Public reaction to Port Orchard shooting supports shooter

imported post

Public reaction to Port Orchard shooting supports shooter

"As a society, we are fed up with crime. Millions of Americans have bought guns for the first time in recent months, including many right here in Washington State. We’re at a new high for the number of concealed pistol licenses...

"Legally – and this has been recognized by the State Supreme Court – there is no duty to retreat in Washington State. If you are attacked you have a right to fight back.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d10-Public-reaction-to-Port-Orchard-shooting-reveals-distrust-of-system-misunderstanding-of-law

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/36norsy

imported post

Interesting.
JMHO
I think he (the older guy) got carried away. The intruder was not a threat at the point when he ran out of the house. No question that this intruder was a threat inside the mans house.
Trying to wound?
I think he got caught up in this scary situation where the adrenalin was flowing and he had a terrible moment of shoot first and reason later.
I wish him all the luck in the world. It is a sad situation.
Dave

imported post

69Charger wrote:

Interesting.
JMHO
I think he (the older guy) got carried away. The intruder was not a threat at the point when he ran out of the house. No question that this intruder was a threat inside the mans house.
Trying to wound?
I think he got caught up in this scary situation where the adrenalin was flowing and he had a terrible moment of shoot first and reason later.
I wish him all the luck in the world. It is a sad situation.
Dave

Click to expand...

Wasn't a threat? Because someone committing a crime would never bring back friends to retaliate or strike fear against testifying? Someone who just broke in wouldn't go on to try it again?

Why are people so surprised when a person who chooses to engage in home invasion get killed? They chose their path, they made their bed, and sometimes - not often enough - they have to lay in it.

I think this guy's biggest mistake was talking to the cops. People say all kinds of stupid, incriminating, and otherwise self-damaging things in stressful situations. The cops take advantage of this fact far too often for my comfort.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Wasn't a threat? Because someone committing a crime would never bring back friends to retaliate or strike fear against testifying? Someone who just broke in wouldn't go on to try it again?

Click to expand...

Be careful going there, because it is purely conjecture as to whether this guy was going for reinforcements, or just running to get away.

There is no evidence that this guy was going for help. Unless the shooter was clairvoyant, how did he know what this guy was doing when he fired, other than that he was running away from a fight?

Just asking...

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Wasn't a threat? Because someone committing a crime would never bring back friends to retaliate or strike fear against testifying? Someone who just broke in wouldn't go on to try it again?

Click to expand...

Be careful going there, because it is purely conjecture as to whether this guy was going for reinforcements, or just running to get away.

There is no evidence that this guy was going for help. Unless the shooter was clairvoyant, how did he know what this guy was doing when he fired, other than that he was running away from a fight?

Just asking...

Click to expand...

This is the state where people can be convicted for the totality of the situation.

Remember that guy who was caught on a hiking path with a knife, rope, condoms, etc. and he was charged and convicted with intent to rape?

imported post

Once you start that kind of invasive violation, all bets are off. You are willfully stepping outside the law and, as far as I'm concerned, cannot cry 'foul' if your intended victim decides to meet you there. Don't start nuthin', won't BE nuthin'.

I don't think the old man got "carried away" with his actions. I think he reacted well within expectations for a senior who was awakened at 3am to a potentially life-threatening situation.

I don't know why he fought the guy to the door (maybe he couldn't get off a shot, maybe he tried to subdue the intruder verbally?). If I find someone in my house at 3am, someone who doesn't belong there, I'm not giving him the chance to play wrestlemania. If he jumps me or closes the distance before I have a chance to shoot (which is entirely possible) I'm going to fight just long enough to initiate the Attacker Neutralization Plan.

imported post

But you still can't shoot him when he's running away...

