Real Life Shooting Scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
14,613
Location
Texas
How many stupid moves can you spot by all participants?

Charles Keitt decided he needed some new windshield wipers. So with two of his friends, he drove by the home of Bennie Peterson with plans of "salvaging" the windshield wipers of Peterson's wrecked car.

Peterson caught him in the act of doing this and some harsh words were exchanged. Peterson went back inside the house, grabbed a pistol and returned to the yard. During this time, Keitt and his two buddies had gotten back into their car and were getting ready to leave.

Coming outside into the yard with an unloaded revolver, Peterson stopped to load the gun while yelling "If you move I will shoot!". He then walked up to just inside his own gate and said "If you come in here I will kill you!" even though Keitt was still sitting in his car and had made no attempt to exit the vehicle.

At this point, Keitt decides to exit the vehicle. He took a few steps towards Peterson and said "What in the hell do you think you are going to do with that?" Keitt then turned around and began to retrieve a lug wrench from his car. With the wrench raised above his head, Keitt began to advance on Peterson. Peterson warned Keitt not to take another step. When Keitt continued to advance, Peterson shot him in the face from a distance of ten feet immediately halting the attack.

Two questions:
1) Justifiable self-defense or not?
2) How many stupid tactical decisions can you count in this scenario?
 
I don't know.

Sounds to me like Thief #1 goes to the morge while Hotheaded moronic murderer #1 goes to jail.

Win/Win situation in my book. :evil:

BTW....I am only kidding. Mostly.

I.G.B.
 
Justifiable? No. Peterson deliberately continued and escalated the situation after Keitt was leaving the scene. Oops.

How many stupid tactical decisions? Let's count:
1 - Keitt decides to steal windshield wipers from Peterson.
2 - Keitt decides to steal windshield wipers from Peterson. I mean come on, just how white trash can you get?
3 - Peterson catches Keitt in the aforementioned act of larceny, and decides to confront him over a $10 property crime.
4 - Harsh words exchanged over a set of used wiper blades. I think this counts as a seperate stupid decision.
5 - Peterson leaves the scene and comes back with his gun, instead of calling the fuzz.
6 - Gun is unloaded.
7 - Keitt, who was apparently leaving, decides to remain at the scene. Turns out to be one of the more fatal decisions of his life.
8 - Peterson shouts threats, doubtless accompanied by brandishing of his now-loaded firearm (was it an RG, by any chance?)
9 - Keitt decides to confront a gun with a lug wrench.
10 - Peterson decides not to retreat, despite apparently having every opportunity to do so.
11 - Peterson waits until an escalating threat is ten feet away before shooting.

I make it eleven, which is not bad, though probably not a record. could be a few less or a few more, depending on your interpretation.

Any chance that demon rum was involved in this situation? Meth? Abject stupidity certainly was in evidence...

- Chris
 
I disagree. I think it was an _unnecessary_ shoot, but not an illegal one.

Confronting a criminal is not escalating.

Telling the criminal not to move isn't escalating, it's putting someone under arrest... a power that private citizens have, even if it isn't used very often.

Telling the criminal NOT to come onto your property as he is leaving is not escalating... it's telling him to do what he's already doing.

Nothing Peterson did gave Keitt the right to advance on him with a tire iron.
Peterson had every right to confront a criminal in his own yard, and had every right to be armed while doing so.
 
He then walked up to just inside his own gate
Click to expand...
He should have stood farther back so the criminal couldn't use his weapon.

I think it was an illegal shoot. Even if he didn't have a duty to retreat, he did retreat and the crime was over when he returned.
 
Some idiots are smart enough to know they are stupid. Sounds like this shooter wasn't one of them.

I'd have let them take the wipers. What would those be worth exactly? A person's life? Nooooo, not even a single penny. True that they should have asked for them but still not worth getting that worked up over. The guy wouldn't fair well with me on his jury.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Keitt then turned around and began to retrieve a lug wrench from his car. With the wrench raised above his head, Keitt began to advance on Peterson. Peterson warned Keitt not to take another step. When Keitt continued to advance, Peterson shot him in the face from a distance of ten feet immediately halting the attack.

Two questions:
1) Justifiable self-defense or not?
Click to expand...

The facts quoted above make it a justifiable shooting. Peterson was acting reasonably in response to the very real and apparently reasonable threat of serious bodily harm, i.e., he was justified in shooting to prevent his attacker from bashing his head in with the raised wrench, which a reasonable person in his position would expect to be the likely result if he had not fired. He also gave a verbal warning to halt before shooting, which helps his case as it tends to show that he was merely trying to stop the attack.

