coyotehitman
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 558
______________________________
This is what most self defense shootings are..a conflict that gets out of hand
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
leadcounsel
member
Let's see, expelled person causes fight, makes threats and is expelled. Comes back later to make good on threats and trespasses and is shot and killed. His friends (presumably) are gang members and do a drive by later. Seems like a good self defense shoot to me - anything else is just Monday morning quarterbacking.
You mean to tell me that I cannot expell someone that's causing a disturbance from my property and later defend myself when they come back to make good on their threats? I don't think so!
You mean to tell me that I cannot expell someone that's causing a disturbance from my property and later defend myself when they come back to make good on their threats? I don't think so!
Can you shoot someone for criminal trespass in your state? We don't know what led up to the shooting. This thread is focused on what could have been done before things degenerated to shooting. Breaking up the party and sending everyone home might have been a better option.
Jeff
coyotehitman
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 558
I can count on one hand the number of actual unprovoked SD shootings/stabbings that I have handled. Most of these violent incidents are, as was stated, two folks who cannot see eye to eye and are too stubborn to back down and walk away, and in one case a gun toting wacko who was looking for a reason to "protect himself".
Somehow, I knew the race card would come up...
Somehow, I knew the race card would come up...
The problem is cops seem to forget the "ALMOST" part when responding to disputes in neighborhoods and tend to treat victims as "Mutual Combatants" .
One would think when the Police keep getting calls over periods of years and it always involves one house or person and several others they would catch on as to who the problem is especially when in dealing with the person or persons living there they themselves have problems in even having a simple conversation because they're always drunk and violent .
We recently moved away from a situation because despite the fact that close to a dozen families had several incidents all with one family being involved the Police never did a thing except accuse the rest of us of being as much of the problem as the family of drunks thieves and God knows what all .
One summer evening returning home at around 8:30 PM after an anniversary dinner for the in laws I find the street full of cops cars almost but not quite blocking me from getting to my home .
After managing to navigate through all the cars at about 1 MPH I pull in my driveway , and here comes a cop walking the 4 house away wanting to know what I knew about what was going on .
Here I and my family stand dressed up , me and my son in suits with every single cop having watched us drive through the blockade of cop cars and this cop insinuates I'm somehow involved with the drunks and this weeks fight up the street when I later find out they have been there close to an hour now !
Then they want to make the rounds of the nearby houses and ask everyone "What do you think we should do to keep this from becoming a shooting situation ?" .
I dunno how about doing YOUR JOB and start arresting these people at least every say tenth time you get called to a drunken fight at the same house over and over again that has spilled out into the street and the neighbors yards , especialy when they scream and yell at the Police !!
White you love to make posts over and over again on how "You can't shoot someone" for this or that or it's murder when apparently you can't even own a home pay , taxes and expect to be able to sit in it and enjoy minding your own business when you have ***** neighbors who think destroying and or stealing your property , relieving themselves in your yard or just screaming and fighting until 4 am every weekend night .
If the [ ] don't drive the average person nuts the cops will beating on the door in the middle of the night just to ask you what you know about something that is going on several houses away when you don't know a thing and were trying to get a decent nights sleep !!
And people wonder how some people get pushed to their limits and just shoot someone !
Last edited by a moderator:
If you feel you must shoot your neighbor, then by all means, go ahead and do it. Don't let something like the law get in your way.
Just remember that there are consequences for your actions. 
Feel free to ignore anything anyone says here and just do what you want. Obviously you aren't the target audience for this thread....Jeff
Last edited by a moderator:
leadcounsel
member
Jeff White said:
Jeff, the answer is a resounding YES if that person was at my house causing a fight and I expelled him and he made threats that he and his goons were going to come and '[ ] me up' or whatever the 'quiet' punk likely said on his way off the property. That punk later comes back making good on his threats- if he puts me in 'reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death', then yes he goes out in a bag.
I fully agree that you should try to de-escalate the situation. Let's examine what the key events were:
1. Family is having a party where they believe Clark (a 'guest' assuming he was invited) of taking private property. A 'scuffle' ensues. The article hints that both the daughter and son were attacked by several people. Clark (and others?) is promptly ejected. De-escalation.
2. Clark makes threats on his way out.
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.
