Two attackers, one armed?

[Double Naught Spy]

[

I still have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for a defensive shooting that was 100% on the up and up.

Right, and there is problem. What is being "on the up and up." Many claim the Harold Fish shooting was on the up and up, but he was prosecuted and convicted. Harold Fish was certain at the time his shooting was justified and as a result, he spoke freely with the cops (bad move).

I do understand your question and suggestion that nobody is ever prosecuted for an obviously good shoot. Heck, I have seen several cases where obviously good shoots resulting in the deaths of bad guys don't even result in the good guy being arrested (contrary to the claims of many that you will most definitely be arrested if you even draw your gun, much less if you actually have to discharge it and it results in the death of your attacker).

Unfortunately, clear cut cases are not the norm as often as we would like them to be. The reasons for this are multi-fold. It may be due to he said-she said accounting, confusing witness statements, or a lack of witnesses or cameras). Prosecutors do not prosecute cases they obviously cannot win such as clear cut self defense shootings. They do prosecute shootings that are not clear cut self defense shootings, however.

Be that as it may, my first priority is the defense of my life. While I don't want to go to court, that may happen. To go to court, however, I will indeed be alive, which is my first priority.

[Hondo11]

Pardon me for jumping in here but that's not correct...at least not in all states. In KY you don't have to give your wallet to an idiot with cutlery. You can legally stand your ground, keep your wallet, and use deadly force as a first resort. That's not true in Ohio. You can't use deadly force to protect property, you have no right to stand your ground in public, and can only shoot as a last resort to defend against serious harm or death. Here in Columbus, a guy asking for money while holding a knife would not be cause to shoot. You'd have to give up your wallet, try to escape, notify the guy you're a CHL, and actually be attacked before you can shoot to "stop" the attacker. Under no conditions can you shoot to "kill"...athough that may be the result. Weird but true...

True, self defense options vary by state. I understand that. My post applies to those who legally have the option and still worry about being arrested, charged, and thrown in prison. If you don't legally have the option, then you can't fit into that category.

[Hondo11]

Right, and there is problem. What is being "on the up and up." Many claim the Harold Fish shooting was on the up and up, but he was prosecuted and convicted. Harold Fish was certain at the time his shooting was justified and as a result, he spoke freely with the cops (bad move).

I do understand your question and suggestion that nobody is ever prosecuted for an obviously good shoot. Heck, I have seen several cases where obviously good shoots resulting in the deaths of bad guys don't even result in the good guy being arrested (contrary to the claims of many that you will most definitely be arrested if you even draw your gun, much less if you actually have to discharge it and it results in the death of your attacker).

Unfortunately, clear cut cases are not the norm as often as we would like them to be. The reasons for this are multi-fold. It may be due to he said-she said accounting, confusing witness statements, or a lack of witnesses or cameras). Prosecutors do not prosecute cases they obviously cannot win such as clear cut self defense shootings. They do prosecute shootings that are not clear cut self defense shootings, however.

Be that as it may, my first priority is the defense of my life. While I don't want to go to court, that may happen. To go to court, however, I will indeed be alive, which is my first priority.

ALL self-defense shootings should be clear cut. If they're not, then someone is doing something wrong. I understand that people perceive things differently and point-of-view can cause conflicting statements. But if you did what you were supposed to do, within the law and within reason, then the investigation will bear that out. It really will. Your actions will be tested against the elements of the criminal offense of murder then balanced against the law regarding use of force in self defense. If you did EVERYTHING like you were supposed to, acted within the law and within reason, then you will be fine.

Now, if a witness hears you yell "F*ck you, criminal scum!" and then sees you draw your Glock 17, shoot the guy 18 times, reload, then shoot the guy 17 more times while he's on the ground...well, then you may have a problem. But YOU caused it. That's my point.

You won't find too many parking lot robbery self defense shootings (in states where the victims have the option of defending themselves and where the victim did everything right) that turned into anything more than a Grand Jury Referral (which is pretty much mandatory). Most folks aren't charged...or even arrested in the first place.

I'm not suggesting (and wasn't in the other post) that the aftermath shouldn't be considered. I'm just saying that it should be bumped below the concern for your life and/or physical health.

