Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics, and Training' started by lemaymiami, May 10, 2020.
I consider such a return that to be the lowest risk of not trying to detain a criminal, and far, far lower than the risks of trying to detain one.
If a criminal is detained at the scene, and if the defender is not shot, the criminal may well be out and about, with an attitude, before the defender gets his gun back.
If he leaves, it is very unlikely that he will take a chance on returning.
True, unless that movement is mis-interpreted as an aggressive and immediately threatening act under the circumstances, and leads to placing a finger on the trigger.. It is an unnecessary risk
I never have my finger on the trigger unless I am about to shoot.
But of course that suddn movment could represent a real danger. There was a case in which to armed, trained FBI agents were, together, detainong a man on the ground in front of them while waiting for police. He found the opportunity to access a hidden weapon and kill bpth of them.
I do recommend training, but I stopped crimes with guns before I had ever received any defensive training.
I have in fact received training in how to detain a criminal, and sound advice to not do so except under very limited circumstances.
Most defensive gun use incidents, and all of mine to date, have not involved shooting.
For me, none of my plans will involve putting myself at risk, physical or otherwise, by trying to detain anyone
It is now a Sticky.
Seems someone wants to make it personal,and not a general rule that covers more than 50%.
So,by that rule,I have done and taught all that I penned,so MY TRUTHS may not be YOUR truths = but that does not make it less than truth.
NEVER did I point a finger at you,about any of my posts ---- you chose to take it as it was you and no one else.
Guess I cannot say anything that will not be about you ?.
I am taking my ball and going home to momma !.You guys play so mean.
What in the world are you talking about?
Your above post where you tear me a new A hole ,quote by quote.
As if I was talking about and at you when I posted the FACTS that I see and firmly believe to be true.n
I responded "quote by quote" do discuss the ideas individually.
I most certainly did not take your comments personally. Nor should you take my response personally.
As I interpreted your post, you seemed to discount the risks incurred by a civilian attempting to detain a suspect, and to suggest that a defender can have but two but reasonable choices--detain or shoot.
Perhaps that was not your intention.
When we posted many of the same thoughts three years ago in the thread linked above, you appeared to be in strong agreement.
My main point now, as then, is that I do not believe it prudent for a civilian to try to detain a suspect.
What is your take on that?
Ok, we agree on that as much as I am STRONGLY annoyed at how many think they "know" how to retain their weapon.[ yea,off topic ].
If your willing to carry & hopefully conceal it,then how about the discipline to take classes in weapon retention & when and how to use that smokepole & how to take a person your holding at gunpoint = to a conclusion [ one your TRAINED and comfortable with ].
At some point ,if your carrying a gun.You might need to draw it.
It is VERY possible [ according to all the actual incidents in the NRA "armed citizen" ] that you will not have to shoot.
THEN WHAT ?,you now have a perp at gunpoint !.
Hope you see my point,thanks.
I do indeed.
My (limited) experience with force-on-force training showed that 3 ft is not nearly enough reaction space.
Old video of an old man... In another lifetime, we tested this. And they say never bring a knife to a gunfight...
Put simply -distance is your friend in any possible physical confrontation - armed or not... In fact, whenever two officers went to make an arrest where even possible weapons were involved they were taught to stand off, controlling the individual at gun point - and only when the subject obeyed commands (the usual "freeze, turn around, on your knees, etc" ) would the handcuffing officer secure his or her weapon and then approach - while the second officer kept their distance while covering the subject with whatever weapon was being employed... You never ever want to be close to a possible opponent with weapon in hand if at all possible...
All of the above is why I started this thread.. anyone with weapon in hand that approaches a hostile individual is asking for trouble and there really are folks around skilled enough to take a weapon right out of your hands and use it... right then. The actions of the father and son in this instance were not only clearly illegal - but also guaranteed there would be a desperate wrestling struggle for that shotgun that ended in the victim being shot and killed...
Terrible incidents like this can haunt a community for years and certainly provide ammo for the anti- gun crowd ...
I've said this before but it bears repeating for any armed citizen... your tactics in any kind of confrontation are more important than your weapons skills every time....
Theres so much more to carrying a gun than just carrying a gun.
Unfortunately many EDC folks dont realize this.
Backstory. An individual had popped up on the cameras of several residents in this community. I imagine that it was less that Ahmaud Arbery was black and more that he looked like the guy on camera.
Greg McMichael also had a pistol stolen from his vehicle on Jan 1st. I don’t know if anyone saw anything or it was caught on video. I imagine that this will come out at trial.
On the day in question Arbery is seen walking through the community. He turns his head sides to side, runs into house under construction. 0:18 - 0:19 of this video
Someone comes out of a house opposite and gets on a cell phone. A call was placed to 911 at this time.
Several mins later he exits the house under construction and runs up the street. The McMichaels pursue.
When the video of the shooting starts Arbery runs for 16 secs up the street towards the McMichaels truck, charges Travis McMichael and punches and wrestles with him over the shotgun. Arbery is then shot.
Personally I wouldn’t have found myself in this kind of situation. That’s because besides calling the police I wouldn’t have gotten involved. Incidents like this only harden my resolve to not ever get involved in something that doesn’t involve friends or family unless it’s something that is just so over the top that it’s clear cut what the societal response would be.
This statement kinds says it all. The fact that you think they would have been up on charges anyway indicates you feel they were in the wrong anyway. In that case, the gun had little to do with the indecent other than to make the outcome a little more deadly for the victim. Anyway, that's my take. The clip I saw made it look as if they were flat out pursuing the dude. Pure intent...
What if... the victim, was armed as well, and was more alert to the behavior of the killers? (2 big mistakes) Don't know the back story of why he was running around in that neighborhood, but he still should have been more alert, and he still could have done better at either fighting back, or just plain avoiding the two chasing him. Lesson to be learned...
We have a brief view of the defense in the case from snippets in the media, a) what the individuals were doing was legal under Georgia law (turns on probable cause that the deceased was a burglar) and they were attempting to make a "citizen's arrest", b) that pursuing and attempting to block a suspected burglar from escaping was "reasonable" under Georgia law. Some of the factors include that the road was public where both the deceased and the posse had a right to be; who did the jury believe start the confrontation which deals with timing; what the video shows and doesn't show; what witnesses observed or heard about the mindset of the participants; and what the police officers/coroner/other expert witnesses testify about the actions.
The commonality between this case and the Trayvon case is that both involved individuals outside a vehicle with a firearm; both involved a deceased person who was unarmed; both involved a situation where the confrontation happened in public; both had a racial component; and both cases have a basic question of "who started the conflict" which has implications for self defense. And, most importantly, both confrontations could have been avoided if the person involved in the shooting stayed in the dadgum vehicle and simply videoed and witnessed what the "suspects" did and being a good witness for when the police showed up.
As far as the tactical goes, if the posse did suspect that the deceased was armed from a previous theft, it was poor tactics to confront the guy. Similarly, for the confrontation between the shooter and the deceased, it was a very poor tactic to be out of the vehicle--a fist against a locked vehicle is not going to go very far. Third, a citizen's arrest for a non-forcible felony, aside from the generally bad tactic to try to do this absent a true emergency, is simply stupid. Fourth, complacency can kill. The posse must have thought that no one would resist three guys, the deceased would not try to seize the longarm, and one of the posse's credentials/training/experience as a former leo would win in any confrontation. They were wrong. Fifth, videoing a confrontation by the posse can go both ways--in a sense, the jury trusts visual information more than witness testimony because the camera "cannot lie". Note that the third party videoing the confrontation might possibly face charges as an accessory. In Georgia law, we have the felony murder rule which often causes individuals involved in a situation to turn on each other in court to avoid being charged with the murder themselves.
O.C.G.A. §16-5-1 (2010)
16-5-1. Murder; felony murder
(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.
(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.
(d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life.
coupled with this,
Georgia statute O.C.G.A. §16-2-20 (2010) https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-2/article-2/16-2-20/
(a) Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime.
(b) A person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if he:
Directly commits the crime;
Intentionally causes some other person to commit the crime under such circumstances that the other person is not guilty of any crime either in fact or because of legal incapacity;
Intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or
Intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime.
In essence, the posse bet their life, liberty, reputation, and property, in order to secure an alleged burglar who did not appear to be carrying the "spoils" and who would probably would not have been charged anyway with what we know now.
Any such tactical decisions can only be described as pigheaded stupidity and all three of the individuals in the posse are going to pay the piper for it.
GREAT breakdown of the 'incident'.
My counterplay is that the dead guy was "dead right" and should be alive ------ if he did not ATTACK A MAN WITH A GUN,that was not appearently pointed / aimed at him.
I can take either side and have a great argument with myself "-)
But my legal mind says the 2 or 3 involved citizens were 'dead wrong' in attempting to play LEO.
This has played out on screen too many times to not see how it ends.
Arrests,criminal record,COURT EXPENSES [ tens of THOUSANDS ] and your face all over the news for at least a year.
And if by luck and chance your exonerated = the press will barely mention it.
You pull that trigger , and the rest of your ENTIRE LIFE will be on hold for a year or ten.
It better be your ONLY & LAST CHOICE.
I agree, hard cases make bad law and this is a case where the jury is going to view one side or the other as initiating the confrontation. One will also see a great deal about retreat in the case, despite the fact that Georgia has a stand your ground law. A lot depends on the specific charge and instructions to the jury.
@boom boom , I’d like to hear your interpretation of the Georgia statute on citizen’s arrest:
It seems improbable to claim that the accused had knowledge of a felony (because it didn’t exist - at worst under Georgia statute, Arbery’s presence at the construction sit (as evidenced by the surveillance footage) was a misdemeanor. At best - if there weren’t any “No Trespassing” signs - it wasn’t a crime at all). Without the knowledge of a felony, their pursuit (and subsequent attempt at apprehension) was not justified under Georgia law. “Suspicion” of a felony isn’t the same as the “knowledge” of a felony required under the statute.
(There’s a woman in jail in Georgia awaiting trial for manslaughter after following a hit and run driver that ended in a shooting, Her claim of citizen’s arrest was rejected because it was only a misdemeanor, not a felony.)
I see a "presumption" of a pursuit & arrest !.
I said before ,I can easily see and argue BOTH sides of this one ---- at the same time.
But will reserve both till there is ANY court rulings.
Citizens do tend to get themselves in trouble, pursuing misdemeanor suspects, and/or pointing guns at misdemeanor suspects, in an effort to “detain” the suspects, when no legal justification exists to pursue, point a firearm, or detain.
I say this as a recently-retired police officer, who worked patrol for 33+ years.
Separate names with a comma.