This is what most self defense shootings are..a conflict that gets out of hand

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now Reeves is facing murder charges for standing up for his rights to have that party.

How do you figure that ???????

The shooting was either justified or not depending on the immediate circumstances (reasonable man thinking that there was a threat to life). The fact that he was arrested doesn't necessarily make him guilty.

The thugs would have come back whether the party was still going on or not. It was, after all, their house. :rolleyes:

I just really don't understand the point of some of your posts and threads.
 
Jeff White said:
The gang of armed criminals came into the picture after the shooting if we can believe the news article.…

I wasn’t trying to imply that the original shooting was legally justified, but the fact that a gang of armed criminals was involved does tell me that it was something more than a simple dispute that got out of hand.

~G. Fink
 
Quote:
Now Reeves is facing murder charges for standing up for his rights to have that party.
How do you figure that ???????

I was responding to leadcounsel when he posted this in response to my suggestion that if the party was just shut down and everyone went home after Clark was run off, that maybe this wouldn't have happened at all:

3. Family kids get dad, who comes to protect his family and home. So - if I understand Jeff White's position, at this point we should cower to thugs and allow them to dictate where and when we can have our parties by canceling the party and sending everyone home??? I disagree.

The shooting was either justified or not depending on the immediate circumstances (reasonable man thinking that there was a threat to life). The fact that he was arrested doesn't necessarily make him guilty.

I have yet to say the shooting wasn't justified. I have maintained from my opening post that we didn't have enough information to know if it was justified or not.

The thugs would have come back whether the party was still going on or not. It was, after all, their house.

It was at the lake house that Reeves owned. If they had gone to their residence, no one would have been there to have a conflict with when they came back.

I just really don't understand the point of some of your posts and threads.

The point of this thread was to generate some discussion on deescalating the situation. That it is often better to swallow your pride and not have to shoot someone because there are serious consequences to shooting someone, as Reeves is finding out.

However it is obviously impossible to have that discussion here because most of the membership seems unable to swallow their pride and discuss deescalation even as an intellectual exercise. Why pass up the chance to shoot someone, after all we don't get that chance very often :rolleyes: seems to be the attitude around here. And even an example of a man who may have justifiably shot someone in self defense is having his life turned upside down and regardless of the outcome is going to be out tens of thousands of dollars and have his life changed forever isn't enough to make people think about other options.

I'm through with this thread. I hope none of the people who can't possibly see themselves deescalating a conflict never have to learn the lesson Reeves has learned the hard way.

Jeff
 
The point of this thread was to generate some discussion on deescalating the situation.

Fine, discuss how to deescalate a bunch of thugs who come onto your property and threaten you.

It was at the lake house that Reeves owned. If they had gone to their residence, no one would have been there to have a conflict with when they came back.

20-20 hindsight.
 
at this point we should cower to thugs and allow them to dictate where and when we can have our parties by canceling the party and sending everyone home??? I disagree.
Sometimes life isn't fair and the good guy gets the short end of the stick. Is fighting for your right to party (apologies to the beastie boys) really worth the trouble this guy is now going through? Is this really the best outcome for him and more importantly his family? Is the party worth all of this? Keep your idealism but know when reality demands you check it. If you think there's going to be trouble later, maybe its best to just not be there when trouble shows up. Personally I'd think there'd be a sense of "this isn't over" in something like this that might signal you. Who knows, its a mess of a situation.
 
Again can someone tell me why he was arrested for murder in a castle doctrine state?

An overzealous police officer or Prosecuting Attorney? Standing policy? I know that here in Hawaii the police have been instructed to arrest anyone involved in a shooting, regardless of the circumstances.

Are you suggesting that no one who has ever been arrested in a claimed self defense shooting was later exonerated? Here's at least one case I found in a matter of minutes and I am sure that there are more:

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_10050854

Seems that by your definition that anyone arrested after claiming self defense is automatically guilty of unjustified homocide.

