Real Life Shooting Scenarios II

[Bartholomew Roberts]

On January 2, 1982, Garrison was visiting at his sister's Hartford, CN apartment, when Jeremiah Sharp, arrived on the premises. Sharp had been living with the defendant's sister intermittently for the past four years, and had his clothes in the apartment, but they had recently had an argument. The victim arrived intoxicated, and immediately got into an argument with the Garrison's sister, which the Garrison tried to stop. The sister went to her bedroom, but the argument continued between the Garrison and Sharp, with the Garrison urging the Sharp to leave.
In the course of the argument between the two, Sharp reached inside his jacket and Garrison noticed that the Sharp had a pistol in his waistband. Although Sharp was the larger man, he was drunk, staggering and not in full control of himself. Garrison disarmed thSharp by removing the pistol from his waistband. Sharp then armed himself with a steak knife and advanced toward the Garrison with the knife held high. Garrison backed up, and fired a shot, hitting the victim in the left ankle. Despite this Sharp continued to advance and Garrison fired again, striking him in the chest and killing him.

Two questions?
1. Justfiable shoot?
2. How could tactics have been better?

 

[Kurush]

At first I didn't think so, but I checked Connecticut law to see what it said:

Ch 951 Sec. 53a-20. Use of physical force in defense of premises. A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination.

So the matter seems to hinge on whether Garrison believed that Sharp's carrying a gun showed intent to commit a crime of violence, and whether that belief is "reasonable". I would say no, but I suspect a CT jury would disagree.

Mistakes:
1) Sharp should not have gotten drunk while carrying.
2) Sharp should have left the premises when asked.
3) Garrison should not have grabbed the gun.
4) Garrison should have called the cops rather than trying to resolve a domestic dispute himself.
5) Sharp should not have brought a knife to a gun fight.

 

[shooten]

Legally justifiable or not, I would have taken the shot if I feared for my life. I probably would have called the cops before the situation escalated too. Domestic spats have a way of turning ugly.

Scott

 

[EYESOFTEXAS]

Issue(s):

1. I don't know that this is physical force in defense of premises. They're both arguably invitees. Garrison clearly had a license to be there. The issue is whether Sharp had a right to be there as well (facts state he lived off-and-on at the house; was this one of the "on" times?).

The facts do not state the sister kicked him out. The facts state she just reitred to her bedroom. If Sharp was living there at the time and/or if it was their habit to stalk off to separate bedrooms after an argument, I don't know the statute applies.

If Sharp was no longer an invitee, then the issue is whether the facts indicate it was reasonable to conclude Sharp was about to commit a violent crime and/or use force to stay in the house after he was asked to leave.

For that matter, does Garrison have the right to terminate Sharp's right to be in the house, especially if Sharp were living there at the time?

2. I think the nature of the argument btwn Garrison & Sharp is important. If it was only a shouting match, and the first physical interaction between them was Garrison "disarming" Sharp, it could be argued that Garrison effectively escalated the altercation by being the first to brandish a weapon.

In other words, the weapon was not yet in the "fight" at the time Garrison grabbed it. Garrison brought the weapon from a position of concealment in Sharp's waistband into the open. That he spied the concealed weapon in the manner he did isn't enough.

Put another way: If Garrison pulled a gun from his own waistband, it would be a clear escalation of the situation. If he had pulled it from a drawer, it would be a clear escalation of the situation. This makes the issue whether pulling the gun off Sharp is different from pulling it from his own waistband, or from a drawer.

On these facts, I don't think it is. Sharp's weapon had not been knowingly displayed, and there was no indication he was going to display it. Saying differently is saying it's justifiable to relieve any concealed handgun licensee of his weapon just because you know he's carrying one.

If you pull my gun out of my holster, I don't know what you're doing it for. Am I to know you're intent is to disarm me? Maybe you're arming yourself@!

I think grabbing a steak knife when the other guy just drew a gun is stupid, but I think it's justified (self-defense).

Just my opinion.

 

[Kurush]

Issue(s):

1. I don't know that this is physical force in defense of premises. They're both arguably invitees. Garrison clearly had a license to be there. The issue is whether Sharp had a right to be there as well (facts state he lived off-and-on at the house; was this one of the "on" times?).

For that matter, does Garrison have the right to terminate Sharp's right to be in the house, especially if Sharp were living there at the time?

