armed self defender gets arrested mansfield, ohio

This happened on dec. 5th 2012. A man who does usually oc, was cc while grocery shopping. Outside while putting groceries into his truck he witnessed two people brutally beating an unarmed women. Having no idea if the assailants were armed he had to pull to get them off of the victim. After doing this a male assailant then threatened the armed defender's life saying he would come to his house and kill him then walked away. While checking if the victim was ok the assailants then drove back around, aggressively accelerated toward the armed defender, and although he heard and jumped aside (he would have been hit directly by the car) it did clip his elbow causing muscular damage. He then drew and fired in self defense as it appeared to him the driver was going to return. The original assailant who has now become an attempted murderer called the police, and the police came to reports of shots fired. The defender unloaded his weapon and did surrender it to the police during the investigation, showing no threat whatsoever. The police after ten or fifteen minutes decided to detain him. After a few minutes of being in the back of the cruiser he got on his phone, and was then immediately confronted to relinquish his phone. He denied saying he did not consent to search and seizure and wanted to record the interaction. After having it forcibly removed from his person he was then pulled out of his car, slammed to the ground, and cuffed, despite the fact he could barely move his elbow and did not resist except to unlawful seizure. He was then transported to the station (after about an hour) where he was finally seen by a paramedic and given an ice pack. He was questioned, told it seemed he acted in self defense but may face charges, and was told the assailant was charged. No receipt was given for the gun, the ammunition and clip were never taken (he still has them), then he was driven back to his truck where his wife and 3 month old child were left in the parking lot for hours without heat as they were without keys to the vehicle. Later research reveals the assailant was NOT charged with attempted murder, in fact no charges whatsoever. The newspaper reported with assistance of police that the armed defender was the aggressor and attempted to make it into a racially related conflict. (The defender is white the attackers AA).

What have we said on this forum many, many times? He who calls 911 first is the victim and the other guy is the BG.

From the few details here, it appears the guy acted in self-defense.

It sounds racist to say it, but I will also tell you that, should you be forced to use your weapon in self-defense against a member of any minority group, you had better have a good audio/video recording of the incident, friendly witnesses, and an extremely good lawyer. A lot of money wouldn't hurt, either.

It's hard to say how that will turn out. But I hate to say this but it seems someone always pulls the racial card when it's a white man and black man. But if it was the other way around a black man shot at the white guy the race thing wouldn't have came up. Anyway I got sidetracked that doesn't matter really hopefully everything works out and the proper sentence is givin.

If you're going to defend yourself against an attacker you had better make damn sure he is the same color as you. :banghead:

You keyboard kommandos above need to get your heads back out and into some fresh air. Comments that border on overt racism are not welcome here, nor are comments about manipulating the law to cover for improper behavior.

and although he heard and jumped aside (he would have been hit directly by the car) it did clip his elbow causing muscular damage. He then drew and fired in self defense as it appeared to him the driver was going to return

Click to expand...

So the guy was hit by the car, which I will grant is use of deadly force. But the car had gone on by, and was not at the time he shot at it or the driver inside it actually moving towards him. That says there was no imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury - that being the general threshold for the use of deadly force in self defense.

There is not yet enough information to say for sure that this was a bad shoot but it sure reads that way from the information provided so far.

Yes, it sucks that we, the innocent, are forced to stand and wait until the BG is just about to kill us before we can use a firearm to defend ourself. But this incident has me jumping up and down, waving my arm in the air to get someone's attention so I can ask "Why didn't he move behind another car to get some protectio from the guy and his car of death?"

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Comments that border on overt racism are not welcome here

Click to expand...

Why is it racist to admit that blacks play the race card?
Or to acknowledge that it's a rare event that gets a black-on-white crime to be called racist? Heck, even the various attack mobs around Milwaukee are only whisperingly referred to as racist, even though the perpetrators have (so far) been black, their victims are almost all white, and the attackers were yelling racist (anti-white) things as they attacked. (I'm thinking especially of the state fair mob attack.)

skidmark said:

the car had gone on by, and was not at the time he shot at it or the driver inside it actually moving towards him. That says there was no imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury

Click to expand...

+1
That's the only thing I see studibakre did wrong, other than not calling 911 immediately once the attackers left the first time. As you were leaving your car, have your wife call 911. Drag the woman between cars, stay down so the attackers can't find the two of you, call 911 yourself.

First, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law--including what you said (wrote) above. I think that you admitted to a few crimes in that post and ought to delete it immediately.

Second, skid beat me to it, but as I was reading your post, it struck me that you must have fired at a vehicle moving away. That is not self-defense. Thinking that the car was returning is not enough. Until and unless another attempt was made to strike you with the car, the danger was not sufficiently imminent to justify firing your gun.

Again, delete your post NOW! Ask the admin to delete this thread NOW!

IANAL. But this is common sense.

