Concerns about Carry

[gvf]

I am going to be getting a "Business Carry" permit, at least that's the indication. It will be used at night when I am carrying photography equipment. My street has had some violence, and I had a near problem with an attacker at one point awhile ago, so the permit seemed a good thing.

However, I saw last night on some network show, a presentation of the case many here may know of: the retired school teacher who met what he claimed was a man who was screaming and running towards him to attack him in the woods. The man's dogs before this had done the same. The teacher had a legal handgun and shot and killed him. He went through the actions afterwards we are taught: to aid the person shot if possible and get help. Though the "attacker" had a past history of rage-filled behavior, and the teacher was a law-abiding man, sober and careful in his life, he was indicted for 2nd degree murder and convicted and sentenced to 10 years without parole. All the things we often recommend were used against him: a powerful handgun(10mm) and hollow points to stop someone quickly. The DA used this to paint a picture of a man who overdid it and wanted to kill.

How the jury could have found the DA proved him guilty of murder beyond a resonable doubt is bewildering to me. I, at worst, would simply have said in the jury room, no one was there, there are indications the teacher was correct and justified, and some he could have over-reacted; but since I have plenty of doubt that he's guilty, he's legally innocent. At best, I actually think his case was much stronger than the DAs.

I am now leery of carrying. If this is the result, a prison term of 10 years for a sutuation that well may have been justified, it feels more dicey than the chance of getting attacked.

Any feedback to help on this? One thing that would aid is if this type of crazy charge and conviction for this kind of situation is rare. But i don't know.
In any case, it was a very unnerving show.

[Doug.38PR]

Well, gvf,

All I can say to this is you are better off alive and serving 10 years than dead and having 0 years. As everyone in here says all the time, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
You just need to do what you need to do and worry about idiot DAs and halfwit jurys when you come to them.
Let me put it to you this way: The criminal will DEFINATELY have his way with you if you are unarmed. The DA and Jury MIGHT convict you (DEPENDING on what kind of area you live in)
That's all I really know to say.

[kennybs plbg]

Just not enough info posted either way. No mention of a weapon, where he was shot etc.

kenny b

[Smokin Joe]

However, I saw last night on some network show

basically it isnt a carry issue. you cant shoot someone for running at you. that is not legal. if he was running at you with a gun, maybe.

go buy a video called "deadly force". look it up.

So anyway, if perp comes up to you, and says "Gimmie your camera".... you cant shoot him.

if he has a knife, and said GIMMIE your camera. Shoot him. and tell the cops you swear he was about to stab you. ( dont protect property, protect your life)

you shot him, but he had no knife ? thats ok, so long as you really thought he had one, it is justified. maybe he said "I'll cut you" then reached for his coat pocket.. that's enough...


etc..

go watch that video. good stuff.

[gvf]

The man who was the "attacker" was shot 3 times in the chest, and had no weapon. The teacher stated "attacker" ran at him screaming he was going to kill him, or something to that effect, and that he acted crazy and sounded crazy. He did this after the teacher shot two warning shots to get two dogs away from him that were the "attackers" and were about to have at him, and stated that no attempt was made to call the dogs back, and that the warning shots had caused the dogs to run away unharmed. Then he was confronted by the man running straight at him. He yelled that the dogs were alright and unharmed but the man kept running at him.

The man lived in the woods with two dogs in a tent. Had worked at various places in the past and been fired for violent outbursts. For some reason the jury was told to ignore testimony about either person's character. However, to my mind a history of violent actions isn't his character, it's his actions, and since no one saw the shooting, might indicate that what the teacher said is true. In any case, the only thing "off' that I recall about the teacher's behavior, was some delay between the shooting and flagging down a car. He did put a knapsack under the head of the man shot and covered him, then said he went for help. But some thought there was an unaccounted delay of 20 min to half hour which lent doubt to his story. I didn't think that. He may just have erred in the exact time of the shooting.

These are the basic facts I recall of the case as televised. Plenty of reasonable doubt for me that the teacher was a murderer.

