Please please please.. don't do this. THINK before you act.
- Thread starter Deaf Smith
- Start date
- Status
I can not quote the statute here - in 10 years I still can't cut n paste with an android. However if I recall it correctly, a key word in the provision is if a person "believed" a robbery, rape, etc was presented.
I'm not going to rail about police shootings "gone wrong", however in the same context, how many times have we heard about police shooting unarmed people because they were " reaching for something " (reaching for what?? Their wallet??), or ".. I saw a shiny object " etc. In all cases their "justification" has been to say the officer "believed" there was an imminent threat to their life based on that premise of "belief".
In this particular case there really is not enough information to get a really accurate breakdown of the timeline, exactly, if anything what may have been spoken by any parties involved immediately before bullets were flying. Exact distances and precisely how much of the inside of the car was visible to the intervener. Etc.
A questionable shoot, as far as questions remain unanswered. But I have seen equally questionable judgment, and far worse, get by with no charges filed. One of them the PO(s) incident I posted earlier being a most blatant example.
It will be interesting to see where this one goes, and how much more information surfaces.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Civil cases often divide fault among the parties when mistakes have been made by more than one person.
How about the guy in the car who had his gun out in his hand in a Uber car on a public street showing it to the Uber driver (at the driver's request)?
Were either of those two aware of how that would look to a passerby?
A lot of ill-advised thoughtlessness going on there.
When you are carrying, your gun stays in the holster except in grave extreme life-or-death circumstances. I never tell anyone I am carrying and would not do a show-and-tell with my gun outside my home or a shooting range or other venue where display of firearms is accepted.
How about the guy in the car who had his gun out in his hand in a Uber car on a public street showing it to the Uber driver (at the driver's request)?
Were either of those two aware of how that would look to a passerby?
A lot of ill-advised thoughtlessness going on there.
When you are carrying, your gun stays in the holster except in grave extreme life-or-death circumstances. I never tell anyone I am carrying and would not do a show-and-tell with my gun outside my home or a shooting range or other venue where display of firearms is accepted.
Sistema1927
Member
Strange, strange case.
So the Uber driver asks his passenger if he can see his gun, and the passenger then unholsters said gun, and the way that the passenger is holding the gun makes a bystander think that the driver is being robbed, which leads to the bystander shooting the passenger. I think that I read that correctly.
If so, then why would the Uber driver want to see the guy's gun? Why would the passenger comply with this request? Why would the passenger present the weapon in a fashion that gives the wrong impression? Why shoot 10 times?
It seems to me that this tragedy could have been averted at many points.
So the Uber driver asks his passenger if he can see his gun, and the passenger then unholsters said gun, and the way that the passenger is holding the gun makes a bystander think that the driver is being robbed, which leads to the bystander shooting the passenger. I think that I read that correctly.
If so, then why would the Uber driver want to see the guy's gun? Why would the passenger comply with this request? Why would the passenger present the weapon in a fashion that gives the wrong impression? Why shoot 10 times?
It seems to me that this tragedy could have been averted at many points.
Acera
Member
Just hope the shooter was not looking for a reason to pad his resume. Something to make his employer, students and prospective clients view him as someone who has been there done that type of thing.
Reminds me to keep my head on a swivel anytime I am doing something with a firearm in public, like selling or purchasing a gun in a parking lot etc. I've always been keen on who was nearby and tried to make sure that only me and the other person involved could see the items, this just reinforces my belief that this is the way to do business.
.
Reminds me to keep my head on a swivel anytime I am doing something with a firearm in public, like selling or purchasing a gun in a parking lot etc. I've always been keen on who was nearby and tried to make sure that only me and the other person involved could see the items, this just reinforces my belief that this is the way to do business.
.
Good cautionary tale.
One thing to keep in mind, we get to have 20/20 hindsight (what if this news story just said the details about what the 2 people were doing with the gun in the car are undetermined, police declined to comment?). In that moment just before 1am with a sketchy dude w/o a shirt on in a clean looking car holding a gun with the presumably normal dressed Uber driver, I bet anyone of us would have been sure it was an armed robbery/car jacking in progress.
So, the question is what would you do about a car/jacking armed robbery in progress at 1am that you observe? I think with no shots fired, 2 males in the car, move to cover with a good angle on who you think is the bad guy, maybe a stealth draw holding the gun out of sight, call 911 observe and report. Female or kid in the car definitely changes things....or does it?
Anyway, please don't underestimate how hard it is to make quick decisions under adrenaline when you think you are in, or observing, a violent situation...
One thing to keep in mind, we get to have 20/20 hindsight (what if this news story just said the details about what the 2 people were doing with the gun in the car are undetermined, police declined to comment?). In that moment just before 1am with a sketchy dude w/o a shirt on in a clean looking car holding a gun with the presumably normal dressed Uber driver, I bet anyone of us would have been sure it was an armed robbery/car jacking in progress.