imported post

If this was a young person, would shooting a fleeing perp be more or less justified?
This one will be played out in court. We don't see the whole picture with this 1 written article.
THAT, I am sure of.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Dave

imported post

Sonny's Shooting: No Charges For Employees
http://www.wyff4.com/news/23506255/detail.html
The Seventh Circuit Solicitor will not pursue charges against Gaffney restaurant employees who opened fire on armed robbers over the weekend.
One of the teen robbery suspects was shot and killed during the shootout that happened early Saturday morning at Sonny's BBQ Cafe, according to deputies. "You have an unfettered right to defend yourself," Trey Gowdy told News 4. "If you reasonably believe you are in danger of losing your life, you may use force up to and including deadly force," said Gowdy.
When asked if the law applied even if the suspects were fleeing, Gowdy said, "How did the employees know they weren't going outside to get a bigger gun? If you are in fear of your life, you can use deadly force.
"The Cherokee County Sheriff's Office said that Michael Shaquille Davidson, 16, was one of three teenagers shot after robbing Sonny's Restaurant early Saturday morning. Investigators say the three teens were about to leave when two employees opened fire.
"I just want to see justice for my cousin. He was shot down like a dog," said Alex Davidson.
"From what I'm getting, they was running. They was leaving the store; running out of the store," said the teen's uncle and namesake, Michael Davidson. "So I mean, if they was running out of the store, why would you shoot them in the back?"
In an interview that aired Sunday on WYFF News, several family members said they had heard that Davidson and the other two teens had been shot in the back.
Cherokee County Coroner Dennis Fowler would not comment on whether Davidson was shot in the back or front after an autopsy Sunday, but he did confirm that the teen died of gunshot wounds.
The sheriff's office said Sunday morning that they were still going over evidence and waiting for results of a ballistics test to determine exactly what happened inside the restaurant.
Lloyd Ryan Jefferies, 18, is in the Cherokee County Detention Center charged with armed robbery, Gowdy confirmed.
Calvin Smith Jr., 16, will be charged with the same crime when he's released from the hospital, deputies said.

imported post

swatspyder wrote:

Sonny's Shooting: No Charges For Employees
http://www.wyff4.com/news/23506255/detail.html
The Seventh Circuit Solicitor will not pursue charges against Gaffney restaurant employees who opened fire on armed robbers over the weekend.
One of the teen robbery suspects was shot and killed during the shootout that happened early Saturday morning at Sonny's BBQ Cafe, according to deputies. "You have an unfettered right to defend yourself," Trey Gowdy told News 4. "If you reasonably believe you are in danger of losing your life, you may use force up to and including deadly force," said Gowdy.
When asked if the law applied even if the suspects were fleeing, Gowdy said, "How did the employees know they weren't going outside to get a bigger gun? If you are in fear of your life, you can use deadly force.
"The Cherokee County Sheriff's Office said that Michael Shaquille Davidson, 16, was one of three teenagers shot after robbing Sonny's Restaurant early Saturday morning. Investigators say the three teens were about to leave when two employees opened fire.
"I just want to see justice for my cousin. He was shot down like a dog," said Alex Davidson.
"From what I'm getting, they was running. They was leaving the store; running out of the store," said the teen's uncle and namesake, Michael Davidson. "So I mean, if they was running out of the store, why would you shoot them in the back?"
In an interview that aired Sunday on WYFF News, several family members said they had heard that Davidson and the other two teens had been shot in the back.
Cherokee County Coroner Dennis Fowler would not comment on whether Davidson was shot in the back or front after an autopsy Sunday, but he did confirm that the teen died of gunshot wounds.
The sheriff's office said Sunday morning that they were still going over evidence and waiting for results of a ballistics test to determine exactly what happened inside the restaurant.
Lloyd Ryan Jefferies, 18, is in the Cherokee County Detention Center charged with armed robbery, Gowdy confirmed.
Calvin Smith Jr., 16, will be charged with the same crime when he's released from the hospital, deputies said.

Click to expand...

Very nice to read a story that involves the popular discussion on whether or not you would be justified in firing on someone who is fleeing. Well here's a real life scenario.

imported post

Purely conjecture and making things up out of whole cloth, but what if the armed felons who were "about to leave" when the employees opened fire on them were simply running for cover so they could continue the firefight from there? Just because a person is "running away" does not mean the battle is over... (It sure as Hell isn't in a war zone!)

This is ESPECIALLY true if the opponent is armed.

imported post

Once you start that kind of invasive violation, all bets are off. You are willfully stepping outside the law

Click to expand...

No. Wrong. It's called due process. No matter how far outside the law you step, you still have constitutional protections. You might not like it, but it's there, and you can't deny it.