4. Thug Clark reappears. No evidence of what is said or done, but my guess is that he isn't there to appologize and he isn't there alone or unarmed and to make good on his threats. At this point, Clark is trespassing and putting party-goers and the resident in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death. We don't know if he is armed, but it is clear that his friends are armed; and this implies (although the article is silent on it) that Clark is probably also armed (why else would he return, especially since his friends are armed).
5. The facts may turn out differently, but reading betwee the lines - it was private property, thug possibly stole property and started a fight and was ejected, made threats and returned to execute and was killed. Probably a justifiable self defense shoot.
Jeff, the answer is a resounding YES if that person was at my house causing a fight and I expelled him and he made threats that he and his goons were going to come and '[ ] me up' or whatever the 'quiet' punk likely said on his way off the property. That punk later comes back making good on his threats- if he puts me in 'reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death', then yes he goes out in a bag.
I fully agree that you should try to de-escalate the situation. Let's examine what the key events were:
1. Family is having a party where they believe Clark (a 'guest' assuming he was invited) of taking private property. A 'scuffle' ensues. The article hints that both the daughter and son were attacked by several people. Clark (and others?) is promptly ejected. De-escalation.
2. Clark makes threats on his way out.
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.
4. Thug Clark reappears. No evidence of what is said or done, but my guess is that he isn't there to appologize and he isn't there alone or unarmed and to make good on his threats. At this point, Clark is trespassing and putting party-goers and the resident in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death. We don't know if he is armed, but it is clear that his friends are armed; and this implies (although the article is silent on it) that Clark is probably also armed (why else would he return, especially since his friends are armed).
5. The facts may turn out differently, but reading betwee the lines - it was private property, thug possibly stole property and started a fight and was ejected, made threats and returned to execute and was killed. Probably a justifiable self defense shoot.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sistema1927
Member
That sure was an expensive cell phone.
I have yet to see one that was worth the price of a human life.
I have yet to see one that was worth the price of a human life.
Thug gets ejected. Thug returns with friends. Family is in immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death. Man presumably tells thug he's trespassing. Thug refuses to leave. Man defends family and shoots thug. Thug's friends do a drive by. Family again in danger of serious bodily harm or death. Man defends family again and shoots Thug's friends.
I see no problem with any of this.
Jeff, you're an IL cop. I think that taints your viewpoint, and think that your comments don't apply here at all. SC has castle doctrine. IL does not. This man would have been arrested in IL, and probably shouldn't have been arrested in SC. Sure, what you mostly see in "self-defense" shootings are conflicts between scum because IL has NO CCW, NO castle doctrine, and thus all you see are mostly criminals shooting criminals. Don't smear all gun owners with such a broad brush. Not all states are like yours (thankfully).
I see no problem with any of this.
Jeff, you're an IL cop. I think that taints your viewpoint, and think that your comments don't apply here at all. SC has castle doctrine. IL does not. This man would have been arrested in IL, and probably shouldn't have been arrested in SC. Sure, what you mostly see in "self-defense" shootings are conflicts between scum because IL has NO CCW, NO castle doctrine, and thus all you see are mostly criminals shooting criminals. Don't smear all gun owners with such a broad brush. Not all states are like yours (thankfully).
Sometimes it just pays to be smart and let them dictate where and when you can have a party. Now Reeves is facing murder charges for standing up for his rights to have that party. Even if he is acquitted, he will most likely be financially beaten and if he's got anything left, he can plan on using that to fight the civil suit that will likely be filed.
Clark may have been a gang banging scumbag who the world is better off without, we don't know that. But Reeves is paying a very high price for removing him from the world. At some point you have to ask yourself if you are going to get a good return on your investment. It looks like Reeves is possibly investing the rest of his life on his right to continue that party.
Illinois had Castle Doctrine before the NRA made the term popular:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
If it came down as you describe it, Reeves actions would have been justifiable under Illinois law.
Jeff
rainbowbob
Member
This would seem to support the argument that civilians should be disarmed because we rarely "need" firearms for legitimate self-defense.
To be clear, Jeff White doesn't make that argument - but his statement would appear to support it.
No offense - but I put more stock in sources such as the Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog, the Kleck study, etc as the basis for being an armed citizen - rather than the anecdotal experience of one LEO (from a state that does not permit it's citizens to arm themselves for self-defense).
Having said that...I would agree 100% that de-escalation skills; together with avoidance, common sense, and civility are the most important and effective ways to avoid ever having to shoot somebody.
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff.
Here's a summary of what you said earlier.
Thereby implying it probably wasn't self-defense.