And earlier, you posted that most alleged self-defense shootings result from hanging around criminals and that as long as you don't hang around criminal types, you'll reduce your chance of needing to protect yourself to practically nil. Seems that even if you do so and hang around your own home you may not be able to avoid the criminal elements of society:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/08/08/union_city_intruder.html

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/08/11/20080811swv-shooting0811-ON.html

http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080810/NEWS01/808100345

What about driving down the street:

http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/572097.html

Or dining in a resturant:

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_072208WAB_restaurant_robbery_KC.810a4e71.html

And I suppose that any case that involves folks that know each other is rightfully relegated to a mutual combatant situation that could have been easily avoided and not justifiable self defense:

http://www.wtvq.com/news/1-latest/1253-no-charges-in-deadly-shooting.html

http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=21407

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_sufshooting_0814aug14,0,5375262.story

While I believe that the efforts to deescalate situations are all to frequently neglected and need to be discussed at length, I do think that many of your comments are biased and in error. As others have said, your perspective seems to be that of an LEO with a somewhat jaded opinion of most of us tax paying, law-abiding folks who just want to enjoy the fruits of our hard work without having to stay at home and avoid social situations simply because we might come into contact with criminals.

That being said, I also think that a specific sub-thread about methods used to deescalate situations and examples of the same would be a very good idea.
 
Jeff wrote:

However it is obviously impossible to have that discussion here because most of the membership seems unable to swallow their pride and discuss deescalation even as an intellectual exercise. Why pass up the chance to shoot someone, after all we don't get that chance very often seems to be the attitude around here.

Jeff, this is the exact kind of comment that led to my PMing you earlier. NOBODY has said or implied that they wouldn't "pass up a chance to shoot someone." THAT IS HARDLY the attitude of the posters in this thread or on THR. I for one am sick and tired of the sanctimonious comments from some of the moderators here in S&T that have the monopoly on judgement, de-escalation, verbal judo, experience, understanding of the human mind and actions, jedi mind tricks, ABSOLUTE AWARENESS, the superpower of avoiding all conflicts, and considering themselves the LAW or pretty darn close to the law when it comes to anything in Strategy and Tactics.

I'm shocked this wasn't closed on the first page for being "bloodthirsty", I'm sure someone commented that the thugs got what they had coming. :banghead:

You open the thread and if any comments don't fit into your Illinois, law enforcement, infinite years of experience opinion, then those making the comments are bloodthirsty, arrogant, prideful, looking for a fight, stupid, unaware, etc...

I believe you can tell I'm sick of these kind of comments from the moderators in this section of THR. :fire:
 
Last edited:
Jeff White said:
The point of this thread was … [t]hat it is often better to swallow your pride and not have to shoot someone.…

Agreed. However, the specific case you cited provides neither a clear nor good example of your point. How do you swallow your pride and de-escalate a confrontation when a gang of armed criminals is shooting at you?

Maybe many “self-defense shootings” do rise from “disputes that get out of hand,” but this case still doesn’t seem to be an example of that. This case involves a dispute between a family of unkown background and a gang of armed criminals.

A simple dispute that gets out of hand to the point of violence would involve previously law-abiding parties … but, yes, de-escalation is almost always the best option for individuals, even when armed criminals are involved.

~G. Fink
 
For those who say he was expelled from the party...

Where does it say that in the arguement? It says Clark got into a scuffle with someone(not one of Reeves kids), then left saying he'd be back with friends.

We can infer all we want, but I see no mention of Clark said he and his "gangbanger" buddies were going to come back and shoot the place up, or kill you. He just threatened to come back. We don't know if Clark was the one who assault Reeves daughter, or that Clark had anything to do with the three guys who started assaulting Reeves son which he watched. I doubt they were Clarks friends, because why would have to leave and get more?

The article makes it sound like Reeves shot Clark just as soon as he stepped out of the car. If it were truly gang-related, why didn't his friends jump out with their guns and shoot at Reeves right there? They were armed afterall. :rolleyes:

If Reeves had shutdown the party, which in my opinion he obviously should have since there appeared to multiple skirmishes going on. When Clark returned, it could very well be that he would have driven off if there was no party to return. I doubt he would have gone looking for Reeves kids, as it doesn't seem like they had any part of the problem.