[BillCA]

For some reason the jury was told to ignore testimony about either person's character. However, to my mind a history of violent actions isn't his character, it's his actions, and since no one saw the shooting, might indicate that what the teacher said is true.

It's called rules of evidence.

If the guy you shoot inside your home is a six-time loser with a record of assaulting people during burglaries, unless you knew that at the time you pulled the trigger, the DA will move to suppress that evidence. This is based on the theory that your actions in shooting someone have to be based on the knowledge you had at the time of the shooting and the actions of the people involved. You can't later justify shooting someone by saying "See? He really was a dirtbag!".

On the other hand, if a fundamental part of the shooting was that the deceased issued a "trademark" threat -- like You think I'm scared of your sorry a--? -- and the prosecution claims that is insufficient cause to shoot, a good defense attorney can probably get prior incidents introduced to show that statement preceded other acts of violence.

[tegemu]

Unless he has the capability of inflicting serious injury or death and is making every indication of doing just that - it would be a bad shoot in most jurisdictions. That's the case here in the Gunshine State and as far as I know, anywhere. In any case there is still ample cause for carrying a concealed weapon for the protection of yourself and/or those you care about.

[DesertShooter]

Juries are usually given three terms to ponder in homicide cases: "Justifiable", "Negligent" and "Criminal intent".

In the story, as you've worded it, there was no "Criminal intent", but it didn't sound like the shooting was "Justifiable". The jury probably also saw "Negligence", in that the defendant didn't run from the attacker, or try to utilize any other means of self defense.

Yes, it's too bad that the defendant, a school teacher, didn't use a bit more common sense! In my way of thinking, the "warning shots" to scare away the dogs was probably necessary, but shooting the unarmed crazy man was uncalled for. Nothing was mentioned about the distance between the shooter and the crazy man, so that MAY have been one of the major factors involved in the juries decision. My guess is that the defendant sustained NO injuries (?)

I can't condone "manufacturing" a story after a shooting has occurred, but since there were no witnesses.....! All too often, people don't ARTICULATE an accurate "word picture" of incidents that take place, and often overlook certain things that might clear them of any wrongdoing.

[gvf]

Found a link to a report on the case: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n16488917/pg_1

To answer the question above: no, the school teacher had no injuries. It's still, to me, too much reasonable doubt to convict someone of murder.

There was also one piece of testimony - later modified - that the jury after said was an influence in the verdict. The coroner testified wounds in the deceased's hand was in the back of the hand- or maybe both hands I can't remember, and he crossed his hands and arms across the front of his face and neck as if protecting himself to show the jury a likely position the wounds indicated the arms were in at the moment of the shooting: i.e.: protecting himself. He also indicated that a man would usually not be running forward with his hands/arms in such a position. Under cross, he allowed that that was one interpretation and that he couldn't say for sure what the hand-wounds meant as far as position. But the jury felt this still may have been an indication the deceased was stopped and protecting himself at the time he was shot. Regarding the distance, 5' to 8'. The shooting by the way was in late afternoon, daylight, good weather in Arizona.

Well, I guess I would be good to have on your jury if charged: I still would need more than possible scenarios on the part of the DA to remove my doubts that the teacher was at fault. And in the defense portion of the trial, the teacher's claim had its own reasonably possible scenario. I would be confused as to what actually took place - and that's enough to find Not Guilty.

[allenomics]

In Florida, a CCW carrier's first obligation is to flee, escape. In reality, one must believe that eminent death is about to occur to really be in the clear. The assailant must also have some type of weapon, not just words as they advance towards you. There are other legal ways to use a gun in self-defense, by here, there are too many gray areas left for interpretation.

[Paool]

I saw the story on this incident on TV a while ago. Here is a link to the online version (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/).

What bothered me most was the interviews with the jurors after the guilty verdict had been reached. One of the jurors, a young woman (her name is Megan Elliot, you can see her comments in the article), felt Mr. Fish's (the shooter) use of hollow point bullets was "distrubing":

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.