You have to live through the encounter before you can arrested and charged (which most likely isn't going to happen if you're within the law like you should be.)

[Ben Towe]

Approached by two BGs, dark parking lot. Ok, #1: I'm a paranoid individual, I'm on high alert most all the time, especially in dark, urban places. So chances are I've spotted said BGs on their approach, so I've got hackles up already. BGs pick up their pace and BG#1 draws knife. I drop anything I'm carrying and brandish my weapon, leveling it at BG#1. From here several things could happen:
1: BGs turn and high step it out of the area. Result: hold my fire, make sure threat has passed, holster weapon, go home and have a beer.
2: BGs stop but do not retreat.Result: Hold fire and order BGs to drop weapon and leave.
2a: BGs comply and leave. Result: Hold fire, etc.
2b: BGs do not comply but do not advance. Result: Continue holding fire while repeating orders to leave. Risk glance around to make sure no more BGs approaching.
3: BGs continue towards me. Result: Double tap BG#1 in heart. Cover BG#2 with weapon. Hold fire if still unarmed and stopped or quitting the fight. Double tap if reaching for a weapon or still advancing.

Now to throw in more variables such as distance. In scenario 2, if BG#1 is within 12-14 feet of me I move backward to distance myself. If he is already in striking distance we skip 2a and 2b and I kill him for sure and possibly his partner. If he stops at that distance it may be to slice your jugular. The unarmed BG could only avoid death by hitting the dirt or turning his back to me; I wouldn't shoot a man in the back unless it was necessary to protect someone else.

This is what I would try to do in the situation. Of course there are other variables that could happen and reactions would have to change accordingly, but I doubt I'd be thinking of what the DA or the jury is gonna do, surviving would be the first, last, and only thing on my mind.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Many claim the Harold Fish shooting was on the up and up, but he was prosecuted and convicted. Harold Fish was certain at the time his shooting was justified and as a result, he spoke freely with the cops (bad move).

Pardon the atrocious pun but the Harold Fish case was from the beginning; fishy. More importantly he shot an unarmed man. Not a good example to use.

[OldMarksman]

like these guys will probably have records and you don't.

Do you believe that you will be able to use that? Sometimes one can, sometimes not.

The guy will be laying there with a knife etc.

And you had a gun. The only difference is that you used more force than he had available.

There was an altercation between two men with weapons. One died. Was it self defense, or murder? That's to be decided.

And that's the case whether you killed him or he killed you.

Man approaches you with deadly weapon and makes clear he wants to rob you. Pretty clear cut SD and that threat is RIGHT NOW.

You've got that right.

As to your worries about the jury and trial and all that, here is what I say; don't carry CCW. If you are that worried about the aftermath don't carry.

No offense, but I find that completely nonsensical. Where I live, qualifying for a CCW endorsement requires taking an eight hour training course, and about half of that is devoted to the law--and the "aftermath." Why might that be?

As most know the chances of any violence coming to you is low, very low unless you engage in risky behavior.

True. And from that you deduce what? In risk management, you analyze likelihood and potential consequences.

As Kathy Jackson said,

Are any of these outcomes likely? Of course not. The vast majority of people go through life without ever being attacked at all, let alone encountering the worst of the worst. It's not the odds that bother me here. It's the stakes.

The problem I would have with your response is that you are trying to do too many things IMO with a guy standing nearby with a knife and evil intent.

I don't think tossing a money clip with the other hand adds too much at all, but if the guy's already breathing on me it might not be indicated.

I would draw, aim and command retreat.

Good strategy. The reason I'm suuggesting the money is that the man might be so desparate for money (say, for a "fix") that he would take the chance of dying rather than withddraw empty handed.

A little added insurance.

If I could safely back up I might and that is all I would do unless he came toward me.

You might?

In many states you will either be trying to provide evidence that you did so or that you could not do so safely, in order to successfully mount your defense of justifiability.

If the other guy came toward me I would tell him to stop or shoot him if he didn't.

How would you contend that you were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm when approached by an unarmed man?

I have been taught not to react that way [with concern about the aftermath, or the legality of the use of deadly force] but that is opinion also.

Not to appear disrespectful, but that does raise questions about the qualifications of your teachers.