I think that citizens arrest may come into play here .. in addition to possible self defense possibilities ..

If a CA was in progress, then the shooting may be justified under that theory ... hard to say how that would play out.

The guy should have shut his mouth ... anytime you shoot your gun you will, most of the time, be arrested for something. Hard to do, but it takes understanding of the consequences of opening the yapper.

The OP was not contending that it was a citizen's arrest. It is bit late now to change stories to try to fit the facts.

Nothing was in progress when the shooting occurred. The BGs were moving away.

IANAL, but I got money that says that, in a CA, you don't get to shoot a fleeing felon. And if you do, you had damned well better be right. The perps have not been charged.

Folks, think about what you are doing before you do it. Don't try to find an explanation to fit the facts after you have lost control of the situation.

I am afraid that the OP committed a few crimes (and admitted them on the Internet). Let's not encourage that kind of behavior.

I don't see that ANYONE admitted to committing a crime, only a story of someone who usually OC's was CC'ing on a specific day and town, state.... I didn't see a name or any use of first person in the Original posting.....

This is NOT to be used to assume that I agree with the actions of the person who's story is told. --- assuming that the story is fully actual since I don't see any links to news or police reports.

Guy saw 2 men beating 1 woman and didn't call 911?!

Guy got hit by a car and didn't call 911?!

Guys wife and child were they and the wife didn't call 911?

Guy fires at car that was moving away from him?



Bad shoot. Dumb moves abound. Hope he gets out of it some how.

Also I would guess that the woman was probably getting beat up by her BF or something and she's probably back with him... hence no charges pressed.

JoeSparky said:

I don't see that ANYONE admitted to committing a crime, only a story of someone who usually OC's was CC'ing on a specific day and town, state.... I didn't see a name or any use of first person in the Original posting.....

This is NOT to be used to assume that I agree with the actions of the person who's story is told. --- assuming that the story is fully actual since I don't see any links to news or police reports.

Click to expand...

No name is needed. Between the date, the location, and the description of the event, prosecutor has all he needs to tie that confession to the defendant. The crime? For one, firing at the car moving away. There was no threat, therefore there was no self-defense. He will probably be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder, or whatever equivalent OH has for those crimes.

eye95 said:

No name is needed. Between the date, the location, and the description of the event, prosecutor has all he needs to tie that confession to the defendant. The crime? For one, firing at the car moving away. There was no threat, therefore there was no self-defense. He will probably be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder, or whatever equivalent OH has for those crimes.

Click to expand...

Please, you are reading my response too narrowly. I did not say a crime had not been committed. I said that I saw NO confession. We are reading a story. Yes, it may be possible to identify a specific situation and the identies of those involved; but it is NOT a first person story!


Carry on in any way and location you are LEGAL TO DO SO!

JoeSparky said:

Please, you are reading my response too narrowly. I did not say a crime had not been committed. I said that I saw NO confession. We are reading a story. Yes, it may be possible to identify a specific situation and the identies of those involved; but it is NOT a first person story!...

Click to expand...

That the poster thought he was clever by talking in the third person provides zero protection.

The prosecutor, if he sees this post, can still get a warrant because, at the very least, the poster has information about the incident and could be a material witness. Upon executing that warrant and identifying the poster, if he learns (and you pretty much know he will) that the poster is the defendant, the post will go from being information from someone with knowledge of the crime to being a confession to elements of crimes committed by the OP.

My advice stands: The OP needs to delete the post and ask the admins to dispose of the thread!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

First, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law--including what you said (wrote) above. I think that you admitted to a few crimes in that post and ought to delete it immediately.

Second, skid beat me to it, but as I was reading your post, it struck me that you must have fired at a vehicle moving away. That is not self-defense. Thinking that the car was returning is not enough. Until and unless another attempt was made to strike you with the car, the danger was not sufficiently imminent to justify firing your gun.

Again, delete your post NOW! Ask the admin to delete this thread NOW!

IANAL. But this is common sense.

Click to expand...

How come you say this, but at the same time if a car tries to hit LEO and they fire at the vehicle moving away it is ALWAYS justified. I am not saying I disagree with you, but it is a real double standard here!! If a car tries to hit you, it would take a lot of restraint to not fire at the person who just tried to kill you.

I guess I am just venting that this wouldn't be an issue if you were in a uniform, but for normal people, it is.

I don't know that it is ALWAYS justified for a LEO to fire at a vehicle moving away. I also don't think it happens near as much in real life as it does on TV.

However, likely it does happen on occasion, and maybe lawful. You see, the law in some States allows for LEOs to use deadly force against fleeing felons. I am not speaking to the correctness of such a law, just its existence as a specific answer to your question. Unless the State law in the OP's State allows civilians to shoot at fleeing felons AND this situation would qualify for that exception, the OP committed a crime where the action might not be a crime for a LEO.