"Most instances of self-defense really aren't." OK Jeff, we get it.
Now you raise the ante to "mutual combat". Not actually saying that it was mutual combat, just implying it by throwing the term out there. Mmm-hm.
Well, considering that they already were in the home of the shooter by being at his lake house, I think you're missing something.
Again, with the "most of what I've seen is criminals shooting criminals, therefore when someone gets shot, it's likely people acting like criminals."
That was just too ludicrous for some, so then you finally backpedal to:
And maybe it wouldn't have been. Maybe Thug and his friends would have come back after the man called off the party while the man and his family were sleeping and killed them all. Because what you're doing is called induction in hindsight, you really have no idea what the best option was. Guy's daughter was getting roughed up by thugs, in his own house. Of course, we should meekly ask them to leave. Whatever.
Jeff, as a cop, you have automatic weapons, armed backup, radios, helicopters, and other things that us peons either don't have or legally aren't allowed to own. Not to mention that if a thug kills you, he's going to have the entire police force looking nonstop for him. Not so with Joe Average Homeowner. He's got a measly pistol and a shotgun - no backup, no machineguns, no helicopters, and no thin blue line ready to hunt down his assailant. Not to mention that the very act of going over to the lake house with a loaded pistol would have violated IL state law - whereas you are allowed by that state to carry a pistol wherever you choose. He's got a little less room to back down than you do, sir.
I think each of us do the best we can. I think this guy did the best he could. And given that there are so many things that we, including you, just don't know, I think you should dial back the rhetoric.
Personally, I think that the only reason the guy was arrested was because the police came by to check on him and only arrested him because he was drunk when they showed up. "Hey Lou, maybe we should take this guy in, just in case?"
Exactly. Argument by implication.
ZeSpectre
Member
Whew, deescalating the situation.
I worked a beat that had a large mixture of two cultures.
One culture was largely based on a fairly rigid social structure and set rules spelled out in black and white.
The other culture was more freewheeling and dickering/bartering was not only accepted but expected.
I quickly lost count of the number of times people from culture #1 would be upset at culture #2 for being disrespectfully argumentative. And culture #2 would be upset at culture #1 for not observing the social and face saving niceties of haggling.
Trying to diffuse those cultural clashes was often quite intense!
I worked a beat that had a large mixture of two cultures.
One culture was largely based on a fairly rigid social structure and set rules spelled out in black and white.
The other culture was more freewheeling and dickering/bartering was not only accepted but expected.
I quickly lost count of the number of times people from culture #1 would be upset at culture #2 for being disrespectfully argumentative. And culture #2 would be upset at culture #1 for not observing the social and face saving niceties of haggling.
Trying to diffuse those cultural clashes was often quite intense!
yhtomit
Member
Fletcher compiled the list above that I was about to -- thanks
A murder charge seems completely off base here: the father charged with it I think acted out of (given the circumstances) reasonable fear for the life of himself and his family. Kid at party scuffles, threatens later violence, returns belligerent. I know that's one circumstance I'd rather be right than dead.
timothy
A murder charge seems completely off base here: the father charged with it I think acted out of (given the circumstances) reasonable fear for the life of himself and his family. Kid at party scuffles, threatens later violence, returns belligerent. I know that's one circumstance I'd rather be right than dead.
timothy
Yeah, they charged him with murder because he was drunk.......
It just might be possible that the police and the prosecutor found evidence that led them to believe that maybe it wasn't a good shoot and that's why Reeves was arrested.
I'd bet that if you asked Reeves right now, he'd say that he wished he had just closed up the lake house and taken the kids home. He's looking at his life as he knew it being over, maybe forever.
If Clark was a gang banger, wouldn't it make sense to close up the party knowing that he might come back. Or at least call the police as soon as you ran him off the first time?
I have not made any judgment on Reeves actions. All I'm doing is giving other possible solutions that may have caused the situation to have a better outcome.
Jeff
B.D. Turner
Member
I bet if he had a choice now he would have called the police. In the meantime he better have a good amount of savings or his spouse have a good job to pay the bills while he spends the next year or so in jail waiting to go to trial.
B.D. Turner
Member
Then the family will seek a civil action against him and his estate.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
The cell phone is a distraction, such things are often used the trivialize any incident of self defense. "Man shot over fender bender" headlines and such.
"Man forcibly ejected from party threatens to return with his people and "[ ] somebody up." returns later with his people and is shot for his trouble."