You would probably be well served to study these carefully:

http://www.useofforce.us

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1...ocument&Click=

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm

I don't think David Armstrong is an expert.

I may be wrong but I do think he has served in that capacity. Here's what's on the forum:

About David Armstrong
Biography
Former military, retired LE, Ph.D. in criminal justice and currently teaching.
Occupation
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice

Anyway, that is better than paying with your life. I can make more money.

Addressing the second sentence first: yes, if and only if you prevail. Whether you ever reach break-even will be open to question.

What's better?

Here's my take:

The fourth last thing I ever want to do is shoot someone in an open and shut SD case.

The third last is to shoot somone and go trough an extensive investigation, and maybe a grand jury procedure, and maybe a trial that I win, perhaps on appeal.

The second last is to shoot and be convicted of improper use of deadly force.

Tied for last: getting killed or injured; having a loved one killed or injured; hitting an innocent person.

I think you''ll see that I agree: better. But not all that good.

You won't have any time at all to consider anything but the situation, should an event such as the one we have been discussing occur. Best to know what you can and cannot do, and what you will and will not do, before going outside.

[hogdogs]

Harold Fish's attacker was armed with a screwdriver and had threatening canine advance first...
Call me a bad person but a charging snarling dog would have gotten the first 10mm had it been me! Loose dogs charging me on my place or in public setting is a dead dog!
If one of my dogs charged someone and was shot for it I would have apologized to the person who had to do what they did to insure their health was not diminished...
I think the only thing that got Mr.Fish convicted was his statement that didn't match that of someone else who wasn't any closer than distant earshot to only hear the shots...
It is this case alone and the advice of some wise folks here that convinced me to "lawyer up" if ever in similar situation. I always thought if in the right it wouldn't hurt to give a statement...
Brent

[hogdogs]

Why do so many folks mention "unarmed man" when speaking of violent individuals? Unless you are very skilled fighter or a rather big dude, ARMED or UNARMED is immaterial!
I bet dollars to doughnuts if you approach PAX in a threatening manner armed or not and get within her "comfort zone" she is gonna hit you with a 2 COM right then and there! Following the requisite cliche... STOP OR I WILL SHOOT!!!"
Ms.Pax, am I close to correct on this?
Brent

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Do you believe that you will be able to use that? Sometimes one can, sometimes not.

If you read my post carefully you will see that I was referring to the investigation which the police would conduct after the shooting, so yes it would be used.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

And you had a gun. The only difference is that you used more force than he had available.
There was an altercation between two men with weapons. One died. Was it self defense, or murder? That's to be decided.
And that's the case whether you killed him or he killed you.

I am not sure that I see much relevance in your point. Two armed men have an altercation, one is dead, there is an investigation. Yesss, so what? I think you need to stay with the OP rather than take rabbit trails on what the possibilities might be later.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

qualifying for a CCW endorsement requires taking an eight hour training course, and about half of that is devoted to the law--and the "aftermath." Why might that be?

Because many civilians do not know the laws of self defense and that is part of the instruction. However, my point is that if you are so afraid of the aftermath of a SD shooting then don't carry and chances are you will be OK for the most part.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

In many states you will either be trying to provide evidence that you did so or that you could not do so safely, in order to successfully mount your defense of justifiability.

Not in mine. Again, in the instance provided in the OP I think my response would be reasonable.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Not to appear disrespectful, but that does raise questions about the qualifications of your teachers.

Yeah, see the problem is you added your own thought into my quote. Not good form. Better to ask for clarification first. The response I provided which you said was:

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Good strategy.

was what I was taught to do.

What I was taught was a not so good idea was what you propose (tossing things while trying to draw) for the reasons that I mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

I may be wrong but I do think he has served in that capacity. Here's what's on the forum:

I pay less attention to Internet credentials and more to what people post. I have posted with and read several of Mr. Armstrong's post's and while I do think he has some knowledge in some areas of criminal justice and shooting I do not hold his opinions to be expert. If you wish elaboration please PM me and I will be glad to explain more.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Here's my take:

Here's mine:

1) The best defense is to not be there
2) If you can retreat safely when confronted with danger do so.
3) If you cannot retreat safely and you are in fear of your life and confronted with imminent danger by someone who has the opportunity and ability to take your life then react in the manner I was trained which I outlined earlier.
4) No extra insurance, no kung fu moves, no snappy movie talk, no tossing things about just do what I was trained to do to stop the threat.

