Resolution - Salt Lake CCW Shooting

[Drgong]

Just as a note, I never put a paper to the "RKBA" standard as I assume that they all will fail.

Anyways, wont mention anything more as it could not go high road and not involving guns.

 

[FCFC]

As for what the DA said (I think it was the DA) about not shooting someone without lethal threat. Thats the way some states are. I was told by a cop in Illinois if you have an intruder and have to shoot him because they came at you and when you turn on the lights they didn't happen to have a weapon...go grab one from your kitchen and put it next to them, because without it your going to jail.

To do what the cop said (and what you have communicated without objection to this audience) is quite illegal in every state of the union.

Not very High Road.

 

[Clerihew]

I was just restating what a cop in Illinois told me. Its based on the silly laws of self defense in that state. The fact that you cannot defend yourself with the best tools available until you know what your up against even if your attacked in your home in the dark of night. Its like saying ok I better put my gun away because the 250 pound person charging me might not have a gun. If you put a weapon on them your in violation of the law and if you shoot an intruder and do not put a weapon your STILL in violation of the law. Sounds like a stupid set of laws to me. The castle doctrine laws are starting to go against this way of thinking but its a long road ahead of us and we have many enemies that do not want us to be able to defend ourselves.

 

[Correia]

(and what you have communicated without objection to this audience)

Oh, get off your high horse. The day that somebody like you gets to define what the High Road stands for is the day that I resign and burn my internet connection.

I hadn't even seen it yet.

Clerihew, what you were told was illegal, even in Illinois. It is considered tampering with a crime scene. This piece of advice is one of the worst, and is very commonly given. Do not ever tamper with the crime scene, as that creates doubt in the minds of the reasonable people of your jury. The shooting was either justified, or it was not.

 

[Valkman]

If you tamper with a crime scene and the police find out, then you lose whatever credibilty you had. Now you're a liar. How can they trust anything you say?

 

[FCFC]

To do what the cop said (and what you have communicated without objection to this audience) is quite illegal in every state of the union.

Not very High Road.

Oh, get off your high horse. The day that somebody like you gets to define what the High Road stands for is the day that I resign and burn my internet connection.

I hadn't even seen it yet.

Nothing wrong with what I wrote, Correia. It's not very High Road to post advice about how to tamper with evidence in a fatal shooting.

It it is very High Road to challenge such advice. That's all I and at least one other person have done.

 

[Clerihew]

Well I I guess I should have stated that I am an honest person and would not do such thing. In my youth I might have thought of it but at the age I am now I find honesty is the best policy and the easiest way to keep your story straight. I am just glad I don't live someplace that it might be better to lie about what happened when your life was threatened (Yay Michigan). As a friend of mine always says in a place like Illinois you wont be able to avoid the ride if you need to defend yourself with lethal force.


Clerihew

 

[camslam]

Where is FCFC?

In all sincerity, I am still waiting to read what FCFC thought about this shooting outcome.

I for one get tired of the line, "If the only tool you have is a gun, everything problem looks like a nail".

With the amount of energy FCFC placed posting in the original thread on this story and then opening up his own thread, I think many of us would be interested in his take.

Any thoughts?

 

[Rugerlvr]

I guess FCFC has nothing to say. Oh well, it's embarassing to have to revisit a topic where you've gone on ad nauseum and are completely wrong. I can understand that. Have a nice day FCFC.

 

[FCFC]

In all sincerity, I am still waiting to read what FCFC thought about this shooting outcome.

I guess FCFC has nothing to say. Oh well, it's embarassing to have to revisit a topic where you've gone on ad nauseum and are completely wrong. I can understand that. Have a nice day FCFC.

Man, you guys are in a rush.

I'll post my thoughts tomorrow after I read the articles on the issue. "There's nothing in the rules that says" I have to reply to something within 48 hours. (How long did SLCPD take? 3+ weeks?) And, besides, I'm just one of thousands of posters on THR. Nobody is hitting this thread hard to get my view. So, it's not like there is a lot of demand or urgency for it...

But here's a hint, Rugerlvr: I certainly wasn't "completely wrong."

