Had to use mine Wednesday Night - Page 3

MoW · May 7, 2005, 05:53 PM

As noted earlier, Fla. will soon have the right to not retreat(Oct). Unfortunately, until then everyone is under the current law which is MUCH more strict on using a weapon outside of your domain

for virtually any reason but life and death. In fact our CCW instructor stated there is(currently) virtually no situation when discharging your gun outside your home without LEGAL ramifications. He so much as said to carry pepper spray instead of a pistol for such situations to avoid legal liability---stupid I agree, but true for now.
Again, I'm taking a legal approach to this matter. If Moose had given the guy the money and he ran off then he couldn't use his weapon at that point. If he was being struck as he pulled his weapon to fire then sure, but legally the way he described the situation raises questions---especially if there was no weapon found on the assailant.

MoW · May 7, 2005, 06:02 PM

Unfortunately size will matter to a jury when defending your actions vs an unarmed smaller person---just a fact.

JohnSK----Sorry but from what I read legally there are questions. In hindsight maybe he would handle it differently---don't know enough---but do know enough that it DOES raise questions. You didn't answer or respond to how far away the guy was? Why 3 shots and 1 missed? All valid questions that you can't answer---thus legal questions arise.

**JohnKSa** · May 7, 2005, 06:14 PM

MoW,

I didn't address specifics other than the one comment that applied directly to a statement made to me because it's not easy to find a starting point. But I'll address the questions you asked.

If the encounter started with the assailant punching the victim from behind, I don't think there's any question of how far away they were from each other. Obviously the assailant was within arms reach at least during some point in the encounter.

It is common for people to miss in very high-stress situations--even at very close range. I've never heard of someone using a missed shot in a situation as proof that the assailant was too far away. In my opinion, that's a very poor argument--bordering on ludicrous. Furthermore, since the victim had been struck in the head, that offers another reasonable explanation for his shooting performance to be less than ideal.

Ok, again this is going to sound very bad, but I'm going to be frank. Initially I didn't address these questions or the others you posed because they were based on obviously flawed reasoning and a lack of understanding of deadly force statutes. Not because they were hard to answer. I do not believe either of these questions raise any legal questions at all. The answer to the first is so patently obvious that it needn't have been asked, and the reasoning inherent in the second is badly flawed.

I don't want to get dragged into an argument on this thread because I think it's not going to be productive to anyone. I really wish you would take my advice to carefully read through the deadly force statutes of your state and then to carefully re-read the initial post on this thread before continuing this discussion.

John

XavierBreath · May 7, 2005, 06:21 PM

Gentlemen,
This thread is a great example of what occurs in a jury room. As such, it is also a great example of why one should clam up if one has to resort to force of any kind, for any reason. Advice from internet forums is often bad, advice from LEOs is frequently bad, advice from other people in jail is bad. In the Navy we had a term for it.......sea lawyers. Hell, advice from bonafide attorneys can't be counted on either. Everyone is spouting opinions. The only opinions that really matter are those of the jury, and they aren't talking. Let alone we don't even know if there will be a jury, and who they will be in this particular case.

There is one universal truth however. The best thing to do after a shooting is not to say anything about it. Even if a person is exonerated, it is best if they do not discuss it.

ahenry · May 7, 2005, 06:28 PM

MoW,

Quote:

Unfortunately size will matter to a jury when defending your actions vs an unarmed smaller person---just a fact.

Ok, lets cut to the chase. 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?

wayneinFL · May 7, 2005, 06:28 PM

I've been keeping up in this thread and I just can't keep quiet any longer. Moose shot someone because he had to end of story.

I'm not trying to flame anyone here, forgive me if I flame, I am trying to say this in the nicest way possible.

Moose, if you are reading this, you were justified in my book. Don't listen to the armchair quarterbacks who haven't been there. Mow has all week to decide whether what you did in a few seconds under the threat of your life was justified or not. He's probably had a $35 gunshow CCW class and thinks he's a lawyer now. Moose, you did the right thing.

