Had to use mine Wednesday Night

[univtxattorney]

I'd say that emptying a firearm like that would show fear of imminent bodily harm or death, which would not be an unjustified feeling at all.

This is one of the points that MoW doesn't get. HE thinks that this was a shooting over property. WE realize that it was a shooting over life.

Emptying your firearm like that would show anger, not self defense.

Just not so.

You're playing the result of the incident instead of the intent.

So MoW... tell all of us.... What exactly was Moose's intent? Was it to take out his gun on a Wednesday night and lay someone to waste? Was it to make a lot of noise? Was it to fire off rounds indiscriminately and see what he could hit? We all seem to understand that he [justifiably] feared for his life.

What is really disturbing about you is that you genuinely seem to have something against Moose and those of us who would defend ourselves in this situation. God forbid it ever happens to anyone else, I think Moose has set a great example.

Also, the result of the incident is what matters. Results count in our legal system. Results ARE the difference.

If you leave your pool gate open and a kid falls in but doesn't drown---does that make it moot that you left the gate open?

YES!!! IT DOES!!! There is absolutely NO case against you without results--without damages. You can act as negligently as you want, but if you don't cause damage, then there is no case. That's our system of justice. Damages are a component of negligence... without showing them, you go home...

firing your weapon should be a last resort.

It was. "Last resort" doesn't mean that you are wounded or dead. He was hit in the back of the head and under the control of and at the mercy of the bad guy. This was his last resort.

As I said before, the next time you are mugged or taken advantage of by someone, by all means bend over and take it. The next time you think that someone who will assault you and rob you without provocation will just leave you alone after, go ahead and take that chance. If you want to place your LIFE in the hands of a criminal and trust that he will take care of it, do it. But don't show such contempt for those of us who would defend ourselves. And you certainly shouldn't show contempt for a man who came here for support after doing one of the hardest things he will ever do.

[SBrocker8]

Here's my take on the situation. A common sense perspective for ya.

Moose, good job on defending yourself.

As for "oh, boohoo, you can't defend your property!", civilized Western society is based on the ownership of property and the respect of that property by others. If somebody want's MY stuff, they're gonna have to work damn hard for it, because I'll MAKE them endanger my damn life to take it!

As for this dude being unarmed, Moose had already been hit, IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. I don't know about you, but I've heard of cases of people dying from that alone. That assault proves intent to do bodily harm, and in my humble opinion justifies a response of equal or greater force. Then again, people try to say I'm a bit old school when it comes to these things. The classic "I've kicked people's butts for less" type, I guess. Not to mention, at night, there's no telling what someone could be carrying.

And then comes the classic addage "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." I'll take time in jail over time in the ground any day.

[ahenry]

MoW,

The reason you are sooo restricted in firing your weapon is for the fact that you COULD shoot or kill an innocent.

Again, pure-dee idiocy. Take a look at the law. If you were to actually do that, you would notice that the law specifies the circumstances under which you can use lethal force. It does not say anything about using a gun. The fact of the matter is that when circumstances allow for the use of deadly/lethal force, the instrument used to inflict that force is immaterial. In fact, deadly force can be used without the use of any weapon at all and the exact same restriction apply whether the victim uses his hands, a baseball bat he left in the cab of his truck, or a pistol he kept in the center console. The weapon used has zero bearing and your continual references to Moose’s use of a gun only further illustrate how poorly you grasp the law.


I also notice that you glossed right over my question, so I’ll ask it again:

“My understanding of your assertion is that an otherwise justified self-defense situation, when the individual using self-defense is larger than the assailant, will change that situation to one where the victim is no longer justified. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, prove it. You are making a radical assertion, it is incumbent on you to provide the justification. Shouldn’t be too hard, if what you say is true. Right?”

[univtxattorney]

"This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me - i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it."

John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government Chapter 3, Section 17

It has long been held that one who would take your property by force would not hesitate to take your life. As you know, Locke's philosophy was probably the biggest influence on our Founding Fathers. This passage is as meaningful today as it was when he wrote it.

[XavierBreath]

Moose,
Consider this thread to be an example of why you really don't want to discuss your experience, even among your friends three years from now. Imagine it being the topic of discussion at a bowling tournament you are attending. Being second guessed by close friends on a matter that has affected your life this much is the best way to loose a friend. Seeing them on the stand repeating thier version of what you said is unimaginable, but very possible.

Lawyer up, keep your trap shut, and get a phone number for a BTDT counselor to use in the future. Trust me, you will eventually make the call.

BigBoreKindaGuy, you are wrong to instruct the man to avoid conseling. Even if you speak from personal experience you are wrong. Your opinion will not prevent any of Moose's repercussions.

[Charlie Golf]

I didn't read through all the posts so I'm sorry if I repeat something. First of all, I'm sorry you had to experience something we all would rather avoid, thank goodness you are safe and you had the tools and training to do so.

You probably already have, but in case the thug tries to press either criminal or civil charges (expect it) be sure that your attorney is practiced in defending police and other defensive shooters.

You may also want to get in contact with your CHL Instructor as well as any "experts" in the field of defensive shoots such as a LEO Firearms Instructor, etc.