A shooting is not due process.

imported post

This is a wonderful example of the public not having all of the fact, but still willing to make up their minds about guilt or innocence.

I wasn't there. I don't know all of the facts. If there was a crime on the part of the homeowner, I hope he is punished accordingly. If there wasn't, I hope he can get on with his life without much more disruption. Thankfully, I don't have to make that decision.

Study the applicable 'use of force' laws as best you can (and frequently), and be prepared to make an informed split-second decision. I don't believe the whole "my adrenaline was pumping and I didn't know what I was doing..." argument. You will react the way you have trained and conditioned yourself to do so.

imported post

deanf wrote:

A shooting is not due process.

Click to expand...

Nor is a home invasion. The shooter will now have "due process". Let us hope it is just.

imported post

I think this case demonstrates the importance of thinking through such an encounter before it happens (which may include competent training, and what we're doing here), and not saying anything without benefit of your lawyer's advice.

imported post

deanf wrote:

Once you start that kind of invasive violation, all bets are off. You are willfully stepping outside the law

Click to expand...

No. Wrong. It's called due process. No matter how far outside the law you step, you still have constitutional protections. You might not like it, but it's there, and you can't deny it.

A shooting is not due process.

Click to expand...

They were still on his property. I do not see anything out of line with these actions. It would be another story if the fled the property all together.

imported post

Here is my take.

The home owner had every right to protect himself and his home when someone entered uninvited in the middle of the night.

It is clear he felt threatened enough to become combative with the intruder.

A piece of evidence that is not known, was he already armed with the gun in hand or did he have to go pick it up and return to the conflict?

If he was armed during the initial confrontation and drew the firearm while still in his home then fired he was likely well with in his rights, if he had to retrieve the firearm and then returned to engage him and then shot him as he ran then there would clearly be no immediate threat of life.

Lacking the information of where the rounds where fired from in relation to where the burglar was is a most valuable bit of information we do not have.

The time it takes to decide to shoot and pull the trigger takes approximately 1/3 of a second the same amount of time it would take to turn 180 degrees to run.

The issue of him saying that he was trying to stop him and shooting at the ground to hit his legs, well was just plain stupid.

We have had this discussion before on what or what not to say after a shooting but this is one thing that will do him a lot of harm to defend against.

After a shooting one may try to enlist others to side with them and justify their actions to find comfort that they did the right thing, embellishment can kick you in the gonads.

Was the elderly man correct in what he did? we will have to see how it runs the course.

imported post

In my opinion, and in all honesty, I really shouldn't make a judgment call without actually hearing the entire story from both sides. I do, however, feel the home owner still has a legal right to use deadly force, even if the intruder appears to be leaving the premises, *if* the homeowner feels his life is still in potential jeopardy.

imported post

potential jeopardy

Click to expand...

Potential jeopardy isn't good enough.

In the vast majority of states, the basic elements of self-defense by means of deadly force (firearms and other weapons) include:
The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.
The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger. Establishing this subjective belief often requires the client to testify.
The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force. Some states do not require the defendant to retreat, even if he or she can do so safely.1 Most states do not require the defendant to retreat if he is in his own home defending against someone who is unlawfully present. Law enforcement officers are not required to retreat.
The client had to use no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.
The standards for the use of non-deadly force (bare hands and feet) and force used in the defense of property are usually similar.
At a minimum, the defense must include some evidence, generally viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, on each of these factors in order to receive an appropriate jury instruction.

Click to expand...

From: Defending the Self-Defense Case.

imported post

killchain wrote:

Dave Workman wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Wasn't a threat? Because someone committing a crime would never bring back friends to retaliate or strike fear against testifying? Someone who just broke in wouldn't go on to try it again?

Click to expand...

Be careful going there, because it is purely conjecture as to whether this guy was going for reinforcements, or just running to get away.

There is no evidence that this guy was going for help. Unless the shooter was clairvoyant, how did he know what this guy was doing when he fired, other than that he was running away from a fight?

Just asking...

Click to expand...

This is the state where people can be convicted for the totality of the situation.

Remember that guy who was caught on a hiking path with a knife, rope, condoms, etc. and he was charged and convicted with intent to rape?

Click to expand...

Convicted just on intent. Sounds like Minority Report.