People who are bothered by blood and death are advised to NOT look below the fold.
The shooter has the vibe of an undercover cop. He has excellent skills in keeping track of innocent people who might be downrange judging by his timing and angles. He is very stealthy and smooth at getting his weapon out of his holster. He attempted to detain the man after shooting him in the upper-right quadrant of the torso by grabbing the perp's left arm (not something a non-cop would do). The first hit is potentially fatal. The site of the wound immediately turns red which suggests some arteries were involved.
The perp is hampered by tunnel vision. Drugs or just stupid? He was fixated on his victim's bag. The first hit left his gun-arm "lax" (that is, flopping) but he maintained his grip on the gun. The second shot left him a nerveless bag-of-meat in ballistic free-fall.
On the negative side, the hero pointed his handgun AWAY from the threat while trying to apprehend him.
Another thing that might be a big deal in some/many places is that he continued to engage as the perp ran away. His defense would probably be "He had not dropped his gun and was still a threat. He had shown no hesitancy in brandishing it. I thought he was going to turn around and start shooting at the crowded porch." That might fly in some places but not others.
I know that I have some very knowledgeable people who read this blog. Please comment.
Agree that he should not have taken that last shot to the perps backside. Self defense nearly always excludes shooting a "fleeing" perp in the back.
ReplyDeleteHope you will follow-up and let us know how this goes down in the legal morass that will surely follow. And also agree, depends where this is and the race of the two individuals. Sad commentary on the state of the US.
This might have happened in Brazil. The shooter might have been private security.
DeleteI don't have a good way to follow-up. Maybe some other readers will recognize the story. The floor-mat has a distinctive logo on it but I do not recognize it.
Your last comment is why I live in TN.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was still in NY, I had a conversation with 3 local sherrif officers about getting my pistol permit. One of the officers told me "you could catch a person IN THE ACT of raping your daughter, and are not legally allowed to fire a weapon at the person." Of course it depends on the DA pressing charges, but as our host has said, in some places, thats a real concern.
Vote with your feet.
LEOs knowledge of law is notoriously scattered and often imperfect and in some respects nonexistent. You might still get arrested for doing something perfectly legal (maybe even likely to get arrested) ... and depending on the DA may even get charged, ... but I find it highly unlikely that there would be a conviction in your rape scenario, even in NY. Certain cities (NYC, DC, SF) the juries are insane, but in 99% of the country, they would not convict if you have a halfway decent defense lawyer to explain what happened and explain the law.
DeleteThe legal argument is, and I find it unbelievable as well, but I lived there, you gotta trust me, is the underlying argument with the state not supporting the castle doctrine: if you shoot and kill said person, you are DENYING THEM THEIR RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. As judge/jury/executioner, you are infringing their rights (swear to God thats how it was explained to me). Thus no law in NY supports the use of lethal force by a civilian. Its about the criminals rights and lethal force (no take backs). Rape victims can get an abortion and counseling. They than use that argument to jusify why abortions need to be legal.
DeleteIts a sick place man, once I figured it out, I had to leave.
There is too much wrong in this comment for me to respond to it all, however please read NY CPL Article 35 which governs deadly force in the state. Briefly, here is the most important section:
Delete2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Cops are notoriously ignorant of the law. I should know, I was one in upstate NY for over 20 years. Note that deadly physical force can be used to terminate a “forcible rape”.
Three instructors I have had, all with different view points.
ReplyDelete1) Former fed. If the perp still has a firearm, he is still a threat.
2) Former State Police. If the perp is leaving, he is no longer a threat.
3) Lawyer. If you can justify the first shot, you are good as long as the perp is still capable of being a threat.
I would say it was a good shoot in KY, Maybe not in NYC.
Hahha, had a sheriff's officer here in little old EastTN tell me to do him and the DA a favor and flip him over and put at least one in the front.
DeleteAnon 0817, I can't believe that, but I don't live there. Down here, you can stop a felony with DF. No ifs, ands or buts. There is even some verbage about engaging a fleeing perp if you believe there is no other recourse to recovery of what he's stolen (big ticket stuff IIRC, very foggy memory, I should look that up).
ReplyDeleteI guess we're just not as enlightened as the NE. The innocent can still be protected down this way.
Thats why I left Sir, thats why I left.
DeleteI had a shotgun, was after a pistol for the nightstand. Pistol permits are notoriously hard to get, even in rural NY, thats what prompted the convo with the cops (their kids played intra-mural ball with my kids). He said if you really want one pay the Vig (hire a lawyer to file the paperwork for you), but it won't do you any good.... (and he proceeded to explain the quandry).
Monroe County NY DA is hardcore blue. State prosecutors are hardcore blue (manslaughter = felony).
Lose-lose.
Voted with my feet! Love EastTN!
Saw story on fox news about female deputy who was apprehending a person who took her gun, beat her, went to shoot her but gun jammed, all on video and the jury did not convict him. Of course this was CA.
ReplyDeleteProbably South America, either Brazil or Argentina. And that CA case was 'amazing', and NOT in a good way.
ReplyDeleteI'm good with the second shot.
ReplyDeleteHe was still armed and within an arm's length.
It appears from shot to Not is 3 seconds.
ReplyDeleteI notice a couple of things, in the heat of the moment the 2 shots are more than warranted, but, he completely lowered his gun and touched the guy with his support hand.
If the guy had been on certain drugs he could have spun into the good guy and closed.
Better to have shot twice initially.
I used to have to watch my back while totally involved in contact.
If I look at it that way reversing the roles of good guy bad guy,
the second shot is still good because I would definitely shoot back as I reacted.
Shoot till the threat is gone.
If this happened in the United States, it is inevitable that the difference in races between the first man with the gun and the second man with the gun would become an issue.
ReplyDeleteIt would be an interesting exercise to show test subjects three super-short videos, this being one of them. Then at the conclusion of the viewing to ask the test subjects (after separating) what color was the gun held by the man who got shot and what color was the gun of the man who did the shooting.
The point of the exercise is that the only salient facts are that one man drew his gun first and the second man drew his gun in response to the potentially lethal aggression of the first man.
The viewers will not remember the color of their guns BECAUSE THAT DETAIL IS TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT. Just like the color of the two men involved.
It would be an interesting exercise to do on a college campus using psychology students. Just sayin'
If the responder was a police officer, this would be considered a "good shoot" in most US States. The perp still had possession of his firearm while running away and had threatened a victim with lethal force during an armed robbery.
ReplyDeleteHe was a clear and immediate danger to anyone within sight by any "reasonable judgement". If the responder was an undercover police officer, that usually would be the end of the review, right there.
Police are generally trained and authorized to stop a fleeing felon with lethal force under those circumstances. There are hundreds of bodycam videos of officers in scenarios like this.
But different States have laws that are not always consistent with such policies. And what is "reasonable judgement" to the District Attorney?
An ordinary citizen (non-police) would be at considerable risk of prosecution in several West Coast or East Coast States.
You must know the attitudes of the District Attorney in your county to make any assessment of whether the shooting would be considered justified by the authorities. It is not a matter of "common sense" or what you might believe is "the law".
I'm reminded of the scenario in a movie where a witness to a shooting, possibly the victim of an attack by an armed bandit, says to the shooter, "You shot him in the back!" To which the shooter replies, "His back was to me." Worksmform me.
ReplyDelete"...nerveless bag-of-meat in ballistic free-fall."
ReplyDeleteBeautiful turn of phrase.