I believe some back issues of Handgun Magazine also have some very good articles (the ones I can think of were authored by Ayoob) about how good defense and bad defense can lead to good or bad outcomes in a criminal or civil trial while the shooter is trying to prove they are the victim and not the assailant.

Many things are referenced in the articles such as:

1. Why did you have the caliber of weapon you had?
Many of us carry weapons based on recommendations/similar to Law Enforcement. You were no different than a Law Abiding officer.

2. Why did you have a weapon at all?
The fact that you were attacked answers that question. You were no different than a Law Abiding officer.

3. Why did you have to fire X number of shots?
Just as Law Enforcement is trained to shoot until the threat is stopped...so were you. You were no different than a Law Abiding officer.

4. Why did you have X brand of ammunition?
Many of us load ammo based on recommendations/similar to Law Enforcement. You were no different than a Law Abiding officer.

5. Why did you have to have a gun that carried X number of rounds?
The fact that you only fired 3 of X number of rounds shows restraint on your part as well as only using enough force to stop the threat. It is also common practice for a LEO to have at least 1-2 more Hi-Cap magazines as well as more ammo/weapons in the patrol unit. You were no different than a Law Abiding officer.

And yes, take advantage of the counseling.......

[Para Bellum]

Sorry to interrupt, guys, but:
I'd still like to know what ammo was used. It seemes to have stopped and attack, didn't it?

[Real Gun]

It occurred to me that merely showing the gun and threatening to shoot in hopes of scaring the guy away might not have been a realistic option because of poor lighting and my assumption that an XD9 is black. If the guy had been armed, I think he would have already demonstrated that rather than hit someone with his fist.

I think it's always the case with self defense that "you had to be there", and I think the law generally allows for that reality.

I do note at the range that some shooters are in the habit of shooting more than one round at a time, usually three. In this case, the first wounding hit in the leg would have played better as others second guess what did happen or should have. Also I think I would say that one shot as if it was your last cartridge would make for a better shot. Spraying the area like you have a machine gun sounds like watching too many movies. The quality of shooting and number of shots doesn't sound very good for close range.

I couldn't say what I would do if really scared, but I do know what scenarios I have rehearsed in my head. I also try to think of range time as somewhat realistic. Never mind the macho bang-bang-bang stuff.

Of course, part of the problem is relying upon a 9mm. That could be one reason why the perp isn't dead after taking a belly shot.

One thing I wouldn't do is make an insurance claim to patch a bullet hole. You're going to quickly find out how your insurance company feels about guns. Pay for it out of pocket and leave well enough alone.

[Denny Hansen]

After being in several events that I would just as soon not remember, the words that always meant the most to me were, “I’m glad you’re OK.”

I never attended counseling, taking the macho I’ll-handle-it-myself-route. If I had the opportunity for a “do-over,” I probably would seek counseling, if for no other reason than to comes to terms with the events more quickly. The self-doubt that will sooner or later arise, especially when you have things like an Errornet warrior adding to the problem, can eat at you. The important thing is that you survived the encounter.

Moose, I’m sincerely glad you’re OK.

Denny

[gordo b.]

Two questions: what kind of ammo did you use and how did the torso hit work?
One suggestion; take the counseling it will do you good and make you LOOK good!
You did well and righteously , no doubt , brother!

[wayneinFL]

John Locke was a heckuva guy. I've never heard a quote from him that didn't ring true with me.

Still, this was over a threat of death or at the least, grave bodily harm. If someone is threatening your life for money, guess what. You're fighting for life not money. I had a brother found dead next to an empty safe, still open. That taught me to always resist a violent threat. Mow, if you want to play games when someone is threatening your life for whatever reason, go for it. I really don't care what you do. I don't wish you dead, but it's your choice.

I'm glad moose lived through his situation.

Ending the situation moose was in by brandishing the gun, that's not just unrealistic, that's plain stupid. Brandish a weapon that close to someone without intending to fire it- that's what gets your own gun used on you.

As for the three shots and a miss- Shooting 3 times in a panic is not excessive. It's very common for someone to empty an entire mag and think he fired a coupla times when the situation is over. Missing one shot out of three in a panic is nothing either. There was an incident in PBC a month or two ago in which two well-trained LEO's fired at the driver of a car from just outside the windows. No one was hit. 27 rounds I think the news said.

I think moose did very well in his situation.

Mow, you seem to think you need more details to decide what happened. Tough. If moose is smart his first post is the last we'll hear of the situation. Get over it. I can't speak for the original poster, but I think it's safe to assume he was looking for support and advice from people who have been there, not to give a bunch of armchair quarterbacks like us material to critique.

Which is why I initially stayed out of the discussion. I didn't want to see this turn into a critique of this man's tactics and legal position. I think that kind of thing is in very poor taste, to say the least. Too late now.

[MoW]

If you leave your pool gate open and a kid falls in but doesn't drown---does that make it moot that you left the gate open?



YES!!! IT DOES!!! There is absolutely NO case against you without results--without damages. You can act as negligently as you want, but if you don't cause damage, then there is no case. That's our system of justice. Damages are a component of negligence... without showing them, you go home...