Peterson was certainly stupid to confront and threaten Keitt. He may be charged with assault or other offenses for his actions that led up to the shooting, but the fact that he acted poorly prior to the shooting does not eliminate his legal right to protect himself when he reasonably fears imminent bodily harm.

The only thing that might change my analysis is the physical layout. If the "gate" was large and secure enough that no Peterson could have retreated to a safe distance behind it (out of range of a handheld weapon), and a reasonable person would not have believed there was an imminent threat of serious bodily harm at that point, then the shooting might not have been justified. As in all cases, it is a fact-intensive inquiry.
 
Even if he didn't have a duty to retreat, he did retreat and the crime was over when he returned.
Click to expand...

I agree that the crime was over when he returned. Thus the second part of the scenario must be analyzed separately.

Citizen sees some menacing people on the street outside his house and goes out to see what is going on, bringing his firearm - legal to here

Citizen feels threatened and tells them to go away or he'll shoot - legal to here (although if he had shot at this point, the shooting would turn on whether a "reasonable person" would feel threatened)

Citizen continues to feel threatened and tells them if they come closer he wil shoot - legal to here

Criminal grabs a lug wrench and advances on citizen - illegal act on part of criminal (probably a charge of assault or menacing)

Citizen feels threatened and shoots criminal - legal if there is no duty to retreat (although legality would turn on whether a reasonable person would feel threatened - probably yes). If there is a duty to retreat, illegal.

This scenario presents exactly the type of situation the new Florida law was written for. Legal firearm holder feels his life is threatened, and shoots person who is threatening. Legal shoot as long as jury agrees person was threatened.

I do agree that the shooting is stupid, unnecessary, and could have EASILY been avoided.
 
1. Unjustified use of force. Peterson after deciding to go back in the house, should have stayed there and called he cops.

2. Stupid Actions almost too many to list;
Peterson; confronting two bad guys unarmed, coming back out, coming back out with an unloaded gun, threatening with an unloaed gun, instigating a new confrontation with a retreating thief, not retreating, shooting another man over a $10.00 pair of wipers.

Keitt; Not spending $10.00 on wipers, tesspassing, theft of property, arguing with the homeowner, not driving away, getting out of the car, confronting a gun with a lug wrench, ignoring warnings, not getting back into car, not driving away, being too stupid to be allowed to breed, getting shot over wiper blades.

To better understand why it is unjustified, you need to realize that this is actually two incidents.

If Peterson had been armed on the initial confrontation, and Keitt had raised the lug wrench, he probably would have been justified. That event ended when Peterson went in his house. He was no longer in peril until he went back outside. He initiated the second confrontation with a person who was retreating. That makes him responsible for the outcome. He dliberately and recklessly placed himself in peril over property. Bad ecision.
 
Some of y'all amaze me. You get all hot and bothered about our RKBA, but not our rights to free speech and rights to defending our property and ourselves.

So what if the moronic homeowner escalated the situation? If he did not do so illegally and the other guy attempted to attack him with a tire iron, the shooting was justified.

The notion that when he went back into his house for his gun that he should have just stayed there is correct. He SHOULD have stayed there, but was he legally obligated to do so? No, or at least No in many states.

I am not completely clear on whether he actually had the right to stop the suspects if they were not actually making off with any of his property. Certainly if they were, he has the right to stop them and to hold them for the police. If the suspects were not making off with his property, then the homeowner may not have had the right to stop the suspects at that point and so the suspect with the tire iron was acting in self defense as he stupidly approached the armed homeowner in his attempt to stop the homeowner from making good on his threats to shoot them if they attempted to flee.
 
WARNING - Spoilers Ahead

Peterson was convicted of manslaughter and appealed all the way to the federal circuit court - losing every single appeal along the way.

Key factors in Peterson's conviction:

1) Like many here noted, these were seen by the court as two separate incidents. The first one started by Keitt; but the second one started by Peterson. Peterson's decision to return to the house and then pursue someone who was retreating but him in a very bad spot with the jury. His decision to tell Keitt not to come into the yard while Keitt was sitting in his car was seen as a challenge rather than a warning.

2) Peterson was the first to display a weapon and this was deemed disproportional force for stopping the henious crime of windshield wiper theft. Because Peterson introduced lethal force into the scenario before there was any justification for it, he was held responsible for escalating it.

3) At the time this shooting happened, there was no clear doctrine on duty to retreat in the jurisdiction. The jury was instructed that they could decide that Peterson's failure to retreat, if he could do so safely, contributed to the problem. They apparently decided that failure to retreat played a role.
 
my jury vote

would have probably depended on if Keitt was leaving with or without the wipers.
it bothers me that some are concerned about the cost of wipers ($10),
what if you only make $10 a week? a $100? at what point is it no longer ok to roll over for criminals? we have had that discussion before and i still maintain that the $value of stolen property is not the issue.
 