This is not meant as a personal attack, mow, I've taken the gunshow course and other courses on lethal force, if I listened to some of the gun show instructors, you just about can't shoot back unless you're dead already. Some LFI's are afraid to tell you that you can EVER shoot anybody, 'cause they think you may misunderstand them or take them too literally, shoot someone, and get sued for it, then, in turn, sue the instructor.

Mow, you may wish to leave this thread alone. A situation similar to this happened in my hometown to a customer at the garage I worked at. Man shot a woman from his Jeep. Yes- in Florida. It never made it past the grand jury- obviously justifiable shooting.

Moose, take the advice of the experienced men on this thread. Get a good lawyer, don't say anything to anybody unless the lawyer says to, and go for the counseling. God bless you.

Bruce_G · May 7, 2005, 06:42 PM

Quote:

You didn't answer or respond to how far away the guy was? Why 3 shots and 1 missed? All valid questions that you can't answer---thus legal questions arise.

First, only Moose knows the answers, and I hope he follows everyones advise and keeps the rest of the details to himself for his own protection.

But for the sake of argument I can offer up my guesses. In all muggings I know personally know about (I admit, not many), the mugger usually stays within arms reach or at most a few steps away. Certainly close enough to be considered a threat. I often hear that 7 yards is considered a range at which an unarmed attacker becomes a greater threat. I don't know the details and am not prepared to argue them at this time. But unless the perp was standing across the parking lot shouting commands while clearly unarmed, I don't think distance will be an issue.

I think the one missed shot is also moot. The 2 out of 3 at a live target in a stressfull situation is fine shooting. I've seen police videos where cops and badguys both emptied hi-cap mags at each other over the hood of a patrol car and evey round missed.

You've said in several post that there are serious questions. I disagree. I don't see where any of the points you raised are of any concern. The police are most likely satisified with what happened, and the odds of a drug addict finding a lawyer to file a civil suit are pretty slim. Slim, but not zero, hence the need for Moose to keep silent.

And please, do us a favor and don't say anymore about what the law is in Florida. It's a fine state, but not the one we are talking about.

univtxattorney · May 7, 2005, 08:53 PM

Quote:

If the defense raises the issue of a person being called Moose and the man is indeed of considerable stature then it only takes 1.

You had better call your sisters and get better advice. It, in fact, does not only take 1 to convict. It takes 1 to hang. It takes 12 to convict (sometimes 6 in certain jurisdictions with six person juries). In the event that he had someone like you on the jury, who was determined to get him, you, acting alone, could not convict him. The worst you could do is hang the jury. At that point, I am confident that the prosecutor would elect not to retry the case.

Quote:

I think the one missed shot is also moot. The 2 out of 3 at a live target in a stressfull situation is fine shooting.

I'd be happy to hit one out of ten. But then again, I shoot like a lawyer.

Seriously, under the circumstances, 2 out of 3 is awesome.

Quote:

Hell, advice from bonafide attorneys can't be counted on either.

Ain't that the truth. Really. If you are going to get an attorney (in ANY matter, from a DWI to murder) spend the extra and get a good one. Ask around. Do research. This is NOT something you want to skimp on. Just like a lot of [insert your profession here] out there, there are a lot of attorneys who haven't a clue what they are doing. Point is, in all professions, there are good, bad, and ugly. If your life or financial well-being is on the line, get the best you can afford.

Quote:

Mow has all week to decide whether what you did in a few seconds under the threat of your life was justified or not.

The SMARTEST statement on this thread, IMHO.

Quote:

I listened to some of the gun show instructors, you just about can't shoot back unless you're dead already.

Here is the deal, boys and girls. What happens in the justice system is RARELY about the law. I am sure that all of you know this. If you, as a lawyer, have let THIS case get to court, you have already lost.