Of course we don't know exactly what led up to the actual shooting. And I mean did Clark make gestures, pull a knife, a gun of his own, or was merely his presence there enough for Reeves to pull the trigger?

It really amazes the so called "high road" of some of these posts. With facts few and far between, people seem to assume it was thugs, and gangbangers, and all manner of stuff.

Yes thats is all very true. It could be that. It could also just be kids not thinking correctly, and while "threats" were said, could have been harmless. Its just as likely that when confronted with an adult who said leave, party is over, that Clark would have backed down. We simply don't know.

Fine, discuss how to deescalate a bunch of thugs who come onto your property and threaten you.

Where in the article does it say that a bunch of thugs came onto the property and threated reeves? Where in the article does it say anything about threatening to do serious bodily harm/death? The only time that threat was just in that article that I saw was Clark threatening to come back with friends.

Agreed. However, the specific case you cited provides neither a clear nor good example of your point. How do you swallow your pride and de-escalate a confrontation when a gang of armed criminals is shooting at you?

Where the hell did this come from? Nobody shot at Reeves until after he shot Clark. And it was much later. That situation probably can't be deescalated. What led up to Clarks death might have been.

Edit: I do see where Reeves kids claim a cell phone was stolen, of course we don't know if it was theirs. My interpretation it wasn't, they were just telling the reporter what had started everything. It could have been theres, but even then it doesn't seem like they were the ones accusing Clark.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm. Seems we might need two threads here.

One for those who want to sleuth the details of the shooting in Jeff's op ..
(Why wait for the official report when we can argue in excruciating detail
about what may have happened based on limited information?) ...

.. and a second one for those of us that are willing to wait for the report from
those actually investigating the case (maybe even the trial report)
but who would rather talk more about de-escalation of tense situations in general.

I'm one of those willing to wait for the report, and am barely scanning the posts about arm chair sleuthing.

(No offense intended; I'm just not interested in guessing.
I'm not making light of the case, nor what might be learned from it after the investigation is finished.
I'm just not interested in second guessing here. I don't watch TV who-dunits, either.)
 
What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Jeff, what we're saying is that you, as an IL cop, have a different set of actions that we, J. Random Homeowner do. De-escalate, yes, but don't put yourself at a tactical disadavantage. Because you, Lee, have the resources and armament of the entire State of IL, you can back down a pretty long way to let some thug think he's won in front of his homies. Don't apply that standard to us, who have nothing but a pistol, a flashlight, and a cell phone. We don't have the same room to back down.
 
camslam -- excellent comment above. Deescalation is well and good, but not always an evident option, and hindsight is always better than the regular kind.

I hope some of the THR posters reading this thread will be following this case -- sounds like one that deserves it.

timothy
 
De-escalate, yes, but don't put yourself at a tactical disadavantage.

How is cancelling a party putting yourself at a tactical disadvantage? How is telling everyone to go home a tactical disadvantage?

Why is it considered giving in to "thugs" to cancel a party that has already gotten out of hand? It would seem to me as a parent, pulling the plug would be the responsible thing to do, especially if you don't know the guest list.

Clark may have been a big problem. But what about the one who accused him of the cell phone? Or the one he got into the scuffle with? I find it really hard to believe Clark was the only guilty party here.

Yet everyone is quick to blame him, call him a thug, gangbanger wannabe who can't be reasoned with. Believe that he really did steal the phone. That he made violent threats as he was leaving. That they were "armed" when they returned and making violent threats, so they got what they deserved. That nothing could be done to defuse the situation.

Why is that? Nobody here was there. Nobody knows anything specific. Yes the same results might have happened had the party been broken up. Then again it might not have been.

So why is ok to infer and read between the lines and say it was a good shoot because it would have happened regardless, and not ok to say well maybe if he had done this the situation might never have happened?

Hell it doesn't even look like Reeves called the police at any point, before or after the shooting. So is it ok then to use a gun in self-defense and then not report it, especially if they got away? One responder to this thread said the police went over just to check on him. Why would they do that? At the very least he should be taken into custody, as muddled as the situation is.

Fights at parties are not uncommon. Some kids can't check their egos at the door. And some who feel slighted will go and get their friends to help out. That doesn't automatically mean though that its meant to be a deadly situation. Kids don't always think that far ahead.

And for Clarks friends performing the drive by, again I'd say they weren't in their right mind. That being a gangbanger or thug had little do with it. They just saw their friend get shot, and then watched him die. They aren't going to be the most stable. So now they want revenge. And its not hard to get a gun whether you're a gangbanger or not. Maybe it was dads sitting in the sock drawer for home defense. Or mom keeps it in her purse. So now they have a gun and want some payback against the guy who killed his friend. They are not going to be thinking level-headed, not thinking about the consequences. Because sometimes kids don't.

I find it just as likely that that could have been the scenario as a bunch of gangbangers exacting some eye for an eye. For others, I guess blaming it on gangbangers is easier to do.

Hindsight is 20/20. And we don't always act rationaly when we should. I know there a times when I second guess myself over my actions. Wish that I had done things differently. We learn from it. And that is what should be taken away from this thread's original intent.

You can always do things differently, which may or may not affect the outcome. Was this an instance where it wouldn't have mattered. I personally don't think so. And we'll never know.
 
Jeff White said:
…It was at the lake house that Reeves owned. If they had gone to their residence, no one would have been there to have a conflict with when they came back.
The lake house is their residence. It’s their property and they have every right to be there. If the thug had promised to return to the main residence, then they shouldn’t have needed to retreat to the lake house. It’s no different. The party didn’t need to be broken up, but if he thought a gun was necessary, he should have called the police (mistake number one). If the police wanted the party to break up, then it would have been advisable at that point, but not entirely necessary (although I can’t really understand why someone would want to remain at a party with the potential for gun play). I guess my line of thinking is, “would sending all the party goers home have done much to prevent the thug from returning with friends?”. There just isn’t enough information to make that call. Since it sounds like the thugs were after the son and daughter, I’m thinking that breaking up the party wouldn’t have stopped the incident, but would have been safer for the party goers. OTOH, the party goers can also act as witnesses, which is something everyone should consider IMHO (thinking of Harold Fisch (sp?)). I think I’d error on the side of safety and send the partiers home, after calling the police. Reason for this is because I don’t want to put them in danger, and if I think I need a gun, then they are quite possibly in danger.

I haven’t seen to many people mention calling the cops for the assault (which lends credence to JW’s “mutual combat” implication), much less for the promise to return with friends. So many times I’ve read that if you are involved in an incident, the victim is the first one to call the PD.

While Jeff White has used words that can be construed as implications (and I think his last post was a contradiction as it seemed he was getting a bit defensive), I think it would be more productive to attack the argument, not the person. He has also stated that this thread is about deescalation. While I can understand some peoples frustration at some mods, I don't see that as the topic of this thread.
 
Are you suggesting that no one who has ever been arrested in a claimed self defense shooting was later exonerated? Here's at least one case I found in a matter of minutes and I am sure that there are more:
Even if he is eventually cleared of all wrong doing, what damage will do to him and his family in the mean time? What will his reputation be like? Will it cost him his job and future jobs? How much money will be spent to defend his action? How will it impact his children? No legal punishment doesn't mean you won't be feeling the effects of your actions for a long time. If at all possible, wouldn't it have just been better to not shoot anyone?

And earlier, you posted that most alleged self-defense shootings result from hanging around criminals and that as long as you don't hang around criminal types, you'll reduce your chance of needing to protect yourself to practically nil. Seems that even if you do so and hang around your own home you may not be able to avoid the criminal elements of society:
Of course it happens. People get struck by lightning and win the lottery. Highly unlikely doesn't mean impossible. The DoJ as I recall has a webpage with a ton of statistics on violence and homicide and the relationships of the attacker and victim and the circimstances. By and large bad guys only kill each other. Sometimes someone having a bad day beats the odds.

The lake house is their residence. It’s their property and they have every right to be there.
They sure did. Is this outcome worth it? Its great to beat your chest and say I won't be intimidated, I won't leave because of some thug but if the end result of standing your ground is having to fight something like this guy will, is it really a fight worth taking up? I would hope most married guys or fathers would feel a duty to their family first.

