Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Please please please.. don't do this. THINK before you act.

Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics and Training' started by Deaf Smith, May 16, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,017
  2. Acera

    Acera Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,169
    Location:
    Free State of Texas
  3. strambo

    strambo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,930
    Location:
    Oregon
    So, the Uber driver was pointing the gun to his own head so the passenger could get a picture? :confused: This whole thing is a grade A cluster. Yeah, Ranger Joe definitely should have just watched and let Darwin take care of the situation...I think it was the Uber driver's destiny to be shot, Beatty didn't need to be the instrument fulfilling it.
     
  4. Rexster

    Rexster Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,050
    Location:
    SE Texas
    Well, the ex-Specialist certainly deserves a Gold Medal, in the sport of Jumping To Conclusions.

    The application of lethal force is a most-extreme option, to be used only in the gravest of extremes, to borrow some words from Massad Ayoob. Moreover, it is an OPTION, not a mandate.

    Whether any REASONABLENESS can be found in the ex-Specialist's actions remains to be seen. That is why we have grand juries and District Courts. The best I can say, at this point in time, in the ex-Specialist's favor, is that it appears that the Uber driver and passenger were, themselves, apparently exhibiting considerable stupidity, and committing criminal acts. The passenger, if licensed to carry, had the legal responsibility to keep the handgun concealed from public view, unless carried openly in a proper holster. The Uber driver, if the law were to see him as being in possession of the handgun, needed no license, as he was within his vehicle, but, then, he too would have the legal responsibility to keep the weapon concealed from public view. Obviously, they failed the part about being within public view.

    Sigh.

    I am not a lawyer. I do wear a PD badge. These factors mean that nothing I say is "legal advice."
     
  5. hdwhit
    • Contributing Member

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    3,183
    Location:
    Frisco, TX
    The DMN article says, "The man told Aloosi that it was a handgun, and the driver asked to see it so he could take a picture with it, according to an arrest warrant affidavit. ... Aloosi's passenger released the magazine from the handgun and handed him the weapon, police said. The driver held the gun against the right side of his own face when multiple shots were fired into the car..."

    Well, since there's no mention of the passenger taking the picture, it sounds to me more like Aloosi was holding it up to his own face for a selfie.
     
  6. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    667
  7. strambo

    strambo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,930
    Location:
    Oregon
    Hmm, looking in from the passenger's side, dimwit driver holding the gun to his own face would look exactly like the passenger was doing it as the view of their arms would be shielded by the passenger's torso. So, it probably would look exactly like a car jacking with imminent threat of grave bodily harm to the driver.

    That is a different picture than 2 people examining a gun on their lap.

    Not saying he made the right call (obviously not, for multiple reasons), but it appears he did see a gun pointed to the driver's head and reacted (in a less than ideal way...)
     
  8. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,682
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    Doesn't change the fact that he made a stupid decision to try to engage someone who was in an automobile, surrounded by steel of various thicknesses and tempered auto glass with a handgun. Even if it had been a carjacking, the chances of successfully stopping a car jacking by opening up on the vehicle with a fusillade of 10 rounds from a handgun are very low. A probable outcome would be to startle the carjacker who then reflexively shoots the victim you are trying to save. Another outcome that's highly likely is the one that happened, the "victim" was shot.

    Even if the decision to intervene had been justified by an actual crime being committed, the means that were used to attempt the thwart the crime were inappropriate.
     
    Rexster and fastbolt like this.
  9. strambo

    strambo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,930
    Location:
    Oregon
    Totally agree. Just commenting on the new information about the gun to the face. I think in light of the new info, it is certainly reasonable that anyone in his shoes would believe a crime was being committed and the driver was in grave danger (ironically, he was through his own miss-use of a firearm). Really poor choice on what to do about it though. A good lawyer should have a lot to work with for a plea deal I would think. He has to live with it.
     
  10. Acera

    Acera Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,169
    Location:
    Free State of Texas
    One other thing to think about, the victim (Uber driver) will probably lose his gig because of this. Uber hates guns.

    https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/



    .
     
  11. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    And it is troublesome that there are people here that believe this was a reasonable action. The shooter didnt identify his target.He saw a gun. That's all. Identifying your target requires more context, more information, than seeing a gun. To me, this was a major failure.
     
  12. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    A sense of moral obligation is not without responsibility or consequences.

    A sense of moral obligation also applies to the person who calls 911, or creates a distraction for example. Certainly it's not attached to a firearm and we should, IMO, try to separate 'helping people' from doing so with a specific tool. Every scenario is different...but it calls into mind "If a hammer is your only tool, every problem looks like a nail."