Let me break it down for you, as I see it. You have a guy who is a veteran criminal. He goes to mug Moose, a guy who is minding his own business. A guy who has taken the time to learn the gun laws of his state and has proven himself responsible by obtaining a license to carry. The bad guy hits Moose from behind, without provocation. Moose, obviously scared for his life, shoots the bad guy. Which case do you want to try as a prosecutor? State v. Bad Guy or State v. Moose? Do you think the prosecutor is going to pour over the facts with a fine-toothed comb looking for a way to charge Moose? Do you think a grand jury is going to follow the LAW? How about the petit jury at trial? Prosecutors know this. They don't like to waste their time with cases that are losers. They don't like to waste resources prosecuting them. Juries don't like to convict guys like Moose for giving bad guys what they deserve.

That said, LEARN the law of your state... Why? Because if all else fails, you have to argue the law. If you can't persuade the prosecutors that you should not be charged, you have to persuade them that the merits are on your side. If you, god forbid, get convicted, you have to persuade an appellate court that you acted within the letter of the law, though it may have turned out to be the wrong decision, ultimately.

From what I have read and from what Moose himself said, it sounds like he has everything going for him legally. Let me state this as clearly as I can. From the information he has given, I believe that he acted within the letter of the law. Given that he acted within the law and given what I said above, I would be surprised if he has any negative legal repercussions from this.

As so many of you have recommended, he needs to take this time to determine his mental state. What he really needs from this forum is the support that so many of us have given him. It's over... He's alive... He defended himself in a situation that most of us can only imagine in our nightmares.

novus collectus · May 7, 2005, 09:50 PM

Quote:

As so many of you have recommended, he needs to take this time to determine his mental state. What he really needs from this forum is the support that so many of us have given him. It's over... He's alive... He defended himself in a situation that most of us can only imagine in our nightmares.

Hear hear.....+1

BigBoreKindaGuy · May 7, 2005, 10:01 PM

Forget the counseling. It was possibly either your life or his and in this case no one lost their life. That's all you have to think about it and then let go. Couseling isn't going to do anything but make you keep reliving it in your mind until the reliving makes it a real problem in your mind. You are alive and unhurt. Forget about it and go on....you don't need to be bleeding your heart out to some stranger over something that was pure self-defense.

MoW · May 7, 2005, 10:03 PM

Sorry guys but more information is needed. No injuries for Moose, 1 blow to the back of the head from an unarmed man. If the perpetrator was that close then 3 in the gut would be more like it. You trying to tell me that the man wasn't far enough away to simply pull the gun and not shoot----3 times but not far enough away to miss on 1 and way low on the rest. Again this is based on what Moose said. Do you really think that Moose was in a life threatening situation vs an unarmed man? If he didn't have a gun then he would be dead? The size argument could go both ways however. If the perpetrator was much larger then justification would be easier. If there wasn't anymore to this story then it would be moot at this point, the fact that he thinks they might clear him says there may be more. It's amazing to me that simply based on what you read from Moose that you can assertain that he had the right to shoot this guy(over money) 3 times and endanger anyone near the area who may have been hit by a stray. He's damn lucky nobody else was hit or he would be in deep trouble in a situation where once the gun was pulled the "situation" for all intents and purposes was over without having to fire-----3 times!

novus collectus · May 7, 2005, 10:32 PM

Quote:

It's amazing to me that simply based on what you read from Moose that you can assertain that he had the right to shoot this guy(over money) 3 times

Have you ever been mugged? Been in a situation where you had no idea if the person was going to homosexually rape you after he knocked you out? Ever been attacked and feared for your life? Don't answer these questions to us, just think about the fear. It wasn't the possible loss of money (IMO).

As far as the missed shot, let me mention an incident in Md where the 2 trained LEO's were responding to the report of a kid with a gun and went to the front door of the kids house. The kid opened the door with the (toy) gun. At 8' there were 26 shots fired at the kid. Just three hit.