I could be wrong, but I don't think Sharp had a right to be there at that time. The question is pretty clear that Garrison's sister is paying for the apartment, and all of the statutes that I'm finding give a right to authorized persons other than the owner to order a person off the property. I don't know how his recent residence and/or clothes affect the issue. Also it's unclear how Sharp "arrived" at the premises.

Here's the statute on criminal trespass:

Ch 952 Sec. 53a-107. Criminal trespass in the first degree: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when: (1) Knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person enters or remains in a building or any other premises after an order to leave or not to enter personally communicated to such person by the owner of the premises or other authorized person; or (2) such person enters or remains in a building or any other premises in violation of a restraining order issued pursuant to section 46b-15 or a protective order issued pursuant to section 46b-38c, 54-1k or 54-82r by the Superior Court; or (3) such person enters or remains in a building or any other premises in violation of a foreign order of protection, as defined in section 46b-15a, that has been issued against such person, after notice and an opportunity to be heard has been provided to such person, in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another
person.

By the way, welcome to THR!

 

[EYESOFTEXAS]

I could be wrong, but I don't think Sharp had a right to be there at that time.

IMO, the facts aren't clear on this point, which is why I say I think his status as an invitee or trespasser is an issue re: defense of property.

The question is pretty clear that Garrison's sister is paying for the apartment, and all of the statutes that I'm finding give a right to authorized persons other than the owner to order a person off the property.

Are you talking a matter of one (1) invitee and one (1) trespasser (eg., out of town relative asking someone who just jumped the fence to leave), or do the statutes also apply to situations involving two (2) invitees (eg., one out-of-town relative asking another out-of-town relative to leave)?

Examples:

Suppose A and B rent an apartment. C is A's brother, and C gets into an argument with B while C is visiting for the weekend. Can C order B to leave the apartment (ie. revoke B's privilege to be there)? More specifically, can C order B to leave, then claim he justifiably used deadly force in defense of the premises when B didn't comply? I don't know that he can. I mean can you kick me out of my house just because my wife invited you in, and then kill me when I don't leave?

Suppose A rents an apartment, and that A lets B live with her in the apartment. C is A's cousin and is visiting A for the weekend. A and C get into an argument with B, but A goes to bed without uninviting B. What authority does C have to uninvite B? Wouldn't it matter if B was living there at the time (ie. kicking in for bills, spliting rent, receiving mail, etc.)?

I don't know how his recent residence and/or clothes affect the issue. Also it's unclear how Sharp "arrived" at the premises.

I guess I assume that no fact is innocuous, and the presence of Sharp's clothing in the apartment, as well as the fact that he lives in the apartment off-and-on, is possible evidence he enjoyed a privilege with respect to being in the apartment at that time. Not saying this is the case, just arguing why the "defense of premises" argument might not be a strong argument w/o more facts.

I still think the issue I pointed out in #2 is the more damning issue (viz. Garrison being the first to pull the gun from Sharp's waistband).

By the way, welcome to THR!

Thanks!

 

[Krenn]

Garrison may be chargable under a lesser offense, but not murder or even first degree manslaughter.

Disarming the other man MAY have been wrong... it depends on whether or not the man was currently invited to be there, or if he was reaching for the gun when he reached into his jacket. (was he reaching into the area between his shirt and his jacket, as he might do to draw a gun, or was he reaching into an exterior pocket of his jacket)?

However, disarming a man who is drunk and confrontational towards your sister, in her home, is NOT HIGHLY UNREASONABLE. It MAY be slightly unreasonable, and chargable as a misdeamanor or minor felony, but it in no way appears to have been done for the purpose of offering violence, or of commiting major theft. Garrison honestedly believed that it was neccessary for the safety of himself and his sister, and if he was mistaken, his punishment should be gentle, as he had no intent to commit a greater crime.

given that first ruling, the violence Sharp subesquently offered was COMPLETELY UNNECCESSARRY. Garrison did not threaten or menace with the gun, Garrison was invited to be in the location, and Garrison's repeated request that Sharp leave, while PERHAPS not enforcable by law, was not threatening or unreasonable.

accordingly, Sharps offer of violence in that case was unwarranted agression... he had every ability to leave, and to come back with a LEO if he felt that it was neccessary. He had no reason to believe that he would be deprived of property, if arbitration were present, and he was not being threatened.