Anyway, that is my expert opinion

[OldMarksman]

I still have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for a defensive shooting that was 100% on the up and up.

The other night on PDTV, Mas Ayoob mentioned the case of a peace officer who was involved in a "good shoot" but who went to jail because of the way the aftermath was handled.

Does anyone have a link to a case where a victim was prosecuted for defending himself against an armed attacker? ... I want a cite for someone who was straight up accosted by an armed attacker/robber, defended him/herself with a firearm, then was subsequently prosecuted.

A "link"? To a story, maybe.

The problem is that there is no database for trial court records, and there are a lot of trial courts--count the counties in the country.

The only time you will find anything searchable is when a case has been reviewed on appeal.

I honestly can't recall it happening and if it has, I'd like to read about it.

Perhaps you might PM Mas Ayoob.

A person using a deadly weapon to commit a violent act against you is very cut and dry. This isn't one of those cases that's subjective, even in the slightest. There's a guy standing in front of you with a knife/gun/whatever. Robbery is theft by use of force or threat of force. It's the lovechild of Assault and Theft. Aggravated/Armed/Whateveryourstatecallsit Robbery is the same, but with a deadly weapon. BY DEFINITION, he is attacking you or threatining to attack you and he's using a deadly weapon to do it. There really isn't a situation that is more clear cut for self defense with a firearm.

I agree entirely, though in some states you may have to retreat if possible.

The problem is, in most places the defense of justifiability is an affirmative defense. To use it, the actor admits that he has in fact used deadly force--a criminal act but for the circumstances that justified his action--and he must provide evidence showing that his actions were justified.

It's unlikely that his word alone will suffice. Otherwise, most all murders would be defended on the basis of self defense. Maybe a lot of them are but not successfully

So, it's not just what the actor says happened, and it's not even just what actually happened, but it's what the evidence shows happened, and perhaps what witnesses say happened, and how the people in various stages of the judicial process evaluate the evidence and testimony.

ALL self-defense shootings should be clear cut. If they're not, then someone is doing something wrong.

Clear cut to whom? To the actor, yes. But that won't be the determinant.

The problem is, the shootings are not on a stage being filmed for later review.

But if you did what you were supposed to do, within the law and within reason, then the investigation will bear that out. It really will. Your actions will be tested against the elements of the criminal offense of murder then balanced against the law regarding use of force in self defense. If you did EVERYTHING like you were supposed to, acted within the law and within reason, then you will be fine.

That's what we hope. But it will depend on the evidence, on witness testimony if there were witnesses, on how well the actor is able to articulate the reasons for his action at the time, and on how all of that is evaluated by the jury.

In the case put forth by the OP, it may come down to witness testimony, or maybe a security camera. The only evidence mentioned is the presence of two weapons, and if one man kills the other either way it goes there will be forensic evidence.

By the way, if the guy with the knife ends up killing the man with the gun, he will probably be claiming that it was self defense. Clear cut, within the law and all that.

Try this:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1...ocument&Click=

I think this shows that as you say, the scenario set forth by the OP is a clear-cut example of justifiability (again, subject to retreat considerations). No question on that, in your mind or mine, because it seems clear that

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.

Here's the issue:

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.

Then there's the prosecution's evidence. There's some risk that the forensic evidence may be such that it can appear harmful to your case.

In the OP's scenario, I think my biggest concern would be the risk of unfavorable witness testimony--what people did not see, what they thought they saw, what they did not remember, and how they remembered what they saw.

The point is, the fact of "good shoot" (I think that's a law enforcement term, and I don't think it helps our case as civilian gun owners) is not sufficient without something to substantiate that fact after the event.

None of that says you shouldn't shoot (the armed man) if you have to.

In case by chance you haven't heard these, Ayoob says that if you do have to shoot, do the following:

Be the first to call 911

When the officers arrive, point out the man on the ground as the aggressor.

Say that you are the victim and that you will sign the complaint.