Unless the bad guy in Moose's situation was a crippled midget, he has nothing to worry about the persons size. Even a young girl can disable a large man if she "gets the drop" on him like this bad guy did. IMO if the bad guy threatened him with harm, then there may (or may not) be a question about the use of deadly force. However, this bad guy showed him the need to defend himself by actual battery and THEN followed up with further threatenning actions.

Go up to any cop from behind, nearly knock him out and then threaten his life further. If he shot you, do you think they would question the justification of risking bystanders with missed shots in a trial to convict the LEO? (or for that matter, even take it to court in the first place?). IMO this is no different and he did what was right.

MoW · May 7, 2005, 10:50 PM

Assaulting an officer is much different. Next, if you are 5 or more feet away from me and I have a gun pointed at you then the situation is over for all intent. If at that point you come at me then I guarantee you will get hit by every shot in the upper torso---no misses at that range.

Hence my questioning(Moose didn't say) how far away the perpetrator was---1 miss and 2 low sound farther away then 2-3 feet. If not then he's justified but scenario as laid out leaves questions.

Nimitz87 · May 7, 2005, 11:05 PM

MoW wether hes right or wrong in this you dont need to belittle him...espically in the state im sure hes in.

and the fact that he shot him 3 times probably means little...what about the cops who dump a whole 13 round clip...and miss 13 times?...

so MoW what would you do in the situation taht your opening your truck door and get wacked in the back of the head and then be demanded to hand over your wallet and when you do BG doesnt leave...he then asks to empty your pockets...you instruct him you have nothng on you.... and how in the hell do you know he was unarmed? were you there?

i just think your being critical as well...if not more so than anyone else here. your belittling a man who just had to do damn near the hardest thing i could ever think of...shoot another person.

and what does it matter about him missing one shot? thats a moot point considering that the shot didnt hurt anyone...i think your just over zealous in your analysis...and a bit rude.

so give the guy some ****ing credit... and lay off his case.

that is all

Chad

wayneinFL · May 7, 2005, 11:10 PM

Mow, don't you think you've beat this poor sob up enough.

Jeez, moose didn't shoot the guy over money, 3 shots is nothing when your life is danger, and under a threat most people outside of Hollywood will not have the steel nerves you claim you have, and they just might miss.

"Next, if you are 5 or more feet away from me and I have a gun pointed at you then the situation is over for all intent. If at that point you come at me then I guarantee you will get hit by every shot in the upper torso---no misses at that range."

Good luck with that.

Is a way I wish you could see the folly of your statements, but I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone.

Bruce_G · May 7, 2005, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Sorry guys but more information is needed.

I don't expect anymore is coming.

Quote:

You trying to tell me that the man wasn't far enough away to simply pull the gun and not shoot----3 times but not far enough away to miss on 1 and way low on the rest.

There is no justification in SC to "pull the gun and not shoot".

Quote:

Do you really think that Moose was in a life threatening situation vs an unarmed man?

Yes, I 100% without a doubt believe that he was in a life threatening situation. He had already been assulted and robbed of an empty wallet. The bad guy then wanted money from his truck. Who's to say he would have been happy to take the money and leave a witness behind. It is insane to think that the mugger would have just taken his money and said, "Have a nice day, it has been my pleasure robbing you this evening."

In situations of self defense, facts that come out after the fact may not matter at all. What matters is basicially this.

Quote:

State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E.2d 328 (1989) sets forth the elements of self-defense in South Carolina. These are:

1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;
3. if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life;
4. you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.

Notice the "Or" in the middle of point 3. The first part of that says that you don't have to be in "actual" danger if your belief in the danger is reasonable. I believe that he was both in actual danger and reasonable in his belief that he was. His attacker could have been armed or unarmed, a body builder or a 98lb weakling. The point is that the attacker had the advantage of surprise and was on the offensive, controlling the situation up until the point he got shot. It is perfectly reasonable for anyone in Moose's positions to believe that he is in serious danger. It is asking too much to expect him to believe that the mugger would be content at only robbing him.