Nematocyst I think you're onto something, a de-escalation thread with an example might be too volatile, discussing the idea of taking a hit to ones ego to end a confrontation might be best kept in more generic terms.
 
Since it sounds like the thugs were after the son and daughter,

Can I ask what makes you draw this conclusion?

Is it because the father was told that his daughter was assaulted and watched his son get attacked by 3 guys?

Is it because it was their house?

There is not enough to know specifics either way. It makes no mention of the son or daughter being in the scuffle with Clark. It doesn't even mention the son or daughter being the ones who accused him.

I guess my line of thinking is, “would sending all the party goers home have done much to prevent the thug from returning with friends?”.

Oh, I'm sure they would have returned. But once they got there would there be any reason for them to take action?

If son and daughter aren't the target, and the lights are off and no indiciation that a party is still going on, for what purpose would they have to continue being there? If Reeves happened to be outside when they pulled up and said go home, party's over would things have been different? Would they have just driven off and either cooled down, or went looking for the one who had scuffled with Clark?

While the lakehouse is their residence, they aren't staying there. They were using it as a party place in this particule situation. I don't see it as retreating to break everything up and tell the kids(yours and the others) to go home, and then go back to the residence you're staying at. I don't see it as abandoning it to "thugs".

Again, there are just too many unknowns. I don't believe its fair though to place all of the blame on Clark, when we don't know specifics. A lot of people were out of line it seems to me at this party. Any one of those things done differently could have resulted in a different outcome. It wouldn't surprise me if the son/daughter were more involved then things let on. Doesn't mean they are innocent however.
 
the time to start descalation was back when they wrongfully accused the dead kid of stealing the phone. and during this part was there some laying on of hands? how much did the kids drink? and did reeves know they were drinking? god forbid did he provide it? when they release the investication reeves could be i way more trouble. and his kids too if they and/or their friends mad ephysical contact with the kid their dad killed.
come to think of it if reeves showed up and i can be shown that he knew the kids were drinking he can bend over and kiss his life goodby. they will crucify him in civil court. the dead kids family can start planning their next party, at their new lake house.
 
I am hereby de-escalating this thread, for several reasons.

Number One: I am tired of cleaning up the language- even when quoted from other sources- some members persist in using. THR is intended to be a family-friendly site. The forum rules include a general prohibition against gutter language. That means PROHIBITION. That doesn't meant quoting four-letter words from elsewhere is OK. It doesn't mean 'spelling around' them with dingbats is OK. It means PROHIBITION. Like this:

There are only a few house rules:

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.


Clean it up or go play somewhere else.
----------------------

Number Two: Bloodlust, testosterone poisoning, chestbeating. It is my impression that far too many members who post in S&T either are not familiar with what blackletter and case law dicates regarding self defense in their own jurisdictions, or don't want to seem to care. Yes, I know this is the Internet and no one knows I'm a dog. I don't care.

This is NOT 'that' Internet. This is S&T at THR. You don't want to go by the rules here? Then the Internet is a big place, there are lots of gun forums out there where you can leak excess testosterone all over the place and no one will object.

But if you want to stay here, that won't work. The Special Forces soldiers I used to work with had a phrase: "big boy rules." As far as I am concerned, we go by big boy rules here. If any person has trouble understanding what that means, or going along with it, maybe S&T is not the place you want to hang your Internet hat.
--------------------------

Number Three: Dickering, Bickering, Whining, Nattering. It's unseemly. It's childish. It will neither win friends or cow enemies. Let us please not engage in it here.

We are here to discuss serious topics. It is anticipated that all who wish to enter into discussions here will have a certain degree of maturity in hand, a certain amount of experience in the world on which to base opinions, maybe even a little, like, professional training and/or experience, actually. NOT that such is required to participate here- no, not at all. But it pays to think twice before posting here. Actions have consequences. So do words. It is good to keep that in mind.

I have been accused in the past, no doubt with some justification, for not always making myself clear as to various actions I have taken as a moderator. I hope there will be no doubts in this case. If anyone needs further clarification, please feel free to PM me.

lpl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top