Garrison's subesquent shot to the ankle shows that he was not eager to kill, and that he merely wished to resolve the situation. He probably COULD have justified an initial killing shot, that he did not take it continues to back up his story of patience, forbearence, and protection of his sister.

Sharps continued attack shows that he was clearly bent on violence... even after the ankle shot, he had clear opportunity to summon a LEO to the scene or retreat from the scene... there is no evidence that Garrison would have prevented either.

Garrison can, at most, be charged with excessive enthuasism in disarming his opponent, perhaps petty theft or assault. and a District attorneys discretion should prevent even that.

 

[Krenn]

SPECIFIC tactics depend on sharp's specific action and intent when he reached towards his jacket, and the specific intent of the words exchanged between sharp and the sister. If Sharp was reaching for the Gun, or the sister stated that Sharp was not welcome there, those facts would place the seal of aproval on Garrisons tactics. if those facts are not the case, Garrison might have needed to moderate his actions slightly, but not by much.

Actions which could have been taken in any event:

The Sister should have called the police when she retreated to her bedroom. however, if she had no reason to believe that sharp was violent or carrying a weapon, her failure to do so is understandable, even if slightly foolish.

If Garrison had had the appropiate training, and the facts were on his side, he could have dropped Sharps on his backside when he disarmed him. The reminder of physical superiority in the current situation might have encouraged sharps to come to his senses and stand down, rather than blame Garrison's "sneaky hands," and come back with a READIED knife. However, this is probably wishfull thinking.

Garrison could have readied a phone when the situation first started, and been prepared to call the police as soon as he considered it neccessary, including warnings to Sharps to leave or deal with the police. However, since it was not Garrisons home, his sister did not seem to want that action, and Garrison probably needed both hands once he was alone with sharps and trying to stare him down, Garrissons failure to do so is understandable. still, it would have been nice if he had pressured his sister to call the cops, or allow him to do so.

 

[Krenn]

The only REAL problem is the lack of witnesses. The sister was in the bedroom, and while she may have heard the continuing altercation, she probably did not see it. it would only help garrison's case to have further confirmation of what HE said happened.

 

[LightningJoe]

Wow. The "he grabbed a knife and came at me" thing sounds phony. Since his clothes were at the residence, his gun may have been also. Nobody saw it in his waistband but the guy who shot him. Do the authorities believe his story? If not, would you think the shooter's guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt if you were on the jury?

 

[Krenn]

The facts here are presented as being absolute for the purposes of the exercise. but you're right, what the Police PERCIEVE, and can VERIFY, is important. that's why I'd preffer witnesses.

 

[Jeff White]

On January 2, 1982, Garrison was visiting at his sister's Hartford, CN apartment, when Jeremiah Sharp, arrived on the premises. Sharp had been living with the defendant's sister intermittently for the past four years, and had his clothes in the apartment, but they had recently had an argument.

No trespass here. I know that different courts look at cohabitation differently, but around here if they had been living together for four years, the apartment would have been considered Sharp's home, regardless of who's name was on the lease. Even if they had recently had an argument and Sharp had spent a night or two away, it still would have been his home.

The victim arrived intoxicated, and immediately got into an argument with the Garrison's sister, which the Garrison tried to stop. The sister went to her bedroom, but the argument continued between the Garrison and Sharp, with the Garrison urging the Sharp to leave.

While Garrison could urge Sharp to leave to avoid further trouble with his sister, he could not order Sharp from his own home. In fact had Sharp ordered Garrison to leave and called the police to have him removed, guess who would have been told to move on? Not Sharp.

In the course of the argument between the two, Sharp reached inside his jacket and Garrison noticed that the Sharp had a pistol in his waistband. Although Sharp was the larger man, he was drunk, staggering and not in full control of himself. Garrison disarmed Sharp by removing the pistol from his waistband.

Garrison could (and I'm sure did state) that he disarmed Sharp because he was in fear for his life after discovering that Sharp was armed.

Sharp then armed himself with a steak knife and advanced toward the Garrison with the knife held high. Garrison backed up, and fired a shot, hitting the victim in the left ankle. Despite this Sharp continued to advance and Garrison fired again, striking him in the chest and killing him.

I would say that if it happened as reported, shooting Sharp was justified. It shouldn't matter where the weapon came from.