Damn you are a poor excuse for a human being let alone being a lawyer. By your logic it's ok to drive home drunk as long as the result was nobody got killed---pitiful. The rules are there to protect innocents, just because nobody got injured THIS time doessn't change a thing.
This is my final take on the situation. I'm not wanting Moose to say anything more till this is over---I'm saying that more information is needed before you can determine whether he was justified or not in firing his weapon. Based on what Moose has said to this point I say he had a right to pull his weapon for sure---whether he HAD to fire his weapon is another issue. I can't say 100% that he shouldn't have just as you can't say 100% that he should have. One thing for sure is more info is needed and there are questions(from his story) that remain. Alot of you are assuming an awful lot. I heard of no injuries(per Moose) no weapon etc...How old is Moose, was there alcohol involved(Bowling Alley), was he looking for a reason to use his weapon as opposed to last resort? Were not talking about a remote area in the middle of nowhere here. His friends were waiting out front for him--there was a car next to him. Did he yell out, blow the truck horn, push the man away. He stated he used a remote for his truck---is there no car alarm button? I don't know the answers but neither do you and you assume to shoot was ok. For those of you who don't realize the difference of being able to diffuse the situation by pulling your weapon as opposed to using it, then I say your looking for a reason to shoot. Of course you must be ready to shoot if needed, but many of you are implying that you MUST fire your gun if pulled---NONSENSE!

[Capt. Charlie]

Denny said:

The self-doubt that will sooner or later arise, especially when you have things like an Errornet warrior adding to the problem, can eat at you. The important thing is that you survived the encounter.

And he hit on the problem with this thread in one easy sentence. It's OK to debate theoretical scenerios, tactics, weapons, ammo, and whatever. A few get their feelings hurt, but no serious damage is done. Here, damage IS being done, and a few seem to have a callous disregard for that fact. The only thing being accomplished here is to add to the anxiety and self-doubt of a board member that was forced to act in a very difficult situation.

Denny, I'm suggesting that it's time to close this thread, for that reason.

Moose, I'm also very sincerely glad you're OK, and you did the right thing.

[Real Gun]

The advice given here is actually quite biased as one should expect. Some of it seems quite sound to me. It takes a little work to project whether any prosecution is possible or how an average jury might respond. Some of the questions or thoughts should be forgiven as rhetorical. I don't see this scenario as black and white by the description given. A guy got shot twice without having a weapon, so yeah, there might be some questions.

[Dennis]

Moose,

Yep, I believe I’ll weigh in on the same side as (former Deputy Sheriff) Denny Hansen.
Glad you’re okay. That’s first and foremost.

Secondly, from the opinions expressed in this thread (and the manner in which some are expressed) you may well determine that a good lawyer in South Carolina is the first and only person you should be talking with at the moment. The only exception, with the advice of your attorney, would be a counselor.

Other than that, I’d suggest you don’t talk about ANY aspect of what occurred that evening until both the criminal and civil matters are behind you. Maybe not even then. The wrong words may have the potential of re-opening a closed case.

In law, as in marriage, sometimes the best advice is “silence”.
- - - - -

All,

Laws vary from state to state—as do interpretations of similar-sounding laws. Furthermore, liberty, logic, common sense and best wishes too frequently have little to do with law.

As UTAtty can attest, “knowing the law” isn’t enough. You also need to know the legislative intent of the law and how the law has been interpreted in court. (Shepardizing laws can become a frustrating adventure in confusion.)

On top of this, laws change and can take you back to “Begin again!”

If you really want to help Moose, I’d recommend y’all stand by with your wallets in your hands. The time may come when a legal defense fund would be of more help than our opinions or curiosity.

[wayneinFL]

"Here, damage IS being done, and a few seem to have a callous disregard for that fact. The only thing being accomplished here is to add to the anxiety and self-doubt of a board member that was forced to act in a very difficult situation.

Denny, I'm suggesting that it's time to close this thread, for that reason."

The voice of reason. Thank you. I apologize for anything I've done to inflame the situation.

Legal defense fund? If someone hears of one,feel free to p.m. me or post it here. I can't give much, but I'll give what I can.

[BigBoreKindaGuy]

Mow...your logic is absolutely rediculous. You sound just like the usual bleeding heart liberal who always villafies the innocent victim.

There is no way in hell the guy could have known whether the robber was armed with a gun or a knife...and if I was in the guy's position of being robbed and had already been knocked onto the ground with a pipe or whatever to the back of my head I am not going to sit there and play pansy-as* with the perp to see what's next. I'm going to end it there and now.
I'd rather take my day in court than to wait until I take a bullet to my head or get my head bashed in with the pipe by somebody who has already crossed the lawful line to begin with.

If you carry any firearm you might as well just forget about carying it because if this situation happened to you, you are probably going to end up being wasted because you are sitting there guessing with yourself whether or not the attacker is going to kill you or not. That's stupid man...just plain stupid.

[Denny Hansen]

This is Training & Tactics.

Since Moose can (should) not contribute anything more to this particular thread, I believe any further pontificating useless as to what was done, what could have been, what caliber what used, etc., etc. This one’s closed.

Denny