Point 4 deal with duty to retreat, which can easily be countered by..

Quote:

... you need not retreat “if to do so would apparently increase [your] danger.” State v. McGee, 185 S.C. 184, 190, 193 S.E. 303, 306 (1937).

Quote:

It's amazing to me that simply based on what you read from Moose that you can assertain that he had the right to shoot this guy(over money) 3 times and endanger anyone near the area who may have been hit by a stray. He's damn lucky nobody else was hit or he would be in deep trouble in a situation where once the gun was pulled the "situation" for all intents and purposes was over without having to fire-----3 times!

First, let me answer this by saying that I'm sure we are all glad that no bystander was shot by the one round that got away. Sounds like he was shooting at a downward angle, maybe this was to avoid having a round "get away" or maybe he has a tall truck. Either way it doesn't matter, no one else was shot.

Second, why do you seem to insist that Moose shot this guy over Money? Is it impossible for you to believe that he was actually afraid for his life? I sure as heck know I would be.

Third, what is your hang up with the number 3? He fired 3 times. So what? I admire his restraint. I can't say how many I'd shoot in such a situation, and I pray to God I never find out, but when I try to put myself in his shoes it's not hard to imagine firing more than that.

Fourth and finially, What do you mean when you said "the "situation" for all intents and purposes was over"? What can you possibly base that assumption on?

Do you really think this through, or are you just arguing this for your enjoyment? I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you are starting to remind of a Monty Pyton sketch.

novus collectus · May 7, 2005, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Assaulting an officer is much different.

How is afflicting an officer any different? They are subject to the same laws as us. Wearng a badge does not justify taking a life unnecessarily like you may have the impression Moose did. The law has to be applied equally and if the cop can do it in the similar situation, then we can do it in the similar situation. If you feel that the LEO had a right to defend himself with shooting, then my scenario has done it's purpose and made you think that it is o.k. in certain situations. You may disagree with who has the right to do it, but you would at least see a possible parallel.

As far as your guarantee that you would hit every shot in a very close quaters situation with your adrenaline pumping, you can't know until it happens, but Moose does know because it hapenned to him (and not us).

I have been in situations that scared me about the loss of my life before (a couple of muggings, couple of attempted muggings by a group of people, pistol whipped, shot at, etc.) and from my experience I can say that Moose did very well in his situation (IMHO) and the missed shot as far as we know may have happened before he had his stance set (assuming he even had time and space to assume a stance of some kind), or maybe his arm was hit while shooting, or maybe we shouldn't question someone who has a whole lot of personal things to think about after a possibly traumatic experience

Nimitz87 · May 7, 2005, 11:12 PM

so assualting a civllian (cop) the same way is much different? what if he was off duty?

so getting hit in the BACK of the head (which could easily knock you out...)

the guy could of easily punched, kicked, stabbed, moose after being stunned by being hit in the back of his head...

you under estimate the badguys out there....hope it wont bring a tragedy to you...

Chad

Nimitz87 · May 7, 2005, 11:17 PM

btw its "shoot to stop" that means if the guy doesnt fall after 6 keep shooting....cops from what i have seen "shoot to kill" which is empty magazine, reload and empty again....

so 3 shots is little.

i know if i had a revolver it would be empty and clicking most likely...

Chad

MoW · May 7, 2005, 11:19 PM

and what does it matter about him missing one shot? thats a moot point considering that the shot didnt hurt anyone

You're playing the result of the incident instead of the intent. The reason you are sooo restricted in firing your weapon is for the fact that you COULD shoot or kill an innocent. The fact that he didn't(in this case) doesn't change the fact that he could have. 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? No.

Half of you are missing my point---you all say he's justified simply on what he stated---I'm saying he may very well be---BUT---there are things in his statement that doesn't leave it open and shut. I'm not belittling him, I need more to go on but firing your weapon should be a last resort. As for me, I would have pulled the gun for sure but firing would be a different matter---I would never value a car, truck monet etc...over any human life or risk endangering another possible innocent. It all comes down to distance IMO, as I said 5 ft. in I ain't missing anytrhing farther and the situation is under control.