 

[XD Fan]

FCFC said:

Nobody is hitting this thread hard to get my view.

Au contraire. I, for one, have been lurking consistently on this thread to see your specific response to this news.

 

[Dustinthewind]

Nobody is hitting this thread hard to get my view

Au contraire. I, for one, have been lurking consistently on this thread to see your specific response to this news.

In all sincerity, I am still waiting to read what FCFC thought about this shooting outcome.

I guess FCFC has nothing to say

Well FCFC it looks like you have taken E.F. Huttons place.

 

[JKimball]

Well, I'm glad Harrison wasn't charged. I believe his actions were legally justified.

Having said that, I also get the feeling that it is likely the shooting could have been avoided if Harrison had handled things differently from the get go.

But maybe he didn't have as many options because he was the security guard (such as walking away.)

Mike James May, 47, was shot and killed in front of a Salt Lake restaurant following what witnesses described as an ongoing argument between two people.

About 12:20 p.m. two men got into some sort of dispute near the corner of 1400 South West Temple, said Salt Lake police detective Jeff Bedard.

"They were arguing back and forth. The one man went away and then came back. He took off his backpack and went toward the other man in a way that I would call aggressively," said Mitch McMillen who watched the entire scenario unfold right before him

The problem I see is that when you have a concealed weapon and you decide to get in a yelling match, or an argument with someone, there is a good chance you might provoke them into a physical attack. If the person knows you have a gun, they will be less likely to attack. (And much less likely to pretend that they are going to draw a gun and shoot you.)

So I guess it makes sense that as long as you want to keep the advantage of not letting them know that you are armed, you should be doing everthing possible to de-escalate the situation, use calm, non-offensive language. Swallow your pride and back down, leave in some cases - (I don't think that was an option for Harrison in this case, as he no doubt felt responsible for the safety of the others there.)

But if the need arises to verbally challenge somebody, to shout commands, or otherwise lay down the law, so to speak, perhaps that is the time when somebody who is carrying concealed should either warn the person that they are armed verbally or draw and take the ready position. That could be another way of de-escalating the situation.

I'm guessing here. What do you guys think?

I guess I'm feeling like it pays to practice drawing and firing a controlled pair, but it is also important to practice de-escalation techniques. Any thoughts or recommendations on how to do that?

 

[Correia]

Man, you guys are in a rush.

Hmmm... Coming from the poster who was so smug about how when the crazy guy is threatening to kill you, and then reaches into his bag, you'll have all the time in the world to verbally challenge him and determine that he's in fact, unarmed. That's just plain funny.

Naw, having to make the call to put a bullet in somebody is a rush.

FCFC, you wonder why the posters here have fixated on your BS? One of my students killed a guy a while back. If she would have followed your advice from the previous thread, she would be dead. This stuff isn't a game. For some of us, this is our business, and we're paid to know it and teach it. Unfortunatly, for every one of us, there are ten like you, who know nothing, but spouts off like they do. Our worst fear is to have somebody less experienced listen to you and think you have a clue.

So why the fixation on your response? Because we enjoy watching internet experts eat crow.

 

[TCB in TN]

Nothing wrong with what I wrote, Correia. It's not very High Road to post advice about how to tamper with evidence in a fatal shooting.

It it is very High Road to challenge such advice. That's all I and at least one other person have done.

It isn't very High Road to advise as you mentioned but that was NOT what the poster did. They commented that a LEO advised him to do so. Rather large difference.

BTW I agree that there are almost always mistakes made in every situation, but in most cases the analysis that you want to happen, is just not possible. Your comments in the other thread reminded me of a guy I knew a few years back. He was all about never using a gun in any type of physical altercation. You just need to man up and take your "@ss whipping"! Well that was really kinda funny to me coming from him since he was all of 135lbs and had never been in an actual physical confrontation. Those who have never been in a fight (physical, knife, or gun) are much less likely to understand how fast things happen and how much damage can happen in them.

Do this, then this, then that and you will be safe sounds good on the net, and to those who have never had to defend themselves. Unfortunately the real world is seldom to cooperative!

