on. Although it often doesn't happen. I can't find squeeze on the guy that shot a dog a few weeks ago now. He was charged with cruelty to an animal after it bit him and he claims it fought with his dog. They never cleared up wether he fled and came back or what exactly happened. If I see more I will post it.

However this particular case has me questioning why only the gun owner was charged. If the other guy pulled a pair of pliers in a way threatening enough to justify the statement "The 54-year-old man pulled out a pair of pliers. Police said that is when Wapler pulled out a loaded gun and pointed it right at him." then why wasn't he charged with some kind of assault or threatening?
 
I think there was a study that showed 21 feet was the minimum distance that you had better "make up your mind" to stop the threat against an knife or club. If you are face to face and have something pulled on you, there is no time. You either shoot or run.
Click to expand...
Sigh :rolleyes:

Here we go ... again.

The Tueller Drill (named for a police officer named Tueller, who developed it) is the source of the so-called "21 foot rule." If you're going to keep talking about it, it would perhaps be a good idea to understand what it represents.

First, it applies ONLY to uniformed police officers carrying in duty holsters. Second (which I'll get to), it is obsolete. Here's the deal:

Lt. Tueller was an instructor and he wanted to find a way to teach new recruits a bit of the "sixth sense" that savvy street officers develop over the years. One of the issues was "When do you draw?"

So he started with some timed drills. He had anumber of his officers draw and fire on a target. The average time elapsed from the command to the shot was 1.5 seconds.

He then had some guys armed with rubber training knives rush officers from various distances, to see how much distance a knife-wielding assailant could cover in that 1.5 seconds. Turned out that 21 feet was the distance. That's where 21 feet came from. What it taught his officers was that, when faced with a knife wielding assailant, if you allow the guy to approach within 21 feet you are behind the curve, so you need to draw and go to low ready. Otherwise, if the guy attacks you will not have time to draw and fire before he sticks the knife in your chest.

Caveats: As noted, the drill only applies to uniformed officers. Specifically, it applies to uniformed officers in Lt. Tueller's department, wearing whatever duty holsters they wore back then. Tueller himself has commented that the entire drill is now obsolete because newer retention holsters require more time to draw, thus negating the 1.5 seconds and thus negating the 21 foot "rule."

This does not apply in any way to "civilian" CCW holders carrying in concealment, unless you know from practice and experience that it takes you exactly 1.5 seconds to recognize a threat, draw, aim, and fire. Dunno about any of you, but I think that time would be quite a bit longer than 1.5 seconds for me. Which means that an armed adversary is an immediate (potential) threat to me well beyond 21 feet. How much beyond? I don't have a clue.

I have seen people on this forum mis-state the Tueller "rule" as saying that it means you MUST shoot if a threat is within 21 feet. No, it does not say that. The laws regarding use of deadly force are not suspended if a threat is less than 21 feet from you. Even if the threat is only 10 feet away -- if you reach for your piece and the threat decides to wish you a good day and walk ... you have no cause to shoot.

Bottom line: The 21-foot "rule" is NOT a rule ... it was a rule of thumb, not an absolute command. And ... it is obsolete. And ... it was only ever applicable if your time from threat recognition to shot was exactly 1.5 seconds.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming ...
 
I don't think what the other man was armed with makes a bit of difference. He still has his hands to choke you to death or beat you to deathe or cause sever bodily harm. Maybe a guy would be willing to get in a fight with an unarmed person but no way will I. I know I would loose and loose badly. If I go to prision at least I am alive and can appeal and have a "Free Kim" club. :mad:
 
The fellow with the gun should have been arrested (criminal negligence) and his permit should be suspended temporarily. It's dumb moves like that that put the 2nd amendment at risk. In Connecticut you are allowed to draw your firearm when your defensive zone is collapsing and you are being approached by a person with a "dangerous" weapon. The situation as briefly stated in this thread does not qualify (and both requirements would have to be met - not just one). The exception to this would be if an item such as a glazers tool (essentially a knife) is being misused then it would qualify as a dangerous weapon. But I can't think of any situation where a pair of pliers could be reclassified as a dangerous weapon.

