Real Life Shooting Scenario

[gunsmith]

It's Texas justice

ianal
but from what I know of TX law you're allowed to shoot folks trying to steal your car, gotta love that law I wish it was legal everywhere.
2nd ...10 feet?! thats to close if someone came at me like that 21 ft is as close as they come b4 meeting Mr .40s&w or .357mag

 

[jpIII]

nice case

US v Peterson (483 F.2d 1222)

Interesting case.

One thing to note, is that it was in Washington DC.

As I read it, the court seems to have a problem with petterson "un-retreating" from the apparent safety of his home and becoming an aggressor of sorts.

Another thing to note, is that the distance of 10 ft combined with the weapon of a lug wrench did not seem to give the court any pause that it was imminent deadly force.

What if we apply Florida's new law (no duty to retreat)... any different outcome?

I'm not sure.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Also it was 1973, so different culture as well... I think that even if you apply Florida's "No retreat" law and modern outlooks to the situation, Peterson still goes to jail.

Peterson's big problem is that he got himself classified as the "aggressor" and a person who starts a confrontation is not entitled to claim self-defense unless they attempt to withdraw or give notice of withdrawal first.

Peterson managed to safely retreat and then came back out to confront somebody who was already leaving the scene. Not only did he confront him; but he confronted him with deadly force. I don't believe Florida allows use of deadly force over windshield wiper theft, so Peterson now has two strikes against him as an "aggressor".

Because he didn't attempt to withdraw from the conflict, he can't claim self-defense as justification. I think if Peterson had made any attempt to withdraw or had simply not produced the pistol until deadly force was appropriate, he would have stood a chance of claiming self-defense.

 

[Archangel]

Even if we apply Florida's new law, I think the outcome would still be the same.

Peterson got into a non-violent, albeit verbally heated, argument with Keitt et al. We was not in mortal danger, and was in fact able to leave unmollested.

It was Peterson who escalated it to a lethal force encounter. Not only that, he left to get the tools needed to escalate it, and then came back and did so.

Peterson took the time to load up his gun, and then advanced on Keitt ("He then walked up to just inside his own gate.")

Peterson made a statement that could definitely be taken as a threat. ("If you come in here I will kill you!")

Then, when Kiett came at him with a contact weapon, Peterson shot and killed him, despite (and I'm making an assumption here, based on the "just inside his own gate") there being a physical barrier between them.

Peterson's lucky he only got manslaughter. Hell, Kiett had a better case for self defense.

 

[Michael Courtney]

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

But many states do allow reasonable force for protection of property. Drawing a gun (by itself) is not using deadly force. It can be seen as preparing to use deadly force (if necessary) and as communicating the availability of deadly force in order to bring a criminal back into compliance with the law. Even firing a warning shot can be interpreted under many state laws as "reasonable" non-lethal force that can be used to prevent a property crime. Whether or not it is "reasonable" will depend on the totality of the circumstances.

I have legally used a warning shot on two occasions to prevent property crimes in the state of Ohio. On one occasion, I was hunting with a dog when I encountered some trespassers. The trespassers were on a ridge about 100' high and I was below with the dog. The trespassers became belligerent when I informed them where the property line was and asked that they leave. During this conversation, the dog climbed up toward the trespassers, at which time the trespassers threatened to throw the dog off of the cliff. I fired a warning shot into a tree which sent the trespassers scampering away at high speed.

On another occasion, we had some animal rights activists coming onto the property and opening gates in order to let our cattle out. I happened to walk outside and see a trespasser fiddling around near a gate a few hundred feet from my front door. There were cattle close enough to the gate that they would probably escape before I could get there and close the gate. Under Ohio law, the crime of opening a gate is relatively minor, and certainly does not justify deadly force. However, the potential for loss of property and danger to human life is considerable with 1200+ lb cattle wandering through the streets. I drew my gun and fired two warning shots into the ground to put a stop to the possibility of the gate being opened.

Had the animal rights activists stuck around to press charges regarding the warning shots, and a prosecutor secured an indictment, an Ohio jury would have decided whether or not the warning shots represented a reasonable use of force given the circumstances. I believe the warning shots were not only reasonable, they were the best course of action in the situation. Fortunately, I do not live in a state where drawing a pistol or even firing a warning shot is considered deadly force.

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

If reasonable force is allowed to protect property, then the laws of the state certainly do allow for re-engaging if necessary to apply whatever reasonable force is necessary to protect the threatened property.

Michael Courtney

 

[Jeeper]

If you cant get the people on this board to agree that it was reasonable to do so; What chance do you have of getting the public to think so?

 

[jpIII]

Devil's Advocate

Allow me to play Devil's advocate for a moment.

When Peterson came back out with the gun, he was merely going to assault the wiper swiper. Assault is perfectly justified in retrieving property. (please note the difference between assualt and battery)

It was then, during the assault and attempt to retreive his property, that he was presented with lethal force by an approaching aggressor. He had no duty to retreat and stood his ground and fired in self-defense.

Pick this one apart if you will.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Allow me to play Devil's advocate for a moment.

When Peterson came back out with the gun, he was merely going to assault the wiper swiper. Assault is perfectly justified in retrieving property. (please note the difference between assualt and battery)

It was then, during the assault and attempt to retreive his property, that he was presented with lethal force by an approaching aggressor. He had no duty to retreat and stood his ground and fired in self-defense.

Pick this one apart if you will.

If I were the prosecutor, I would argue that the fact Peterson obtained a gun prior to returning outside signalled he intended to provoke a situation where he could claim self-defense and that as a result he has no claim based on this.