 

[Correia]

TCB, nice quote in the sigline! Milo Ivan Anderson is a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[siglite]

As far as I can tell the FCFC stuff is pure troll baiting. He's pretty consistent about trolling the forum regarding defensive uses of firearms, and you guys (maybe me too) are pretty consistent about feeding him.

FCFC is one well fed troll.

 

[camslam]

FCFC, you wonder why the posters here have fixated on your BS? One of my students killed a guy a while back. If she would have followed your advice from the previous thread, she would be dead. This stuff isn't a game. For some of us, this is our business, and we're paid to know it and teach it. Unfortunatly, for every one of us, there are ten like you, who know nothing, but spouts off like they do. Our worst fear is to have somebody less experienced listen to you and think you have a clue.

So why the fixation on your response? Because we enjoy watching internet experts eat crow.

+1 on that.

It has been several days and still no response from our good buddy FCFC. Obviously nobody is holding a gun to his head, (pun intended) forcing a response, but for as big a deal as was made by him on this event, man up and face the music.

 

[anarchris]

I love being right!

FCC or whomever that guy/gal is suggested that the security guard should have punched the homeless guy in the face!
ughhh
I was right about Joe Horn, right about this guy, if I had a dime for everytime I was right about stuff that don't matter to my life I could buy all of you a new combat commander.

anarchris
Member


Join Date: 06-23-08
Posts: 84

Talking I thought George Harrison was the quiet Beatle and not at all violent like Paul was



anyway
Quote:
threatened them and a security guard and then reached inside his jacket or backpack
I said Joe Horn would get off on another forum for liberals and they all said no way, same for this guy, he will not be charged for this & if he is he will be found not guilty.
He made threats, sucks to be him.
Homeless crazy people should stay in NYC & SF

anarchris
Member


Join Date: 06-23-08
Posts: 84

you have never ever done security work have you?
Quote:
why didn't the big bad security guard just go and punch the guy in the mouth or something?
I'm new to thr so I don't know you.
I am willing to bet though you've never ever had any training whatsoever on either security or armed security.
Middle school rules do not apply in real life, son.
For instance, if you punch the crazy homeless guy in the mouth you can get a wide array of nasty incurable conditions.

please look up "blood borne pathogens"

never mind, I looked it up.
Think about this next time you punch the homeless guy in the mouth
Quote:
Bloodborne Pathogens means pathogenic microorganisms that are present in human blood and can cause disease in humans. These pathogens include, but are not limited to, hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

 

[camslam]

Why we would like a response from FCFC

Just to catch people up on why we are interested in what FCFC has to say now, I grabbed some of his comments from this original thread.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=376712&highlight=lethal+shooting&page=5

Here is a sampling of some of his greatest hits, along with some sections in bold I thought were fun to read. Enjoy.

Quote:

Perhaps because the perception that a weapon was about to be produced? A viable justification, by the way.

Why is it viable?
Is it viable in all cases?
Does one just have to say, "he reached into his knapsack and I thought he had something threatening in there!"

That would be interesting...I guess I better be careful when reaching into my knapsack, bookbag, briefcase, shopping bag...

They're saying the deceased was unarmed.

It seems to be turning slightly bad for the shooter.

Happiness may not be a warm gun after all.

You forgot the word "reasonable."

76-2-402. Force in defense of person-Forcible felony defined

"...person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury..."

Note: Harrison doesn't get to determine "reasonably believes." Someone else does.

I wonder how he's feeling right about now.

Quote:

The police would have done the same thing if put into that situation and would have been justified in doing so.

That's incorrect.

The police would have issued a direct command for the knapsack guy to keep his hands visible before shooting.

A professional LEO is trained to prevent escalation to a shooting situation, if possible. George Harrison apparently was not.

The details of what was said, by whom, and what the deceased actually did are what is crucial to this case as far as judging it a good or bad shoot.

We don't even yet know exactly if the knapsack guy was reaching for anything. The report has been that he was perceived by someone (who?) to be reaching "inside his jacket or backpack." That's pretty vague. Which one was it? Was the guy just taking off his knapsack so he could attempt to fight bare knuckles with the private citizen who he was engaged with? Did he say something like, "I'm gonna get my gun from this here knapsack and shoot you now?" Just what did the knapsack guy do?