MoW · May 7, 2005, 11:23 PM

i know if i had a revolver it would be empty and clicking most likely...

and if there were any witnesses you would end up in jail. Emptying your firearm like that would show anger, not self defense. Please quit trying to compare what LEO's do and get away with with the common public---alltogether different.

novus collectus · May 7, 2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

It all comes down to distance IMO, as I said 5 ft. in I ain't missing anytrhing farther and the situation is under control.

Yes it also has something to do with distance. Try this, have a friend who is standing so close to you that his leg is touching yours, thengoforyourgun. Will you even have enough room for you to get your gun to a point you can even see the sight before you would figure you would fire the first shot? Prevent the person from grabbing your gun while you line up the perfect "one shot one kill"?

We don't know what his exact situation was, and maybe we should leave this one alone until his legal troubles are behind him and he wants to talk about it.

Nimitz87 · May 7, 2005, 11:32 PM

no MoW it wouldnt...sorry its shoot to stop...not shoot to wheni think it wont kill him but maybe stop him.

oh and the guy wasnt protecting his ****ing TRUCK...i'd love to see you in this situation,...calm, cool, collected...yeah right

MoW about the shot missing...so whats he suppose to do to not have a chance of missing? put the muzzle to the guy? again your logic is just wrong...

what he did was more than most i would say...im sure if the guy picked up his wallet and left moose wouldnt grab his gun and shoot the guy. moose did use other ways out and they failed...he felt (as would i) that the gun was his only choice after being attacked, and robbed.

oh and your "i'll just take the gun out and wave it around" approach is illegal where moose lives...called brandishing a weapon.

you should never draw unless you need to shoot...IMHO.

like i said give the guy a break....I for one applaud him on the way he handled things.

Chad

FallenPhoenix · May 7, 2005, 11:35 PM

Being hit from behind, I would count myself lucky he didn't use a pipe or crow bar, etc and make it permenant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoW

i know if i had a revolver it would be empty and clicking most likely...

and if there were any witnesses you would end up in jail. Emptying your firearm like that would show anger, not self defense. Please quit trying to compare what LEO's do and get away with with the common public---alltogether different.

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. How many shots do you think would be appropriate? Can you decide this before an encounter? 3 shots in this case was enough to stop the assailant, and in no way seems excessive, stop trying to crucify a man who successfully defended himself from someone who very well may have killed him otherwise.

Nimitz87 · May 7, 2005, 11:37 PM

what is the difference if this is a off duty policemen? hell on duty even.

if the guy has his back turned as moose told us he did gets hit in the head and then demanded to hand over his wallet and when he does the BG doesnt leave...what elese do you want him to do?...

and when i said "shooting my revolver until it clicked" that meant as if the guy is stll standing....

if i shot him twice and he fell im not going to to stand over him and "empty my gun"...DUH...

so no it wouldnt show "anger"

where do you live where you have to worry about this stuff?

Chad

May 7, 2005, 06:14 PM	#53
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,993	MoW, I didn't address specifics other than the one comment that applied directly to a statement made to me because it's not easy to find a starting point. But I'll address the questions you asked. If the encounter started with the assailant punching the victim from behind, I don't think there's any question of how far away they were from each other. Obviously the assailant was within arms reach at least during some point in the encounter. It is common for people to miss in very high-stress situations--even at very close range. I've never heard of someone using a missed shot in a situation as proof that the assailant was too far away. In my opinion, that's a very poor argument--bordering on ludicrous. Furthermore, since the victim had been struck in the head, that offers another reasonable explanation for his shooting performance to be less than ideal. Ok, again this is going to sound very bad, but I'm going to be frank. Initially I didn't address these questions or the others you posed because they were based on obviously flawed reasoning and a lack of understanding of deadly force statutes. Not because they were hard to answer. I do not believe either of these questions raise any legal questions at all. The answer to the first is so patently obvious that it needn't have been asked, and the reasoning inherent in the second is badly flawed. I don't want to get dragged into an argument on this thread because I think it's not going to be productive to anyone. I really wish you would take my advice to carefully read through the deadly force statutes of your state and then to carefully re-read the initial post on this thread before continuing this discussion. John __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