What is it about stealing that people do not realize? Doesn't matter whether it is a nickel gumball or a porsche. It is stealing if you take something that is not yours. When you were growing up did your parents or preacher set a monetary value on things to steal? I mean what do you think the cutoff point is? For me personally, whatever is mine, stays mine. I will use whatever means necessary to protect it. Be it a can of pop, my wife, my truck, my personal posessions.
 
Kihn, c'mon now. You don't kill someone over a windshield wiper. Or soda, or other mundane crap.

Ya call the cops over that garbage. If they try and hit you over the head with something however before they get there...well...
 
I'm with Kihn on this. A thief is a thief, be it .35 or 3500.00, it's mine and unless I give you permission to take/use it, you're stealing.
I'm pretty certain that if property owners defended their goods with "whatever means necessary", stealing would almost come to a stop.

I'm not sure how the value of the item should be a defining factor in how much force should be justifiably used. How would you rate it?
-Less than 1.00 gets the thief a justified poke in the eye, while an item with a value of more than 1.01 but not greater than 10.00 legally calls for a fat-lip, but no more than 2 missing teeth?

I can see the legal leeches arguing over retail and wholesale pricing, factoring in depreciation and inflation.

Would I have shot him over a pair of winshield wipers? No! But I certainly would have made absolutely sure he didn't leave with my wipers or his pride.
 
I disagree that it's wrong to shoot over small thefts. The thief made the decision of what his life is worth, not the shooter. But like I said I agree with the conviction. The shooter went back out not to protect his property or his life, but because he was angry. That's a line that can't be crossed.
 
Well, you guys are entitled to do whatever you think is right. If you shoot somebody in the manner described above though, plan on a manslaughter conviction, a civil suit judgment against you that will take most of your personal and real property, and losing the right to ever own a firearm again.
 
Well, if you restart a confrontation that has ended or if you go out there threatening deadly force BEFORE there are circumstances to justify it, you are going to be convicted of manslaughter if you exercise that so-called "right".
 
Thanks for the discussion, Mr. Roberts. It's been very informative. We may not all agree with the decisions of the prosecutor, judges and jury in this case, but we would be wise to keep them in mind.
 
Some of y'all amaze me. You get all hot and bothered about our RKBA, but not our rights to free speech and rights to defending our property and ourselves.
Click to expand...

Many have expressed a similar sentiment. What you are missing is an understanding of the law. This should be crystal clear in your mind before you even think of picking up a weapon. You will not be held accountable to your personal standard of conduct. You will be held accountable to the standard of the law in your community, whether you agree with it or not, whether you understand it or not. My opinion is based on an understanding of the law that will determine where I live after a shoot.

Most states;
Do not allow deadly force for protection of property.

Do not allow you to retreat and then re-engage.

Do not allow a defense if you instigated or aggravated the incident. You can't pick a fight and then claim self defense.

Many require retreat if possible.

Many reguire a surrender of property over lethal force.
 
And one of the more important points to be made here:

Bartholomew Roberts said:
if you go out there threatening deadly force BEFORE there are circumstances to justify it ...
Click to expand...

About as clear as it gets. I'm fairly sure most states laws will agree with this sentiment.

As they should.

-
 
If he had called the cops while inside and gone back out with his gun but had not shown it unless attacked, I think things would have gone very differently for him.

First of all it sounds like there would have been no attack.

Second, if there had been, he would have looked more like a victim than an antagonizer/challenger.

He was in the right all the way up until he started waving the gun around.

Had he been armed when he exited his house initially, he would probably also have escaped jail time in that any escalation could have been seen to be a continuation of the initial theft.

You're allowed to try to prevent theft of your property in TX, and if the situation escalates in the manner defined in the law, it's even possible to legally use deadly force in very specific instances with very carefully defined requirements met. What I'm saying is that it is POSSIBLE for an armed person to end up legally shooting someone over property in TX, but Peterson stepped over the line in a couple of ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Neo-Luddite
  • Locked
Drew Peterson's gun card revoked
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
Frog48
F
T
  • Locked
If you want to repo a car, get it right!
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Chrontius
C
B
  • Locked
Real Life Shooting Scenario IV
Replies
19
Views
1K
lbmii
L
B
  • Locked
Real Life Shooting Scenarios II
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
cookekdjr
C
W
  • Locked
Three Scenarios
Replies
18
Views
838
The Rabbi
T
Back
Top