This doesn't make such a good headline. "Area teen killed over cell phone" is much better, even if the cell phone has nothing to do with it.
Imagine I accidentally step on somebody's shoe while at the movies. Despite my apology, they get insanely upset about it, to the point that I decide that it is safer to leave. Then later he and his friends see me coming out of a local restaurant and confront me again. Even though I do my best to placate/disengage the enraged Steppee decides to teach me a lesson.
Regardless of what happens next the headline will read "Man hospitalized/stabbed/shot after dispute over shoes". When the police get there, all the hard work you put into avoiding violence will be for nothing because you will be treated as a party to a conflict and, if you a successful in defending yourself, you stand a good chance of being arrested on the word of Steppee's friends.
The shoes have nothing to go with it. The real matter is that I would have stumbled across a person that was willing to do violence with the slightest provocation. This isn't a conflict that got out of hand, this is aggression that should never have been.
The prevailing attitude to self defense is that all violence is reprehensible and being a victim is somehow morally superior.
David
Last edited by a moderator:
Gordon Fink
Member
I’m sorry, Jeff, but you’re wrong.
This was not a simple “conflict that gets out of hand.” Whatever the other circumstances were, this shooting was a case that involved a gang of armed criminals.
~G. Fink
This was not a simple “conflict that gets out of hand.” Whatever the other circumstances were, this shooting was a case that involved a gang of armed criminals.
~G. Fink
Gordon,
The gang of armed criminals came into the picture after the shooting if we can believe the news article. Again can someone tell me why he was arrested for murder in a castle doctrine state?
Jeff
The gang of armed criminals came into the picture after the shooting if we can believe the news article. Again can someone tell me why he was arrested for murder in a castle doctrine state?
Jeff
XDKingslayer
member
Verbal Judo?
Ok, let's be frank. These kids were gang members or at best gang member wannabes. The main kid went to get his homies and ended up ventilated. Then more homies did a drive by on dad's house.
Just how much impact does verbal judo have on gang members? I'm guessing very little. They only understand one thing. Violence. And that's exactly what they got from Dad.
At least he got rid of one useless thug.
Ok, let's be frank. These kids were gang members or at best gang member wannabes. The main kid went to get his homies and ended up ventilated. Then more homies did a drive by on dad's house.
Just how much impact does verbal judo have on gang members? I'm guessing very little. They only understand one thing. Violence. And that's exactly what they got from Dad.
At least he got rid of one useless thug.
How many gang bangers have you had to deal with? We have Gangster Disciples as the main gang around here and verbal judo works with them as well as anyone else. Sometimes nothing works and you have to fight. We don't know what happened. We don't know that deescalation wouldn't have worked.
But at what cost? $50K plus for a murder defense with no guarantee you'll win?
Jeff
Other posted were added before I clicked to post. So, the difference was the no attempt to de-escalate...yet another attribute of Michigan's OLD Castle Doctrine. When it was revised, both of those factors were removed.
****Original post follows****
Well, maybe...is it the same as Michigan's OLD Castle Doctrine?
"...in a dwelling...".
Did the shooting take place across the wrong side of a doorway?
Doc2005
****Original post follows****
Well, maybe...is it the same as Michigan's OLD Castle Doctrine?
"...in a dwelling...".
Did the shooting take place across the wrong side of a doorway?
Doc2005
leadcounsel
member
Jeff White:
Jeff, you are a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. Of course verbal judo is going to work. You are standing there, armed, next to your patrol car with your armed backup nearby and your radios and AR15 in the vehicle, etc.
While I don't have the details as to why this homeowner was arrested, barring some damning piece of evidence, based on what we've read in the posting, I bet there's a good chance that this is a good shoot and the DA drops the case. Yes, he may have to stomach serious legal fees to be acquitted. Hopefully he will have to spend less rather than more.
It would be unbelievably unjust if he is convicted based on these facts as we know them.
Jeff, you are a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. Of course verbal judo is going to work. You are standing there, armed, next to your patrol car with your armed backup nearby and your radios and AR15 in the vehicle, etc.
While I don't have the details as to why this homeowner was arrested, barring some damning piece of evidence, based on what we've read in the posting, I bet there's a good chance that this is a good shoot and the DA drops the case. Yes, he may have to stomach serious legal fees to be acquitted. Hopefully he will have to spend less rather than more.
It would be unbelievably unjust if he is convicted based on these facts as we know them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked