What do you think about this situation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There seem to be an awful lot of 'shoot first & ask questions later' type responses to this thread. I really hope that most of those responses are just a little steam being blown off or keyboard commando-ism.

Some of those same responders will no doubt decry the difficulties that can be encountered in attempting to get a ccw permit in a lot of cities & states.
If this scenario as described ended up being presented as a test question for getting a ccw in most areas, you should not be surprised or complain when you get refused, you'll have brought it on yourselves. I for one would not want to be anywhere near some of you guys when you're carrying. Your attitudes alone are dangerous. What some of you are advocating in your responses is at best dangerous and irresponsible.
 
The guy with the light stalked your buddy.Then, when your buddy turned, shined a very powerfull light in his eyes.

For those who don't know, a "Q-Beam" compared to a Surfire can be like comparing a candle to a bonfire. Accurate comparisons need to know the actual model "Q-Beam" (they vary from 200,000 CP to 15,000,000 CP) and how big a beam it throws at the distance used. However, assuming the lowest CP and a beam twice as wide as the most powerfull surfire (M4), your looking at something approximately 10 times as bright as the surfire.

"Temproary blindness" is an understatement. You're gonna see spots and nothing else for several minutes.

As for demonstrating it to a jury, I bet you could get a letter from the manufacturer recommending that you don't shine it in the jurers eyes for fear of injury. Failing that, if the DA insisted that it wasn't a serious threat, a competent defense attorny would ask the DA to stand in front of the jury while it was shined into the DAs face in a dark courtroom ......

Also, as my first CPL instructor drilled into his students: If you are carrying a gun, ANY confrontation in which your gun is found can be assumed to be deadly. A criminal, once finding your gun, is not going to take it and say "gee, thanks". They are going to use it to eliminate witnesses. That means eliminate YOU. If you don't believe that, go ask the police officers who have had thier guns taken from them. You'll need a medium to talk to most of them.

Your buddy had every reason to fear for his life. The fact that the police did not arrest him, that he wasn't prosecuted, and that the guy with the Q-beam never came forward after the fact all bear out that this was a good shoot.
 
Good God, if the guy meant real harm, he wouldn't go around trying to temporarily blind people with a high dollar flashlight. If the guy was out to cause mayhem, he'd simply do it. I stand by my original statement - the shooter was poppin' caps because he either wanted to or out of a result of unmerited fear, not because it was a necessary reaction to an assault.
He's damn lucky it ended the way it did.

Biker
 
Well in that he's lucky it ended how it did, I agree with you biker. I think firing shots into the air wouldn't have been an unreasonable alternative either.

This is actually the best outcome of a possible confrontation. Nobody dies, nobody has to spend their kids' college funds on court fees, and the situation is defused. You can't really do any better than that.

All Im saying is that shooting doesn't seem, under the circumstances, to be an unreasonable response to an obviously premeditated confrontation.
 
Your buddy had every reason to fear for his life. The fact that the police did not arrest him, that he wasn't prosecuted, and that the guy with the Q-beam never came forward after the fact all bear out that this was a good shoot.

All it means is that they didn't have a complainant. They had no way of verifying the guy's story. What were they going to charge him with? Disorderly conduct?

If the guy was so blinded by the Q-Beam, how did he even see the guy to shoot at him? How did he see his sights?

There was no way this was a good shoot.

Jeff
 
I'm guessing he's damned lucky that light was not being held by an officer of the law.

Funny I have yet to see a cop with a Q Beam on his belt .

Do a search on these lights the least powerfull one is 200,000 candle power , the rechargeable ones that are completely portable are 1 and 2 million CP respectfully . Folks at close range when your pupils are dialated "from the darkness" thats a litterally blinding light , enough so that if the guy were unarmed he would have been an easy target for an attack .

I do agree though that since he knew somone or something was behind him he should have gotten his truck between himself and the threat before he opened his truck and reached for the gun . In the event of an attack time and distance are your best friends .
 
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/am-gun0613,0,5232477.story?coll=ny-nycnews-headlines

New York City
Cops on alert for flashlight guns


BY ROCCO PARASCANDOLA
NEWSDAY STAFF WRITER

June 13, 2006


Narcotics cops investigating a drug crew in the Bronx made a startling discovery -- a gun disguised as a flashlight, law enforcement sources said.

The recent find is the latest example of homemade weapons popping up on city streets, Newsday has learned.

Several police sources noted that the attention law enforcement pays to removing illegal guns from the streets, has forced criminals to improvise and find ways to conceal weapons.

The disguised weapons, sources said, allow criminals, particularly drug dealers, to stay armed without raising much suspicion.

The one-shot flashlight gun, as Police Commissioner Ray Kelly noted in a departmental order issued last week to each NYPD command, "has the appearance of a flashlight but is capable of firing a round."

"Officers should be cautioned to use extreme vigilance and remain alert for dangerous weapons that may be disguised as ordinary items," Kelly's order stated.

The flashlight gun was seized during a recent narcotics raid in the Bronx. The NYPD would not provide more details about the seized weapon because of the pending investigation. It was not clear if the flashlight gun fires its bullet by flicking the on/off switch or by some other means.

The Pennsylvania Municipal Police Officers' Education & Training Commission issued a similar alert recently about flashlight guns, though the ones they warned about are slightly different than the ones the NYPD highlighted. On its Web site, the commission warned of a working flashlight capable of firing a .410 round as well as a miniature version, which fires a .380 round.

Police routinely update members of the force about new developments on the streets in New York City and elsewhere, including disguised weapons and tricks used by drug dealers to hide their product.

A recent missive described a rapid-fire pistol disguised as a cell phone.

The shooter, the order noted, could fire up to four rounds by pressing the numbers 5, 6, 7 or 8. So far, this type of weapon has been found only overseas.

Other items turned from the pedestrian into the deadly, not necessarily as guns, include combs and lipstick holders, all of which have turned up in the city.

One NYPD officer, Sgt. Craig Meissner, in 2002 detailed in a book about hidden contraband numerous other makeshift weapons that look like something out of a James Bond movie.

The weapons, recovered by police in cities here and abroad, include guns fashioned out of beepers and bike pumps.

Those are fairly ordinary compared to other items Meissner discovered in his research. His list included cane guns and umbrella guns, the latter of which could fire pellets dabbed with ricin, a lethal toxin.
23876885.jpg

23876887.jpg



.....I'm just saying.
 
Sure, the guy may have had a "gun flashlight". Fact is, a gay Sasquatch may have raided the local Swat Team's armory and was wielding a Q-Light, an MP-5 and was prowling the woods looking for male humans to sodomize when he ran across the shooter.
Caution was called for in this situation as was common sense. Unfortunately, it appears that panic replaced caution and common sense was on vacation.

Biker
 
Sure, the guy may have had a "gun flashlight". Fact is, a gay Sasquatch may have raided the local Swat Team's armory and was weilding a Q-Light, an MP-5 and was prowling the woods looking for male humans to sodomize when he ran across the shooter.
Caution was called for in this situation as was common sense. Unfortunately, it appears that panic replaced caution and common sense was on vacation.

Biker

Please let me know if you recieve a "1 time warning" via pm for such vulgar and profane language. I'm curious you see, since I was lambasted for using the word "vagina"...yet somehow, I have a feeling that your post will be just fine.

I know you won't think it's any big deal but, you lost a member that would have proven to be a good friend and poster. I admire you guys for having a high standard but know I'll never survive here if you think words like "vagina" are profane....I can't agree with someone that thinks that way. I won't contribute to a website that will have me constantly walking on eggshells.

Please go ahead and cancel my account,...you folks are wound just a little too tight for my tastes.

Thank's for making the effort to make me feel welcome. Sorry to intrude on your click.

Stay safe,

d9-out
 
Hey there is no way to know what would have happened if your friend didn't fire, maybe your post would have read MY FRIEND WAS FOUND DEAD NEXT TO HIS TRUCK WITH HIS HIGH POINT IN IS HAND, but I doubt I would have discharged my firearm in the same situation.
 
Joe is entirely right, if unarmed your friend could have been found dead.

I've been considering this for some time now, basically since the thread started, and I'm going to now, unabashedly reverse myself and say that your friend shouldn't have fired at the Flashlight Man. He should have fired into the air.

Biker made some excellent points about this. The jury would be less than sympathetic, the law isn't on your side, your friend did panic. He's also right to say its lucky that nobody was hurt. That would have been hell on everyone involved.

On the other hand, I think in that situation -which I believe to be premeditated and motivated by some degree of malice- I think it would have been a good idea to make a very loud, sudden announcement of the presence of a firearm in the hands of the Flashlight Man's intended victim. As is frequently said and frequently shown, usually the mere presence of a firearm is enough to defuse a situation.

Shooting in the air would be very loud, completely shocking to the assailant, and would more than likely have gotten the same effect that the target got from the assailant in the original post.

So I am reversing myself and changing my opinion from "good shoot, bad aim" to "bad shoot, luckily bad aim."
 
I do not think that this is a clear cut situation at all. There is a clear possibility of an attack but there's no way to be sure of your target or their intent.

I think that under the exact same circumstances I would probably do the same thing.

I did a bit of research and found a cased decided by the south Carolina Supreme court. State v. Jackson 87 S.E.2d 681.

here's an exerpt of the defendants testimony to show what the facts were:


'Q. After you went to sleep, what was the next thing you heard? A. When I woke up, after I went to sleep on the bed. I was at the foot of the bed lying across the bed, and when I woke up, Cleveland was pressing against me with his foot in the bed, and he called to me and said: 'Somebody out there,' and I got up, and when I got up there was knocking on the front door, and I walked from my room to the middle door, and when I got to the middle door, that is the time my mother said: 'Whoever that is, don't try to tear my door down.' I reached up over my head and took the gun down. When I made about two steps, I butt into a chair near the foot of the bed, and I turned where I could go get between the two beds and get out.

'Q. Were the windows closed? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. Could you see anything at all? A. No, sir. Before I could get my right foot around the foot of the bed, a flashlight flashed in my face, and I couldn't see nothing.

'Q. What happened? A. That time I snatched back on the hammer and turned loose.

'Q. After this happened, what did you do? A. After it happened, he fell, and before I could get close enough to put my head down to hear what he was saying he done quit saying anything. His flashlight was on the porch about three feet off. I walked up between his legs and reached over and picked up the flashlight.

'Q. When you picked up the flashlight, did you get blood on your hand? A. When I picked up the flashlight, it was something or nother wet. I don't know whether it was blood or what. I took the flashlight and shone on him, and I looks, and it was the police. * * *'


Keep in mind that this defendant was convicted of murdering the police officer and this is his appeal. The supreme court DID find that he should be permitted to claim self defense despite the fact that he could not identify his target or if his target was even armed (summarizing). I didn't find any record of what his final outcome was.

Many shoot/no shoot scenarios are clear, this one is not. I would have probably taken the same action but you never know until you find yourself in that situation.
 
Funny I have yet to see a cop with a Q Beam on his belt .
No, but patrol cars in Louisiana generally carry some pretty powerful spotlights, especially those belonging to sheriff's departments. If this had been a spotlight from a patrol car, the friend would have been justifiably killed by law enforcement.

Tell, me, how did the friend know this light was NOT from a patrol car's spotlight before he pulled his trigger?
That's right. He did not know.

Game Wardens in Louisiana also carry Q-Beams.
How did the friend know this was not a Wildlife and Fisheries officer investigating poaching in the area before he started slinging lead?
That's right. He did not know.

Knowing what you are shooting at is pretty basic. Shooting blind is not knowing what you are shooting at. Again, the friend is very lucky the person shining a light on him was not law enforcement, or even an armed criminal. If it had been, he would be dead.
 
Good Shoot?

Jeff,...most of us LEO's tend to look for "clear cut" situations, such as weapons present, witnesses, overwhelming evidence, etc. Sometimes when it dosen't exist we tend to doubt what our logic tells us, but most of these times we need to look at the "Totality of the Circumstances".(isolated area, dark location, suspect lurking in the bushes, does not verbally identify himself, waits till the victim is walking away from him before approaching, blinds victim with a very bright light=blinded, runs away and never contacts the police, how long of a list do we need?)

As a 20+year LEO in a major city, I believe the shooter is lucky he's still alive. All the "victim" needs to justify is that there was a "reasonable belief that he believed he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death", I believe this clearly exist.

I think any marginally intelligent person could articulate the presence of a preceived immediate serious threat. Just because the "victim" dosen't have the suspect or witnesses present to verify his fears does not diminish its validity. I will concede that a couple of shot into the air might be prudent, but only as a warning.

As stated earlier, we don't know what the history of crime is in this area or any "MO's", perhaps the shooter was aware of "ongoing" crime in the area.(just because it may not have happened yet dosen't mean it won't or can't)

Biker,...if "Common Sense" means that one should stand there while an unknown person blinds him and possibly "clubs" or "stabs" him, then I think I may need to be re-educated in the definition of "Common Sense". Your arguments are of the type that defense attornies use to try and interject "doubt" into a juror's mind. This attitude screams of liberalism, I sincerely hope you are never the victim of a robber.:uhoh:
Good Luck
 
Last time I checked, I had not heard of a jury that would consider shining a bright light into somebody's eyes as a move with any harmful intent. I follow your reasoning, and understand what you are saying, but even here in the Gunshine State, where our "streets run red with blood" there would be absolutely no legal defense for his action. Until a CLEAR threat or weapon is presented, one would have to find some other method of response.

But at the same time, it could have been someone using the flashlight as a preemptive weapon. Blinding you, then shooting you so you can't defend yourself.

It also could have been nothing more than a fisherman making his way off the river.

This is a very hazy situation that was handled in a very hazy way.

It could easily swing from irresponcible to self defence given the "attackers" motive, which we don't know. And wouldn't finding out that motive, while blinded by a spotlight be too late?

This isn't one I'd like to be on the jury for...
 
I've done a lot of walking around in the woods with guns before Sun up and after Sun down. Having the light turned ON signifies your presence when there are others about. Shining the light in another person's eyes is not done. Hiding in bushes and sneaking up on others? Never heard of such a thing. It would be guaranteed to cause fear and get a reaction.

Some of you guys haven't had attempts on your life? It's happened to me several trimes and I'll tell you there is no doubt what is happening, no confusion as you suppose here. You know with certainty. Sure there is plenty of denial but it IS happening.

What would you guys who will not shoot do exactly? Have we heard the alternative response? Diall 911 and smile at the guy? Crawl under your truck? Run off into the swamps screaming like a little girl hoping he doesn't shoot you in the back 50 yards away? Submit to his whims? I liike the warning shot thing but to tell you the truth I also agree with many others who say not to waste ammo.
 
PoPo...

My arguments are the *result* of been there, done that, and in no sense of the word am I a "liberal" unless you're referring to me as a Jeffersonian Liberal. Fact is, the kind of people you speak of have tried to make me a victim and failed - numerous times. Been to criminal and civil court a few times to prove it.
So, bottom line? I'm really glad that you're the PoPo in Texas and not Idaho.
And "marginally intelligent"? An innuendo like that belongs, well... inyouendo. Know whudda mean? I don't know of any LEOs that advocate warning shots at all, much less into the air. Hint: *they come down*.

I doubt you're in LE at all, and if you are, you're likely 5'5" and 260 lbs, suckin' down donuts and mainlining coffee behind a phone as a 911 operater.

Fact is, you don't know what you're talking about and your advice could put impressionable people behind bars and others in the graveyard.
If you have a real badge, do the people you serve a favor and turn it in.
Somehow, I doubt that this is *really* a concern.
You have a day now...

Biker




;)
 
All right. That is enough of that.

Next person to let out any form of personal attack gets their head caved in.

This is a tough scenario. And like many shoot/no shoot scenarios, doesn't have a perfect answer. Get used to it.

That is the nice thing about a forum like S&T. We can discuss, like rational adults, different ways to do things. I've heard some good responses on this thread, even responses that I personally disagree with, but are still logical arguments. That is the good stuff, and that is the reason we have this forum.

Maybe some of us should slow down, think before we post, and not be so damn dogmatic.

I'm not saying what my opinion is, because that way I can't be accused of stifling discussion, or taking sides, when I come back here and ban the next person that calls another poster a name. :) Understand?
 
Ryder said: What would you guys who will not shoot do exactly? Have we heard the alternative response?

Once the door was open, instead of retrieving a handgun and turning around to face the person. . . .

How about getting in, shutting the door, locking it, and driving away?

Preclusion is a consideration those analyzing our actions will consider, in addition to AOJ. AOJ is kinda precarious at this point. Yeah . . . . maybe the guy meant harm. Maybe he had the ability to inflict it . . . . We'll never know.