So, the question is what would you do about a car/jacking armed robbery in progress at 1am that you observe? I think with no shots fired, 2 males in the car, move to cover with a good angle on who you think is the bad guy, maybe a stealth draw holding the gun out of sight, call 911 observe and report. Female or kid in the car definitely changes things....or does it?
Anyway, please don't underestimate how hard it is to make quick decisions under adrenaline when you think you are in, or observing, a violent situation...
Why? Might an undercover officer not appear as a "sketchy dude"? Might that "normal dressed" driver not have been a criminal suspect? Does the time of day or night establish the event as a crime, and not an arrest?
Sure, all those things could be true...but they are all very long shots (so is what actually was the case, how random was that?). Robberies and car jacking happen way more often and we see way more news stories about them and it is what we train and are preparing for. I'm just being realistic that most of us would see the scene as described and think car-jacking/robbery not undercover cop. Especially with the surprise and split-second nature of it plus adrenaline.
Anyway, the big question isn't what you "think" it is (because we can all play the hypothetical game ad-nausia), but what is your approach to handling what you think could be a violent crime against a 3rd party (but might not be) in that moment? I think we can all agree 10 rounds into the car with whom we think is the victim as a backstop...probably not a good idea.
Hanzo581
Member
It was the driver in the front seat that was hit, not the bystanders target.
We see similar accounts here often enough to make us well aware of the risk, and to make us realize that appearances can be very deceiving.
Civilians who "train" and "prepare" should be extremely reluctant to act on assumptions about what they think they are observing.
Maybe. Sure, it magic look like that. That's not enough to make intervention prudent, by any means. There's the old "first, do no harm" rule. And causing an arrest to go south would constitute doing harm, even if no one gets shot.
Not a good time to play with guns.
Get to safety and call 911. Take video, if it cane be done safely.
That is an understatement.
Ghost In The Fog
Member
Think about it for just a minute...
Just before 1 a.m.? If you are walking down the street at 1 a.m. and are able to see into a parked car clearly enough to see the occupants AND a handgun..... it would also seem reasonable that you would also be able to see what was being done with the gun. This guy had to have a clear view of the occupants and the gun.
Dark outside and light in the car. I see you, you can't see me all that well, if at all.
I mean couldn't you see the way the gun was presented and how the two people were acting? All it would take is a good, clear initial look to see body language and then take the time to truly evaluate before acting.
If I were to show my gun to someone in my car in the middle of the night (no, not happening) I would not be pointing it at my buddies/passenger/driver head or otherwise threatening manor. We all look at each others guns, when was the last time you said "Stick 'em up!" and pointed their gun at them while checking it out just for fun? That answer better be NEVER!
Limited facts in the story, but the way I see it, and I am only speaking for me and my perspective- not the shooters or anyone else here, he didn't have nearly enough information or training for what he did. Army or not, look at that shot pattern. He was standing outside of a car that had lights of some kind on and he was in the dark. Wouldn't that be like shooting fish in a barrel? I get the deflection of the bullets after hitting the car, but look at that shot pattern. Talk about broad side of a barn. Something is not right. Obviously.
@Sistema1927 and @Acera both have very valid points. A lot of you do, but I personally don't care about the legal part of this story as much as I do about what really happened.
Just before 1 a.m.? If you are walking down the street at 1 a.m. and are able to see into a parked car clearly enough to see the occupants AND a handgun..... it would also seem reasonable that you would also be able to see what was being done with the gun. This guy had to have a clear view of the occupants and the gun.
Dark outside and light in the car. I see you, you can't see me all that well, if at all.
I mean couldn't you see the way the gun was presented and how the two people were acting? All it would take is a good, clear initial look to see body language and then take the time to truly evaluate before acting.
If I were to show my gun to someone in my car in the middle of the night (no, not happening) I would not be pointing it at my buddies/passenger/driver head or otherwise threatening manor. We all look at each others guns, when was the last time you said "Stick 'em up!" and pointed their gun at them while checking it out just for fun? That answer better be NEVER!
Limited facts in the story, but the way I see it, and I am only speaking for me and my perspective- not the shooters or anyone else here, he didn't have nearly enough information or training for what he did. Army or not, look at that shot pattern. He was standing outside of a car that had lights of some kind on and he was in the dark. Wouldn't that be like shooting fish in a barrel? I get the deflection of the bullets after hitting the car, but look at that shot pattern. Talk about broad side of a barn. Something is not right. Obviously.
@Sistema1927 and @Acera both have very valid points. A lot of you do, but I personally don't care about the legal part of this story as much as I do about what really happened.
Pull out my phone and call 911.
No it doesn't! I am retired. I no longer have any duty to act. I spent enough time working patrol to learn that situations are seldom as reported and very often not what they appear to be. Any police officer who spent any time working patrol can relate a lot of stories of incidents that were reported as serious crimes and turned out to be unfounded.
I train to act if I am the victim of a robbery or carjacking, not any third party.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. My comments are more for the benefit of members who may not have ever done any force on force training or been in high-stress situations. Decision making under stress is very difficult and people often don't react in ambiguous, potentially violent situations, they way they think they would relaxed behind a keyboard. I see it all the time in FoF and that is not even near the stress of a real situation.
I doubt there will be anything more on this in the media. The police will finish their investigation and turn over their report to the prosecutor's office. Knowing that he would have to explain how a former Army Ranger now working as a security consultant so badly mis-read the situation that he thought deadly force was required and then when applying it managed to hit everything EXCEPT his target, Mr. Beaty's attorney will sit down with the prosecutor and a plea bargain will be struck. As I see it, the only question still up in the air is whether his attorney manages to get the charge dropped down from a felony or if the guy is going to have to look for a new line of work.
If you're really interested in following the case, set a reminder to start searching the state court websites in a couple of months for the name of in a John Beaty and you'll eventually be able to find a copy of the disposition of the case.
Last edited:
No.
The term in Chapter 9, Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Texas Penal code is "reasonably believed", so it is not a question of what the shooter believed, but whether what he believed was reasonable under the circumstances and that's something that will be determined not by the shooter, but by the court in ascertaining whether the shooting was justified.
Very cautionary tale.
Deadly force should be applied when there is no reasonable alternative.
I previously posted about the odyssey of a friend who had what might be called a "good shoot" in that he had no real alternative than to use deadly force in the defense of his own life. The aftermath cost him thousands of dollars, his job, and nearly his marriage and family. Having actually lived through the process, his opinion was that after you pull the trigger the first time, you probably wouldn't do it a second time.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
My "something is wrong with this story" alarm is going off here.
1) Wow, worst grouping ever from the picture in the article.
2) An uber driver who asks to see his passengers gun? That's just odd by itself. Never mind that Uber banned guns for drivers and passengers, which just makes it more odd
3) The shooter decides to save the driver by shooting into the passenger door, which puts the driver in the background... and lo and behold rule now we know why "Know your target and what's behind it" is a fundamental rule of gun safety.
Yeah, I think there's more to this story/story subject to change.
Not to mention, anyone with TOPS access might want to look at the shooter and Trident. Just saying...
1) Wow, worst grouping ever from the picture in the article.
2) An uber driver who asks to see his passengers gun? That's just odd by itself. Never mind that Uber banned guns for drivers and passengers, which just makes it more odd
3) The shooter decides to save the driver by shooting into the passenger door, which puts the driver in the background... and lo and behold rule now we know why "Know your target and what's behind it" is a fundamental rule of gun safety.
Yeah, I think there's more to this story/story subject to change.
Not to mention, anyone with TOPS access might want to look at the shooter and Trident. Just saying...
fastbolt
Member
Damn, and damn ...
Fine, but first you have to properly identify whether there's a threat.
So, in this situation, apparently the "good Samaritan" (now suspect in a felony), thinking he was acting to protect an innocent third party, ended up shooting the man he mistakenly thought he was acting to "protect" as a third party?
Damn.
Fine, but first you have to properly identify whether there's a threat.
So, in this situation, apparently the "good Samaritan" (now suspect in a felony), thinking he was acting to protect an innocent third party, ended up shooting the man he mistakenly thought he was acting to "protect" as a third party?
Damn.
You have repositioned the order from one thing to another in one sentence.
It is what the person believed, preceded by the word reasonably. The word believed appears in this context over and over again in Chapter 9.
It is a prerequisite for every enumerated item where deadly force can be justifiable under Texas law. It is the same fundamental principle I was trained in during military law enforcement 40 years ago, the same when I sat the Ohio peace officer certification, and it is the same one as it applies to the private sector I have worked for the last 19 years.
To say that some unreasonably believed requires further examination of an incident on a case by case basis. In this case there is not enough information to make a judgment.
Right, and reasonable belief that a forcible felony is in progress is but one prerequisite for justification. Immediate necessity also enters the picture.
Yes, and there it gets tricky. Not only must there be a court finding, but a mere failure to convict does not mean that the court believed that the use of force was justified. Rather , it means that the court did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not justified. Big difference.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
The probelm with that attitude is you don't know who is "weak and defenseless" as a third party, you only know what you see. That guy you just saw draw a gun on someone else might be a cop, or they might be another CCW person. Heck, in this day and age granny that you see getting slapped around on the street might have a grow operation and ticked a buyer off. You just don't know.
Those who feel that "moral obligation" should simply sign up and become LEO's if they feel that strongly about it. If nothing else they'd at least have a descent legal backing that's not coming out of their pocket if they "guessed wrong".
I carry a gun in the off chance I might need it to defend me and mine. I'm the most courteous and generous guy you'd meet, I'll hold doors open for whoever might be before me or after and give you the shirt off my back. But in a third party domestic situation the only thing I'm doing is calling 911 unless things start to somehow directly affect me or mine.
If you feel the need to put yourself in that situation in every domestic disturbance you run across more power to you.
- Status