Tactically Garrison forced the confrontation. I seem to recall that the telephone had been invented and in widespread use some years before 1982. Someone, Garrison or the sister should have called the police. If there was no phone, Garrison should have taken his sister out of the apartment to a place of safety (perhaps his residence) until Sharp sobered up.

It's not easy to remain detached and cool in these situations, especially when a family member is involved. But Sharp had every legal right to be in his own home and like it or not the sister allowed her home to become Sharp's home by living with him for that length of time. I see similar situations all the time, where a couple begins living together and then the going gets rough and the one who owns or leases the residence wants the other removed. Here the courts usually accept that a residence becomes home to both parties after six months of cohabitation. The party who wants the ex partner removed is usually shocked to hear that they can't charge someone with trespassing in their own home.

The options would have been to call the police, who probably would have encouraged one or the other parties to leave until Sharp sobered up and they could work things out rationally, or for Garrison and his sister to leave. If Sharp had attempted to forcibly stop Garrison from calling the police or the sister and Garrison from leaving, then we have have a different situation.

Jeff

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, given the high-caliber of readers we have here, you guys identified most of the issues in the case.

Garrison was convicted of first-degree manslaughter. In that trial, the jury appeared to believe that since Garrison had disarmed Sharp of the pistol, he could have safely disarmed him of the knife as well. In addition, the court made no factual finding of whether Sharp was guilty of criminal trespass, so a key fact in Garrison's self-defense case was missing (Garrison also had a lawyer who apparently wasn't the best or brightest). The jury was also not impressed by the fact that both sister and Sharp apparently had regular drunken arguments of this nature in the past without anybody getting hurt.

Garrison appealed the conviction and the court of appeals reversed and remanded the conviction with instructions to the trial court to determine the following facts:

(1) Was the defendant's use of force excessive because he reasonably believed that he could have disarmed the decedent?
(2) Was the defendant's use of force excessive because he knew that he could retreat with complete safety?
(3) Was the decedent on the premises as a criminal trespasser?
(4) Was the defendant a person privileged to be in or upon the premises?

Garrison was again convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. The jury found that use of force was excessive because they believed Garrison's earlier successful disarm attempt showed he would have been able to disarm the victim again. The jury also found that the he could have retreated with complete safety (Garrison's ace lawyer made no attempt to argue otherwise), that Sharp was NOT a criminal trespasser, and that Garrison was also privileged to be on the premises.

Garrison appealed. The Court of Appeals declined to address the thorny issue of whether the jury's finding that he could have disarmed Sharp was reasonable since they found that his failure to retreat further after the first shot was sufficient to justify a conviction of manslaughter regardless of whether he might have been unable to disarm Sharp. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.

Retreat would not have been an issue had Sharp been a criminal trespasser; but because Sharp was found to also be privileged to be on the premises, Garrison was held to have the usual duty to retreat required by state law even though he was inside a dwelling.

 

[Krenn]

Under Florida Law, he would have been golden.

piffle.

 

[Azrael256]

since Garrison had disarmed Sharp of the pistol, he could have safely disarmed him of the knife as well.

...says somebody who has never been in a knife fight.

 

[Krenn]

tell me about it... grabbing a DULL, HOLSTERED, weapon is a LOT easier than grabbing a SHARP, VIOLENTLY MOVING weapon.

Either the state/jury was incredibly stupid, or the eyewitness tesimony was questionable... which it probably was. I already mentioned that before the ruling was stated.

 

[crucible]

Juries believes it's not only mandatory that one to disarm a knife wielding drunk intent on cutting you, but easy too? Pure stinking hollywood.

Reminds self never to move to Ct-or any other like nothern state (no offense you you fine folks there).

C-

 

[Kurush]

In that trial, the jury appeared to believe that since Garrison had disarmed Sharp of the pistol, he could have safely disarmed him of the knife as well.

The jury found that use of force was excessive because they believed Garrison's earlier successful disarm attempt showed he would have been able to disarm the victim again.

I would never have guessed that that would have even come up, much less that two juries would have convicted on that basis. That's amazing.

I guess if someone was being shot at and the shooter missed the first time, self defense wouldn't be justified because the victim can just dodge the bullet again

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I would never have guessed that that would have even come up, much less that two juries would have convicted on that basis. That's amazing.