Just to give you a brief idea of how strict the laws are here in CT - if a buddy and I are walking down the street and and a person comes up and stabs my buddy and continues walking away I can not draw my firearm. If I were to yell at the person and he stopped and turned around but did not advance towards us (and thus collapse the defensive zone) I could not draw. When the assailant takes a step towards me/us it is only at that time that I am allowed to draw my firearm in self defense.

LEO's are trained to deal with deadly force in a high pressured situation we civilians are not. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and foolish disregard of the law is inexcusable. I took the time to take a 1 day course to have a better understanding of my responsibilities and liabilities when carrying and I consider it time well spent.
 
Duffy1 said:
In Connecticut you are allowed to draw your firearm when your defensive zone is collapsing and you are being approached by a person with a "dangerous" weapon.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Got a statutory or regulatory citation for any of that?

I have a CT CCW ... my brother lives there. Just this week I received a copy of the CT State Police Dept's most recent compilation of firearms laws, and I see nothing in it that in any way refers to or uses the term "defensive zone collapsing." In fact, I can't find anything that addresses when you are allowed to draw your firearm. The statutes address the use of physical force and deadly force in defense of self, other persons, premises, or property.

If this is what your CCW instructor taught you ... you should find a different instructor.
 
The fellow with the gun should have been arrested (criminal negligence) and his permit should be suspended temporarily. It's dumb moves like that that put the 2nd amendment at risk.
Click to expand...

These are pretty strong words considering you are referring ONLY to Connecticut and apparently have never actually seen or used a pair of pliers. I can only assume this since you don't think a sizeable piece of pointed metal could be used as a weapon. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion.

In Texas, bare fists could be considered just cause to draw and fire. Sonn after CCW passed, there was one publicized case of a man in Dallas that got in a minor traffic bump. The guy started beating the crap out of him against his door. He reached behind him for hist pistol and shot the man dead. He was either no-billed by the grand jury or got off, I am not sure which. Texas law allows deadly force to prevent threat to life or "serious bodily injury". It was demonstrated in court that bare fists can, in fact, cause serious bodily injury. The size difference in the two men had some bearing on it as well.
 
To Art and those talking about "speculation":

Just based on the article, I strongly suspect the gunnie is the one in the right.

Here's why:

We know there are two people involved. One has a concealed gun, one has a concealed pliers. They argue. OK, fine, it happens.

The question is, who drew first?

Well lesse now. If somebody pulled a gun on you, are you likely to pull out a pair of pliers in response?

:scrutiny:

Didn't think so. You'd back off, apologize, wet your pants, whatever, but pulling a pair of pliers sure as heck wouldn't be first on MY "to do list".

Now suppose somebody pulled a pair of pliers on you. I would argue that MOST pliers of one sort or another are a lethal threat. If you had a gun on your person, would you draw it?

I sure would.

So who's more likely to have drawn first? Hmmm?

Mr. Pliers, in my book.

--------

What's the LEAST threatening pair of pliers? Maybe a standard 6" roundnose, like this:

http://www.jeepfabrikken.no/Tools_and_accesories/Tools Ford Pliers.jpg

If you open them so that the two pieces of metal cross at a 90degree angle and then hold just one of the handle pieces, you've got a vicious skull-busting weapon.

And that's the *mildest* sort of pliers I'm familiar with.
 
This can go either way. If our CCW holder initiated the confrontation and made a threat towards Mr. Pliers, then the later fellow would have been justified in drawing his chosen weapon of pinching, and the CCW holder would not be justified in drawing his weapon. Of course it could have been the reverse too.

The question is, who drew first?
Click to expand...

Who drew first doesnt matter. What matters is who initiated the confrontation and who made the first threat of physical violence. Imagine this, both you and I are carying pistols, I approach you and hit you with a closed fist, breaking your nose, I make as if I will hit you again. You draw your weapon it misfires, I then draw my pistol and shoot you. By your logic my action is justified because you drew first.
 
I do not remember the movie, but it was a Gene Wilder, Richard Prior movie and there was a scene in which a pair of pliers were used with much authority in changing someones mind. I believe it was Priors changing a cabbies mind about a fare by using a pair of pliers on his tender bits, It was funny in the movie, but it would be shootable offense to me if someone did the same to me. or tried to.
 