I don't think we know yet.

But we do know that the decedent had no weapon. That much we know.

Which increases the likelihood that it is a bad shoot. It's bad practice to go around shooting and killing a guy who has no weapon. People ask questions.

To stop the perceived threat, why didn't the big bad security guard just go and punch the guy in the mouth or something? Why did he have to shoot and kill the guy? Couldn't the the security guard have been a little more flexible in his continuum of force application?

Remember, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

Quote:
As for making assumptions as to the shooter's ability, training, or skills, you're just guessing, and don't have jack squat for facts.

Here's a fact. And it should be "annoying" everyone: the knapsack guy had no weapon.

Oh, yeah, another fact: He's dead.

Bad shoot.

And it will cost all gun carriers something. There is a cost to these bad shoots.

I think it's a bad shoot.

Quote:
I wasn't there and don't know the history of the two men.

But based on the fact that the guy was reaching into a backpack while moving towards the shooter I'd say "good shoot".

As stated previously, the criterion is not feeling in danger. The criterion is reasonably feeling in danger of life or limb.

But your idea of the tactic of Harrison going over to Mays (perhaps with his two companions) and kicking Mays' butt--well that would have been a very good idea. Too bad Harrison rejected that option. I think he rejected it because he simply thought about the gun first.

Remember: When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

------------------------------------------------
FCFC decided to open another thread on this here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=378204

You can read more of his opinion on this if interested.

Like I said, man up and face the music, you were wrong, admit it.

 

[FCFC]

Nobody is hitting this thread hard to get my view.

Au contraire. I, for one, have been lurking consistently on this thread to see your specific response to this news.

OK, well since you have been lurking hard on this thread, I'll step it up and post today. I was going to do it yesterday, but it wasn't high enough priority for me. Plus, I figured that Correia was still doing his
"I told you so, but I friggin' TOLD YOU SO. Over and over, actually." victory dance.

The problem I see is that when you have a concealed weapon and you decide to get in a yelling match, or an argument with someone, there is a good chance you might provoke them into a physical attack. If the person knows you have a gun, they will be less likely to attack. (And much less likely to pretend that they are going to draw a gun and shoot you.)

...
But if the need arises to verbally challenge somebody, to shout commands, or otherwise lay down the law, so to speak, perhaps that is the time when somebody who is carrying concealed should either warn the person that they are armed verbally or draw and take the ready position. That could be another way of de-escalating the situation.

Heyyy, are you reading my draft reply???????

Escalation is a key concept in this case. And lack of warning is one more.

OK, since you posted first, I'll have to give you credit when I cite them in my reply post. Though I did say something about both in the two prior threads on this "bad shoot."

 

[Rugerlvr]

Ah, I see FCFC is going to rely on facts not in evidence for his reply.

Well, I can see I'm not actually going to be interested in his screed. I don't think I'll bother clicking "View post."

 

[FCFC]

Well, I can see I'm not actually going to be interested in his screed. I don't think I'll bother clicking "View post."

First, you put FCFC on IGNORE.

Then you tell a tale of VIEWING IGNORED POSTS.

Then you say you are really interested in my take....

Now you say that you are not actually interested and won't bother clicking on the ignored post...

Sheeeeesh. Makeupyoumindawreddy. :banghead:

Tell you what. I'll send you a PM of my post.

 

[Correia]

I'm personally not really interested in what you have to say, since I've already written you off as a troll. But for the edification of the membership, it is good to see you eat crow, that way next time you try to make a point, they'll remember your earlier illogical postings and ignore you accordingly.

 

[JKimball]

Correia,

I agree that Harrison was justified in shooting Mays. I think his training served him well in that he was able to recognize a threat and make a split second decision to defend himself, and then deliver a single shot that stopped the threat.

What I'm wondering is if you think (based on the limited info we have) that the shooting could have been avoided altogether if Harrison had been better trained in de-escalation techniques.

I guess it is impossible to know, but I really am interested in your thoughts on that side of things.

What do you think Harrison could have done differently (if anything) to increase the chances of de-escalating the situation?