I would argue Peterson obviously intended more than assault since he displayed the gun before any lethal threat developed and never attempted to exit his own gate or retreat once confronted.

By the way, if you guys think the result in this case was unjust, then wait until you see the one I have for next week.

 

[Michael Courtney]

If I were the prosecutor, I would argue that the fact Peterson obtained a gun prior to returning outside signalled he intended to provoke a situation where he could claim self-defense and that as a result he has no claim based on this.

As long as Peterson remained on his own property, the thief has a reasonable opportunity to retreat, and by remaining it is the thief rather than Peterson who is continuing to provoke the situation. In addition, Peterson went as far as his gate (still on his own property). The thief returned to his car to retrieve a tire iron and then advanced back onto Peterson's property in a threatening manner. A homeowner certainly has the right to advance to his property line while armed if necessary to protect his property. On the other hand, a thief advancing onto private property with a tire iron to threaten the homeowner has the right to take a bullet to the head.

I would argue Peterson obviously intended more than assault since he displayed the gun before any lethal threat developed and never attempted to exit his own gate or retreat once confronted.

Homeowners should have more latitude in displaying a gun on their own property to curtail criminal activities than the average citizen on the street.

By the way, if you guys think the result in this case was unjust, then wait until you see the one I have for next week.

I don't think that this case was necessarily unjust. It seems likely that Peterson verbally stated the intent to kill the thief rather than merely use his gun to detain the thief or disuade the thief from further criminal acts. Whereas all the acts that Peterson took with the gun could be viewed as legal and reasonable in the absence of specific verbal threats, the presence of specific verbal threats would tend to make it clear that Peterson's intent went beyond a homeowner simply defending his home and person. The jury was likely ale to weigh evidence regarding what was said that is unavailable here.

When people are acting so stupidly, there is also a high probability of alcohol or drug involvement which would also sway a jury's opinion on the judgement of the homeowner and the reasonableness of his actions.

Michael Courtney

 

[The_Antibubba]

I don't have enough facts

Peterson may have stopped at the inside of his gate, but that doesn't necessarily mean the wiper swiper was off the property. Was it a sturdy barrier, or a flimsy ornamental fence? What was the position of the car? Could Peterson have perceived that the car could have been used as a weapon, justifying him saying, "Don't move or I'll shoot!" Was it clear that the two buddies were just sitting in the car passively, or did they seem to be reaching for something? With enough ambiguous factors, a better attorney might've gotten Peterson acquitted.

Or maybe Peterson had been voted by his neighbors, for twelve years running, as "Most Likely To Shoot Someone In The Face".

 

[MikeIsaj]

But many states do allow reasonable force for protection of property. Drawing a gun (by itself) is not using deadly force. It can be seen as preparing to use deadly force (if necessary) and as communicating the availability of deadly force in order to bring a criminal back into compliance with the law. Even firing a warning shot can be interpreted under many state laws as "reasonable" non-lethal force that can be used to prevent a property crime. Whether or not it is "reasonable" will depend on the totality of the circumstances.

Don't know what states or how many do allow reasonable force to defend property. The point is he had already stopped the theft before he went back in the house.

There is a big difference between reasonable force and deadly force. Deadly force usually has it's own set of justifications. Draw a gun without justification and you will have made the "substantial step" towards using lethal force to be charged. What's more important, that substantial step will justify a use of lethal force upon you. Remember the thief was in his car, off property and making ready to leave the area. He did not present an immediate threat to life or personnal safety.

IMHO firing warning shots is inherently stupid and high risk behavior no matter what local law allows.

 

[Michael Courtney]

IMHO firing warning shots is inherently stupid and high risk behavior no matter what local law allows.

So how would you suggest I save the life of the dog from the trespassers threatening to throw her off a 100' high ridge?

How would you suggest a cattle owner prevent the imminent release of cattle onto a public roadway from 250' away?

Warning shots worked very well in both circumstances, and even with many years to consider the two events, I have been unable to come up with a better course of action.

Michael Courtney

 

[cbsbyte]

I would believe it would be a legal shoot, he did threaten him, with a wrench, unless there is a rule against aggervating the situation. I do believe that in most areas of the county the local DA would probably go after shooter for man-slaugther.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Event One --

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.

Event Two --

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.

I hate to say this, but I have to agree with the jury. These are two separate events. When Peterson grabbed the gun and came BACK out, event two started. From the story, the Keitt thugs were leaving (with or without the wipers, is unknown). Keitt was not on Peterson's property. Keitt, at that time, was not threatening Peterson. Peterson was po'd (rightfully so) and should have called the Police. He made several bad choices:

1. Not calling the police.

2. Not having a loaded gun when he went back out. (I don't agree with him going back out, but his gun should have been loaded)

3. Brandishing the gun at Keitt and threatening him with bodily harm. If he was going outside to yell at him some more, he should have concealed the gun. The brandishing probably escalated the argument.

 

[mitchshrader]

what did he gain by shooting?

nothing. had he walked out on his porch with a visible weapon.. he'd have made all the point necessary.

he needn't SAY anything, or DO anything.

i have been there. on MY porch, with a 38, waiting on amateur (wanna be) robbers to decide if they wanted to fight about it or leave..

no point in talking. no point in shooting em either.
i had no excuse for either.

guy was wrong, not sure HOW wrong.. but wrong. on a jury with a manslaughter charge, i'da voted to convict.
had the tire iron been a pistol, i'da voted to acquit.