May 7, 2005, 06:21 PM	#54
XavierBreath Senior Member Join Date: December 6, 2002 Location: North Louisiana Posts: 2,800	Gentlemen, This thread is a great example of what occurs in a jury room. As such, it is also a great example of why one should clam up if one has to resort to force of any kind, for any reason. Advice from internet forums is often bad, advice from LEOs is frequently bad, advice from other people in jail is bad. In the Navy we had a term for it.......sea lawyers. Hell, advice from bonafide attorneys can't be counted on either. Everyone is spouting opinions. The only opinions that really matter are those of the jury, and they aren't talking. Let alone we don't even know if there will be a jury, and who they will be in this particular case. There is one universal truth however. The best thing to do after a shooting is not to say anything about it. Even if a person is exonerated, it is best if they do not discuss it. __________________ Xavier's Blog

May 7, 2005, 10:01 PM	#60
BigBoreKindaGuy Senior Member Join Date: March 13, 2005 Posts: 175	Forget the counseling. It was possibly either your life or his and in this case no one lost their life. That's all you have to think about it and then let go. Couseling isn't going to do anything but make you keep reliving it in your mind until the reliving makes it a real problem in your mind. You are alive and unhurt. Forget about it and go on....you don't need to be bleeding your heart out to some stranger over something that was pure self-defense. __________________ BigBoreKindaGuy

May 7, 2005, 05:53 PM	#51
MoW Junior member Join Date: January 27, 2005 Posts: 1,009	As noted earlier, Fla. will soon have the right to not retreat(Oct). Unfortunately, until then everyone is under the current law which is MUCH more strict on using a weapon outside of your domain for virtually any reason but life and death. In fact our CCW instructor stated there is(currently) virtually no situation when discharging your gun outside your home without LEGAL ramifications. He so much as said to carry pepper spray instead of a pistol for such situations to avoid legal liability---stupid I agree, but true for now. Again, I'm taking a legal approach to this matter. If Moose had given the guy the money and he ran off then he couldn't use his weapon at that point. If he was being struck as he pulled his weapon to fire then sure, but legally the way he described the situation raises questions---especially if there was no weapon found on the assailant.

May 7, 2005, 06:02 PM	#52
MoW Junior member Join Date: January 27, 2005 Posts: 1,009	Unfortunately size will matter to a jury when defending your actions vs an unarmed smaller person---just a fact. JohnSK----Sorry but from what I read legally there are questions. In hindsight maybe he would handle it differently---don't know enough---but do know enough that it DOES raise questions. You didn't answer or respond to how far away the guy was? Why 3 shots and 1 missed? All valid questions that you can't answer---thus legal questions arise.

May 7, 2005, 06:28 PM	#56
wayneinFL Senior Member Join Date: December 18, 2004 Posts: 1,944	I've been keeping up in this thread and I just can't keep quiet any longer. Moose shot someone because he had to end of story. I'm not trying to flame anyone here, forgive me if I flame, I am trying to say this in the nicest way possible. Moose, if you are reading this, you were justified in my book. Don't listen to the armchair quarterbacks who haven't been there. Mow has all week to decide whether what you did in a few seconds under the threat of your life was justified or not. He's probably had a $35 gunshow CCW class and thinks he's a lawyer now. Moose, you did the right thing. This is not meant as a personal attack, mow, I've taken the gunshow course and other courses on lethal force, if I listened to some of the gun show instructors, you just about can't shoot back unless you're dead already. Some LFI's are afraid to tell you that you can EVER shoot anybody, 'cause they think you may misunderstand them or take them too literally, shoot someone, and get sued for it, then, in turn, sue the instructor. Mow, you may wish to leave this thread alone. A situation similar to this happened in my hometown to a customer at the garage I worked at. Man shot a woman from his Jeep. Yes- in Florida. It never made it past the grand jury- obviously justifiable shooting. Moose, take the advice of the experienced men on this thread. Get a good lawyer, don't say anything to anybody unless the lawyer says to, and go for the counseling. God bless you.