    I do agree with you that it's certainly not simple when confronted with such a scenario.
     
  13. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    667
    Well, a couple of more details only have come out. But it is apparent that what he believed was a robbery, carjacking whatever was what he perceived in the moment. There are many unanswered questions here though..
     
  14. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,017
    That won't help him. He acted without sufficient knowledge of what was happening and of what had happened beforehand.
     
    9MMare likes this.
  15. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,682
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    It's purely speculation on my part, but I'm going to guess that a big part of his defense is going to revolve around his combat experience, PTSD and the fact that the Uber driver was of Iraqi descent.

    I doubt many of the issues that we are discussing will come up in court. And that's a shame, because the issue needs to be a completely inappropriate response to a perceived (wrongly) situation.
     
  16. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,796
    Location:
    DFW Area
    That's only half of it. Let's say there really had been a carjacking taking place and every single bit of information he thought was true, really was true.

    The outcome would have still been totally unacceptable since he shot the guy he was trying to protect and missed the guy he thought was the threat.
     
    9MMare likes this.
  17. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    667
    Well I don't think he was gunning for the driver. My impression, based purely on the info available, is that he perceived the passenger had a gun to the face of the driver.

    One point uncommented about so far is that the passenger was shirtless. Now, I am not of the mindset that being shirtless anywhere in a city environment means you are a criminal, however, I have to say that generally when I see shirtless people walking around in a city environment (and I live in Houston), they are generally not your average Joe, and appear as social outcasts.
     
  18. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,796
    Location:
    DFW Area
    It is certainly true that we need to be aware of both how others are likely to perceive us and how our perceptions affect our decision making/situational assessment processes.

    For example, one reason (though not the most important reason by far) that I strongly believe that people should carry in a quality holster is because it is vanishingly rare for criminals to carry using a holster. The average joe on the street might not fully realize that, but cops do. If someone is accidentally treated to a glimpse of your carry gun, a gun stuffed in a waistband will leave them with a very different impression/perception than one carried in a holster.
     
    fastbolt likes this.
  19. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,682
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    I didn't mean to imply he was gunning for the driver, I was saying that given his service in the Middle East that the defense will likely bring up the fact that the driver was of Iraqi descent.

    The issue is the fact that he chose to intervene in a situation that wasn't what he thought it was and the method he chose to 'stop' the crime he thought he was witnessing was completely inappropriate had the situation actually been a car jacking.
     
    RPZ likes this.
  20. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,017
    That hits the nail on the head.

    I don't see any way for the defendant to mount a defense of justification that would be likely to succeed. I would imagine that the defense attorneys are hoping for some kind of plea bargain.
     
  21. Rexster

    Rexster Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,050
    Location:
    SE Texas
    Was the passenger shirtless at the time of the shooting, or was his shirt taken into evidence, to be checked for gunshot residue, rendering him shirtless for the media video?
     
  22. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    667
    If you watch the video he was shirtless. Generally, you don't have your shirt removed and then get cuffed at a crime scene. You get cuffed first, and if they want your shirt they take it later.
     
  23. Rexster

    Rexster Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,050
    Location:
    SE Texas
    Yes, he would have been handcuffed quickly, and the shirt removed later. If so, after the shirt was removed, the cuffs would have been immediately re-applied. The video of the shirtless passenger appears to have been shot well after everything was under control. (Look at the expressions on the faces.) We cannot see the passenger's hands, in the video, but they are probably bagged, pending being checked for residue, unless that has been done already.

    I am no expert of any kind, and do not play a big-city cop on TV, but have worn a big-city PD badge for 33+ years, so at a similar scene fours hours' drive south of DFW, I would be one of the "they" mentioned in your reply. ;)
     
  24. hdwhit
    • Contributing Member

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    3,183
    Location:
    Frisco, TX
    But in that scenario you don't ask the question, "What happens if I shoot?" but rather the question, "What happens if I don't shoot?"

    And if the shooter had, in this case, paused just long enough to do that and consider the implications of the decision, the movements of the people in the car would have been inconsistent with a highjacking and everyone would have gone on to live their lives as if this had not happened - because it wouldn''t have happened.
     
  25. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    667
    In this case, on the face of the information presented, he saw an unshirted guy in the passenger seat with a pistol to the head of the driver.

    In the area I work there has been two bad guys robbing people at gunpoint on the street. After they have got their wallets, purses, phones whatever - they've been shooting them. One guy was made to kneel down, and they put a bullet through his brain.

    On the basic level of legal justification, a gun to your head - or someone else's - is definitely sound grounds for instant deadly force.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page