Point out the evidence [knife in this case?]

Point out the witnesses.

Say that you the officers will have your full cooperation in twenty four hours after you have conferred with counsel.

I think I've remembered those properly.

[Ian0351]

A: I am not giving my wallet to dirtbag with knife under any circumstances, cash, no cash, etc. One, it's a matter of principle; two, it has my address in it with my stuff that is worth stealing.

B: The sheriff in my town once told me "just make sure by the time my boys show up there's only one story" in regards to CCW shootings. so yes, both go down unless the 2nd one shows me heels before I can double tap him.

C: Freedom does not mean the right to be defended by the police, nor does political correctness. I feel pretty good about never setting foot inside a courtroom under these circumstances, especially considering my 2nd point.

[David Armstrong]

Quote:
I don't think David Armstrong is an expert.
**********************************
I may be wrong but I do think he has served in that capacity. Here's what's on the forum:

You are not wrong. I assume the person posting the original comment is one of the folks that are on my Ignore list, and they are there for a reason...they tend to use, support and advocate what I feel is dishonest and unethical behavior. And this is a good example of that. Rather than taking a moment to try to find the truth as to someones's record, they just make up an answer and toss it out there without any concern as to the accuracy. Yes, I am a court certified expert witness in the area of firearms training and tactics, have served as one several times, and do a fair amount of consulting on the subject. The fact that someone thinks that I am not an expert in that context shows far more about the quality of what they think than the issue of another's expertise.

As to your worries about the jury and trial and all that, here is what I say; don't carry CCW. If you are that worried about the aftermath don't carry.
****************************
No offense, but I find that completely nonsensical.

Yes. it is complete nonsense. Anyone who suggests one not worry about the aftermath of a deadly force event simply shows how little they know about deadly force and the law.

[David Armstrong]

A person using a deadly weapon to commit a violent act against you is very cut and dry. This isn't one of those cases that's subjective, even in the slightest.

There is the problem. It is not cut and dry, it is usually very subjective, AND it also comes in two parts---criminal and civil. Even if you get a very clear cut and dry okie-dokie criminal event you can still get slammed in the civil aftermath. People are prosecuted regularly for what they felt were 100% upand up shootings, and they lose because the jury doesn't agree with them that it was all that clear.

[curt.45]

well excuse me.

[Sparks2112]

Deleted a quote of deleted post - pax

You have no business saying something like that on this board. I hope you get talked to, and, your comment has been reported seeing as it's against the TOS of this place and makes us all seem like hicks waiting to blow someone away.

[hogdogs]

consider me sufficantly flogged.

Brent

[curt.45]

it was meant as a joke, sorry to upset you all.

consider me sufficantly flogged.

[pax]

Curt,

The other members were right on this one: that's not the way we do things here. Thanks for editing your post. It takes a brave person to apologize instantly like that, and clean up too. Nicely done.

Kathy

[hogdogs]

Curt,
Jokes and humor even "dry, snarky" humor is fine so long as it is kept "above board"...
You will find that folks here consider those statements a direct threat to their 2A RKBA...
Trust me... If you look at my first hunert posts on this board... I learned too!
Oh and one more thing... the flogging is not to be considered finished until the floggers say it is finished!
Brent

[Sparks2112]

it was meant as a joke, sorry to upset you all.

<flog>

You might want to make it more clear when you're kidding. Do you think an ANTI (and they do read this forum, I guarantee it) coming across that would see it as a joke, or as just another confirmation to what they thought they already knew?

There are people reading this right now who have ZERO positive firearms experience. Can they recognize it as a joke? If not what do you think it says about us?

</flog>

[pax]

Oh and one more thing... the flogging is not to be considered finished until the floggers say it is finished!

Correction: "... until the moderators say it is finished."

And it is finished now. No more piling on. Capiche?

pax

[hogdogs]

Yes'm I agree...
Brent

[curt.45]

now if you could to get sparks to remove the post I removed?


thanks. on both.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

is one of the folks that are on my Ignore list, and they are there for a reason...they tend to use, support and advocate what I feel is dishonest and unethical behavior.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

Rather than taking a moment to try to find the truth

Too funny.

[pax]

Looks to me as if this one's run its course anyway.

pax