Could he have gotten into his vehicle, locked himself in a cage of steel and shatter resistant glass, and drive off? Maybe.


Would this question be asked by anyone assigned the task of analyzing our actions? You bet your A.. If you were able to make it to a vehicle, and instead of hopping in, you decided to retrieve a weapon and face your adversary . . . . You better find a way to articulate why you HAD to do that.
 
Ryder said: What would you guys who will not shoot do exactly? Have we heard the alternative response? Crawl under your truck? Run off into the swamps screaming like a little girl hoping he doesn't shoot you in the back 50 yards away?
Get your firearm if you can. Slide under the truck to the other side. Get in the shadows and regain your vision. It's easy to tell where the guy with the light is. Keep the truck in between him and you. Do this and you will be in the shadows. Stay away from the light. It cannot penetrate the truck. As soon as possible, get into the brush yourself and set up an ambush. Find out what your target really is, and then act accordingly.

I have been spotlighted with Q-Beams. As kids camping we used to do that as a prank. I have been shot at, and I have shot at others. As I said in my original post, (#2), I really cannot judge the situation not having been there. That does not mean there are not better ways of handling this situation than immediately resorting to shooting blindly into God knows what.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
 
Reading through the post I haven't seen this mentioned yet - please correct me if I'm wrong. Awareness and avoidance is always your best strategy, right? If the employee is turning off lighting in an isolated area, shouldn't he have a fairly powerful light on him? If he hears "rustling in the brush" wouldn't said light be used in to ID the source of the noise. If the BG in the brush was set on doing harm it might not change his mind, but it sure would send a message that he had been made. My point is that it sounds like there was a (relatively) lot of time between first ID of a potential threat and taking action, and that if thought through before hand (and preparations made) the initial action doesn't have to be shoot blindly at a light.

I'm not trying to say that a flashlight is always a suitable replacement for a firearm, but it is an effective tool - one blinded the subject of the OP and provoked a shoot.
 
For those of you who say:

"If he had time to get into his truck and get a gun, he had time to lock himself in his truck and drive away"

I have some things to think about.

"Shatter resistant glass" is only on the windshield. The tempered safety glass of the door windows is particularly shatter-prone. If scratched, it shatters into a bazillion dime-sized pieces. I wouldn't hide behind car window glass (side windows) from anything more powerful than nerf.

Even if the flashlight guy didn't have a gun, that window won't stop a crowbar, knife, or even a fist. I know, I have personally punched through a car window, and have the scars on my knuckles to prove it. It didn't stop me - the scars are from hitting the dash after going through the window, and the pieces of glass that landed on the dash cut into my fingers. If I hadn't hit the dash, I wouldn't even have been scratched.

As far as I'm concerned, being in a vehicle offers zero protection, it can only slow someone down, and won't do anything if the attacker has a gun - even the car door won't stop a 9mm.

Combine that with the fact that it can be very difficult to get the key into the ignition in the dark, especially when you're stressed. The guy started out 35-40 yards away, how fast can you cover that distance? Only a few seconds. And maybe the truck takes a few seconds to crank up - or maybe the attacker had already sabotaged the engine - you've wasted your time trying to start the car and now you're unarmed and your attacker is right on top of you.

Even ideally, can you get into your car, shut and lock the door, start the car, put it into gear, and get moving? Can you do it before a fat asthmatic can cover 40 yards and kill you with a tire iron? Can you find the ignition and gear shifter after being blinded?

I think shooting at the light was perfectly reasonable. I would have done the same thing, except I would have had the gun on me - I carried at Kroger the entire time I worked there.
 
You guys keep thinking this stuff, maybe even act it out, then let us all know how far your money goes at the prison comissary(sp?).

Biker
 
You guys keep thinking this stuff, maybe even act it out, then let us all know how far your money goes at the prison comissary(sp?).

Biker

And you can let us know how far your money goes at the snack bar behind the pearly gates.

Truth is, we don't know. Every situation is different. The purpose of shining a flashlight in someone's eyes is to blind them, so they can't make the exact decision we would need to make. Everyone here would hope that if they don't shoot, it's a cop; and likewise if they do shoot, that it's not. There are situations where there is no good choice and no good outcome. And that's why we have this forum - to discuss these situations that aren't so clear cut. Usually there is a concensus, but not in this case. I think that shows how difficult this decision is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top