If I were the CCW in this case, I'd be telling whoever cared "We had an argument, he pulled out something as if it was a weapon-I didn't see what it was at first, so I drew. After I drew, I saw that it was pliars, so I didn't shoot".
 
If I read the explanation of the "Tueller Drill" correctly it only bolsters what I have said. One thing though, I don't see where this "only applies to uniformed police officers carrying in duty holsters" would be a factor. Last time I looked the police use the same time and distance measurements as the rest of us. It stated that currently a civilian probably would have even a longer reaction time to recognize and counter a threat. My point exactly! In a "face to face" there is no time to pull and then hesitate to see if the threat goes away.
At the least I would say pull AND back off (retreat out of range of the knife, pliers, club,etc). If the threat advances on you, shoot. But once again, this requires NOT "toeing the line", "standing your ground" and all the other testosterone laden "opinions" I read on these boards.

Another choice would be to "pull" when the perceived threat is still far enough away to give one time to see if they back off. What would that distance be? It would depend on how much "decision time" one would need.
(I would think that 50-60 feet should be enough, but you might have a hard time convincing a judge that there was a threat at that range.:evil: )

I guess that my final "opinion" would be that if one is of such a temperament that they would argue to the point of weapons be displayed over something as mundane as a parking space, maybe they shouldn't be carrying "deadly force" in the first place.

Dean
 
Lost in the fray....

as to whether or not pulling a gun was justified under strict scrutiny is an important detail.

Someone used a gun and was arrested. So? That must be expected.

A newspaper has used the event to portray the legal gun packer as a criminal who overreacted. No news here either.

By now the guy may be out with all charges dismissed. We can expect the news services to ignore that fact.

My instructors have told me that someone using a gun can expect to be arrested. They will lose the gun for evidence. Don't tell nobody nothing until you talk to your lawyer.
 
Let's go back and read the original post that started this thread;

Beavercreek police call it a case of parking-lot rage.

Friday, Jason Wapler went to court on charges that he pointed a gun at a man outside the Fairfiield Commons Mall. The fight involved two men, two vehicles and a parking lot. Investigators said Wapler and a 54-year-old man began arguing, and the other man pulled out a pair of pliers. Police said Wapler had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and when his temper flared , he pulled out his gun and pointed it at the other man .

Now let's take a look at the CT statute I was refering to (see below). Read the section in red and tell me how you would defend yourself against an aggressive prosecutor who wants to know how a pair of pliers presented deadly force. Tell me how you would respond to a prosecutor who wants to know why you couldn't get away from a 54 year old guy, "why couldn't you move back - move away". And how would you respond to a prosecutor who wants to know if you believe that because you have a CCW you are justified in pulling a firearm on a relatively defenseless person. This is the kind of situation that make liberals froth at the mouth - get them all excited and demand that the right to bear arms be taken away. The long and the short of it was that Wapler was being a bone head and in MHO he deserved to be arrested.

The Connecticut statute entitled, ''Use of physical force in the defense of person,'' codified at Section 53a-19 (a) of the Penal Code, that insofar as is applicable to this case, provides as follows: ''[A] person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.''
 
Police said Wapler had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and when his temper flared , he pulled out his gun and pointed it at the other man .
Click to expand...

And the police have what evidence that his temper flared? Did temper flash red across his forehead? Where there witnesses that reported angry words or other such evidence that his "temper flared"? Just cause they said his temper flared doesn't make it true. I suppose feelings of anger could cause an irresponsible person to draw their gun. But so could feelings of fear of getting your block knocked off with the pair of Robogrip pliers the guy just pulled out of his pocket. Ever seen a pair of Robogrip pliers? Heavy buggers with fairly long handles. They would crack your skull quite easily. I just measured mine, 10" long, 4 layers of laminated steel for a total thickness of just shy of 1/2". And according to this site they 1.3lbs which feels about right. I don't wanna get whacked with them.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000302U2/103-5773359-5179840?v=glance&n=228013

Wether or not an object is a weapon is not as simple as a rulebook. A Q-tip is a weapon if I jam it in your eye. It's in the intent of the person who holds it. A cotton ball is a weapon if I stuff enough in your mouth and nose to suffocate you.
 
Tell me how you would respond to a prosecutor who wants to know why you couldn't get away from a 54 year old guy, "why couldn't you move back - move away".
Click to expand...
1) "I was backed against my car"
2) "I couldn't outrun him so standing my ground was a better option than giving him the back of my head as a target"
3)" His erratic actions took me by surprise so in a pressure situation I reverted to training"
4) He's a construction worker type of guy that would have pliers readily available and the mindset to pull them as a deadly weapon, I'm a fat desk jockey type of guy that sees a pair of pliers that are displayed as a deadly weapon a deadly weapon.
5) Which ever of those answers my lawyer advised me to use

A lot of weight has been out on the fact that the unnamed assailant was 54 as if that automatically makes him doddling and decrepit although no mention has been made as to Wapler's age.
My step father was almost 60 when he used a pair of pliers to put two much younger men in need of emergency medical attention

We can only speculate what type of pliers were used.
If they were in fact lineman pliers or channel lock or large vise grips they could very well have been used as deadly weapons to bludgeon Wapler.
 
"And the police have what evidence that his temper flared? Did temper flash red across his forehead?" If it was reported in the newspaper the guy writing the story probably got his information from the police department and those guys are trained in dealing with all sorts of situations and no doubt they interviewed witnesses. And where does the prosecutor get his information? The well trained and well regarded police force (who do you think the judge and jury is going to believe first)

What the prosecutor is going to focus in on is the word "reasonable" and "deadly" threat and no matter how we may cut it in this forum those guys are adept at convincing a jury. A temper and a gun is not a good mix and losing your CCW or your freedom over something stupid like this just doesn't make sense.
 
If the CHL holder doesn't plea bargain or waive his right to a trial by jury, the prosecution really has quite a challenge to get a guilty verdict from an Ohio jury.

Ohio law allows non-lethal force to be used in a wide variety of situations, even to protect property and non-lethal bodily harm. In addition, under Ohio law, drawing a gun (or otherwise threatening lethal force) is viewed as non-lethal force. Unless the trigger is pulled, using a gun to deter a crime is non-lethal force.

It was not stated explcitly, but most likely the charge is aggrevated menacing. If the CHL holder asserts that the gun was drawn in self-defense against bodily harm, an Ohio jury is likely to give the CHL holder the benefit of the doubt unless the prosecution can show that the gun was drawn in anger and that there was no reasonable fear of bodily harm.

In the two years of legalized CCW in Ohio, there have already been a number of overzealous prosecutions against CHL holders on aggrevated menacing charges for drawing in borderline circumstances where there was a reasonable fear of bodily harm but probably not great bodily harm or death. To my knowledge, there have not been any convictions yet in cases where the CHL holder did not plea bargain, insisted on a jury trial, and was not engaged in any activity that could be construed as criminal other than the act of drawing the gun against a perceived threat.

The bottom line is that most of Ohio is friendly to gun owners and it is hard to empanel a jury that will unanimously agree that drawing a gun to prevent a property crime or non-lethal bodily harm is an unreasonable use of force. Politically correct prosecutors will probably continue to pursue these kinds of cases for public relations purposes, but I'll be surprised if their conviction rate ever exceeds 5-10%.

Most Ohio juries are inclined to give an otherwise law-abiding gun owner the benefit of the doubt in circumstances where a gun is drawn but not fired unless the prosecution can show convincingly that the gun was drawn out of anger or criminal agression rather than a reasonable fear of a crime.

Michael Courtney
 
If it was reported in the newspaper the guy writing the story probably got his information from the police department and those guys are trained in dealing with all sorts of situations and no doubt they interviewed witnesses. And where does the prosecutor get his information? The well trained and well regarded police force (who do you think the judge and jury is going to believe first)
Click to expand...

That's hearsay and useless in court. They have to have signed affidavits from witnesses or put their butts on the stand. If I am on a jury and anyone says that someone else said something I don't accept it. I don't care if the second hand info is coming from an LEO or not. It's still second hand and hearsay. I want a firsthand account. Any defense lawyer who allows a second hand account needs to be fired. If there were several firsthand accounts from witnesses that the gun was pulled cause he was angry and not cause of a threat I am much more inclined to say the CCW holder was in the wrong.
 
drawing a gun (or otherwise threatening lethal force) is viewed as non-lethal force. Unless the trigger is pulled, using a gun to deter a crime is non-lethal force.
Click to expand...
??????

Let me get this straight, pulling a gun is non-lethal force. Non-lethal force can be used to protect property or deter other non-lethal threats. Only pulling the trigger turns it into lethal force.
OK, that should mean that even if the other guy has a gun, he's not using lethal force on you until he pulls his trigger.(thereby allowing you to use lethal force in return). :evil:

Comment on what is "reasonable".
A 6'4", 250 lb, tattooed biker type is screaming at me about taking his parking space. No weapon of any type showing (other than his size and apparent temper) I'm a arthritic little old man. Is it "reasonable" for me to fear bodily harm and pull on him?
Some would say no, it's not reasonable unless he advances on me. Others would say that the "perceived" threat is enough. I guess this is what juries are for. (or hospitals.:( )

Dean
 
Let me get this straight, pulling a gun is non-lethal force. Non-lethal force can be used to protect property or deter other non-lethal threats. Only pulling the trigger turns it into lethal force.
Click to expand...

There is a wide variation in different state laws on this point. In Ohio, the act of drawing a gun and pointing it at someone is considered a threat of lethal force, but falls short of being lethal force. The charge is usually aggrevated menacing.

However, since reasonable non-lethal force is allowed under Ohio law to protect property and non-lethal bodily harm, the question comes down to whether the jury views drawing the gun as reasonable under the totality of circumstances. If the citizen is law-abiding and the defense make a convincing case that a the citizen reasonably believed the action was necessary to prevent a crime, Ohio juries almost never convict of aggrevated menacing.

OK, that should mean that even if the other guy has a gun, he's not using lethal force on you until he pulls his trigger.(thereby allowing you to use lethal force in return).
Click to expand...

Most state laws only require a self-defense actor to have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to use deadly force in self-defense. Therefore, if a gun is pointed at an honest citizen during the commission of a crime, odds are pretty good that this threat of deadly force satisfies the self-defense criteria and that the honest citizen can respond with deadly force. An honest citizen only needs a criminal to pull a gun to satisfy the criteria of ability, opportunity, and intent.

A 6'4", 250 lb, tattooed biker type is screaming at me about taking his parking space. No weapon of any type showing (other than his size and apparent temper) I'm a arthritic little old man. Is it "reasonable" for me to fear bodily harm and pull on him?
Some would say no, it's not reasonable unless he advances on me. Others would say that the "perceived" threat is enough. I guess this is what juries are for.
Click to expand...

This is indeed a question for a jury. If you've got witnesses that the biker type was behaving in a threatening manner and that you only drew the gun to provide an opportunity to escape and evade (which you subsequently did), then your chances with a jury are pretty good in most jurisdictions in Ohio. On the other hand, if instead of retreating, you draw the gun and proceed to yell, scream, curse, and make violent threats, you will probably be found guilty of aggrevated menacing (as well you should be).

Michael Courtney
 
Michael,
I agree with your points. However, the point I was trying to make is that "perception is reality". If I, not "witnesses", perceive a threat, it is very real to me regardless what they say. Is this "reasonable" or not? His actions may not seem threatening to another 6'4" biker-type, but to me...............

This may be paranoid, but its life.

Dean
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Ohio CCW holder charged
Replies
19
Views
1K
Michael Courtney
M
P
  • Locked
Man released after killing two robbers
Replies
4
Views
451
Standing Wolf
S
atek3
  • Locked
Fellow Gunnie in PA getting railroaded on gun charges
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
NineseveN
N
H
  • Locked
More Positive Press on CCW Use in SW Ohio (Dayton)
Replies
13
Views
516
eagle45
E
S
  • Locked
Man In Standoff After Putting Bullet In Shop's Gun
Replies
7
Views
782
Stickjockey
S
Back
Top