Well, I don't have full access to the jury findings - just what the two Court of Appeals cases reported about them, so some of that is speculation on my part. It is pretty apparent that Garrison's lawyer failed to raise some pretty obvious defenses though (like why it might not be safe for Garrison to retreat), so it may be that the jury thought disarming Sharp was reasonable simply because Garrison's lawyer never effectively argued otherwise and the prosecutor just dominated that argument.

I'm also not sure that this was two separate juries. The Court of Appeals directed the trial court to reach findings on the four issues mentioned. It doesn't make any mention of whether the same jury made the findings or a new jury was empaneled.

 

[Jeff White]

Juries believes it's not only mandatory that one to disarm a knife wielding drunk intent on cutting you, but easy too? Pure stinking hollywood.

Without an expert witness to prove how things really are to the jury, the jury is going to form it's own opinion. And since most people in the jury pool are not experts or even rudimentarily schooled in the dynamics of a defensive situation, guess where they are going to draw from to judge you? That's right, the only experience most people have with a situation like that, Hollywood's version.

Right now shows like CSI and Forensic Files have so educated the jury pool that convictions are harder to obtain because jurors think that all that neat high dollar, gee wiz, forensic science should be used in even the most open and shut case.

Reminds self never to move to Ct-or any other like nothern state (no offense you you fine folks there).

Not a Northern, blue state problem. Juries nationwide are pretty uneducated in this area. A good attorney who is versed not only in the law pertaining to self defense but in the dynamics of the actual encounter is necessary to be relatively assured of winning a self defense case. It often takes the testimony of an expert witness to convince the jury.

Residents of Florida and Texas can't take comfort that state law will allow them to shoot people with impunity. I know that people in Texas are in jail for defnsive shootings that weren't clear cut, and I doubt there have been any cases under the new Florida law. But rest assured that if something isn't clear cut, you could very well end up like the unfortunate Mr. Garrison.

Jeff

 

[Sinsaba]

I'm puzzled...

Let us forget about who was a person privileged to be on the premises for a moment.

1. Two people get into a verbal argument
2. One person notices the other has a gun in his waistband
3. That person forcibly removes the gun
4. The rightful owner of the gun arms himself with weapon at hand (steak knife) to defend himself
5. The thief wounds the person with his own gun
6. The rightful owner stills tries to protect himself as best he can
7. The thief kills the owner

I think Garrison (the thief) got off lucky

Just my $.02

 

[Krenn]

unless the man with the gun was REACHING for it when he was disarmed. that could make a difference.

also, lethal weapon response to petty theft is probably over-reacting, and Garrison does not appear to have been threatening sharp.

 

[Sinsaba]

unless the man with the gun was REACHING for it when he was disarmed. that could make a difference.

also, lethal weapon response to petty theft is probably over-reacting, and Garrison does not appear to have been threatening sharp.

The original portion of this thread specified that the gun was seen in the waistband when Sharp was reaching into his jacket. The description does not say he was reaching for the gun.

If someone I am arguing with takes my gun from me I am forced to believe he is a threat a) he has committed 2 crimes (assult or is it battery and theft), and b) he has a gun. Likely he is pointing it.

The crime of assult happens as soon as he touches me while taking the gun.

If someone takes my gun I think any reasonable person will assume a deadly threat

 

[Michael Courtney]

I think it should come down to whether or not disarming of the drunk is justified, and we don't have enough information to determine that. Certainly, being drunk and armed is illegal in most states, but does this (and other factors) necessarily justify the assault (and possible battery) necessary to disarm the drunk person? In addition, what other evidence is there that the victim was really drunk?

Other important unknown factors would be whether the drunk had been asked to leave by a person with the legal authority to do so.

If the law of the state in question doesn't give the brother legal authority to disarm the drunk, then it's a bad shoot because the brother would have illegally initiated the use of force, thus is in no position to claim self-defense in the subsequent escalation. In short, if you take someone's gun (without legal justification for doing so), you cannot shoot them wiith it and claim self-defense.

Michael Courtney

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Other important unknown factors would be whether the drunk had been asked to leave by a person with the legal authority to do so.

IIRC, both Garrison's sister and Garrison asked Sharp to leave. Garrison's sister's request wasn't given much weight by the jury though because apparently her stalking off to the bedroom and asking him to leave was a pretty regular feature of their arguments, even though she never made any attempt to have the police remove him or something similar.