May 7, 2005, 10:03 PM	#61
MoW Junior member Join Date: January 27, 2005 Posts: 1,009	Sorry guys but more information is needed. No injuries for Moose, 1 blow to the back of the head from an unarmed man. If the perpetrator was that close then 3 in the gut would be more like it. You trying to tell me that the man wasn't far enough away to simply pull the gun and not shoot----3 times but not far enough away to miss on 1 and way low on the rest. Again this is based on what Moose said. Do you really think that Moose was in a life threatening situation vs an unarmed man? If he didn't have a gun then he would be dead? The size argument could go both ways however. If the perpetrator was much larger then justification would be easier. If there wasn't anymore to this story then it would be moot at this point, the fact that he thinks they might clear him says there may be more. It's amazing to me that simply based on what you read from Moose that you can assertain that he had the right to shoot this guy(over money) 3 times and endanger anyone near the area who may have been hit by a stray. He's damn lucky nobody else was hit or he would be in deep trouble in a situation where once the gun was pulled the "situation" for all intents and purposes was over without having to fire-----3 times!

May 7, 2005, 10:50 PM	#63
MoW Junior member Join Date: January 27, 2005 Posts: 1,009	Assaulting an officer is much different. Next, if you are 5 or more feet away from me and I have a gun pointed at you then the situation is over for all intent. If at that point you come at me then I guarantee you will get hit by every shot in the upper torso---no misses at that range. Hence my questioning(Moose didn't say) how far away the perpetrator was---1 miss and 2 low sound farther away then 2-3 feet. If not then he's justified but scenario as laid out leaves questions.

May 7, 2005, 11:10 PM	#65
wayneinFL Senior Member Join Date: December 18, 2004 Posts: 1,944	Mow, don't you think you've beat this poor sob up enough. Jeez, moose didn't shoot the guy over money, 3 shots is nothing when your life is danger, and under a threat most people outside of Hollywood will not have the steel nerves you claim you have, and they just might miss. "Next, if you are 5 or more feet away from me and I have a gun pointed at you then the situation is over for all intent. If at that point you come at me then I guarantee you will get hit by every shot in the upper torso---no misses at that range." Good luck with that. Is a way I wish you could see the folly of your statements, but I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone.

May 7, 2005, 11:19 PM	#70
MoW Junior member Join Date: January 27, 2005 Posts: 1,009	and what does it matter about him missing one shot? thats a moot point considering that the shot didnt hurt anyone You're playing the result of the incident instead of the intent. The reason you are sooo restricted in firing your weapon is for the fact that you COULD shoot or kill an innocent. The fact that he didn't(in this case) doesn't change the fact that he could have. 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? No. Half of you are missing my point---you all say he's justified simply on what he stated---I'm saying he may very well be---BUT---there are things in his statement that doesn't leave it open and shut. I'm not belittling him, I need more to go on but firing your weapon should be a last resort. As for me, I would have pulled the gun for sure but firing would be a different matter---I would never value a car, truck monet etc...over any human life or risk endangering another possible innocent. It all comes down to distance IMO, as I said 5 ft. in I ain't missing anytrhing farther and the situation is under control.

May 7, 2005, 11:23 PM	#71
MoW Junior member Join Date: January 27, 2005 Posts: 1,009	i know if i had a revolver it would be empty and clicking most likely... and if there were any witnesses you would end up in jail. Emptying your firearm like that would show anger, not self defense. Please quit trying to compare what LEO's do and get away with with the common public---alltogether different.