Um....yes, they are designed to kill. In case she hasn't noticed, that's what guns are primarily designed for. You would prefer he use a firearm that was set to 'stun'? Evidently she feels that when someone is forced to use a gun (i.e. deadly force) in self defense, that person should make sure that the gun has a little lethality as possible.

Apparently the prosecution presented the JHPs as a scourge to mankind and that the defendant's use of them cast doubt on his character. I don't suppose it was mentioned that law enforcement uses hollow points.

I make no judgement on Mr. Fish's guilt or innocence, as the facts in this case (at least as they have been presented by the media) are very muddy. However, these are our peers, by whom we will be judged if we find ourselves in the dock for a self-defense shooting. What is disturbing to me is that a good attorney can convince an unknowledgeable jury of just about anything by playing on their emotions. God help us.

[pax]

gvf ~

A miscarriage of justice can happen. It can happen whether or not you carry. And it can happen even if you do absolutely everything right.

However.

If you know the basic standards by which you will be judged if you use deadly force, you are a lot less likely to overstep your legal boundaries and get into that kind of trouble.

I would highly (highly, highly, highly) recommend that anyone who is concerned about the legal aspects of carrying & using a deadly weapon should take Massad Ayoob's LFI-1 class. This class is an absolute gold mine of information about the legal and ethical issues surrounding the use of deadly force. The class takes 40 hours over 4 days (usually 2 weekends), and costs as much as a new gun would. It is worth every penny and then some.

It is tempting to think that you could just find some simple slogan that would cover it all, but this is not a simple subject. "Keep it simple, stupid" doesn't apply here because it isn't simple, and you're not stupid. It's a complex subject.

If you cannot take that class, you can obtain some of the same information by reading Ayoob's In the Gravest Extreme. That covers enough of the basics and the mindset. Read it twice, and take notes.

Meanwhile, here is one online source for a tiny fraction of what you need to know: http://www.useofforce.us/ That is a multi-page article describing the legal limits of lethal force in the United States. Excellent overview with lots of references and other data.

Also (I'm such a shill) you could stop by my site and visit http://www.corneredcat.com/Legal/AOJ.aspx Another article about lethal force and the law.

Hope that helps.

pax

[gvf]

Thanks very much - I'll make use of all of those, and when I can get the funds together, for the workshop. Thanks again!

[Smokin Joe]

The use of force and deadly force is prob universal.

I took a 16 week class, it covered the use of force...

I saw the video "Deadly force" same thing was covered.

go buy that video. save you time and money.

also look up jury instrucions for your area for justification cases.

[dawg23]

Quote from Allenomic: In Florida, a CCW carrier's first obligation is to flee, escape.

Someone correct me if I have been misinformed. Didn't Florida pass a statute in 2005 or 2006 establishing that citizens there have no duty to retreat ?

[markj]

He shot an unarmed man he thought or felt was going to do him harm. If the gu yhad a weapon of any kind this may have ended differently.

Dont shoot anyone that isnt an armed threat?

I had a guy 2 weeks ago yell at me after dark due to me running his dog outta my barn, the dog had my cat cornered and was out there for like 2 hours barking etc. I took the .45 and run the dog off, this guy screamed at me he was going to kick my butt etc. He ran towrds me from the sound he made, what did I do? Went inside he posed no threat to me at all. Next time the dog may get it tho... even tho he was acting as a dog should. Bad owners...

[Smokin Joe]

Of course it is totally unethical to do like those "dirty cop" movies, putting a gun or knife in the dead guys hand... which I think the knife being the most economical choice of planting.

[marlboroman84]

Someone correct me if I have been misinformed. Didn't Florida pass a statute in 2005 or 2006 establishing that citizens there have no duty to retreat ?

Yup. Florida law now states that if you are in a place you have a legal right to be and are threatened with bodily injury or death you may lawfully respond with deadly force.

As far as the case in question here goes, alot of gun mag writers have been playing up the whole hollow point and 10mm glock issue in this case. That is only partially what got him convicted. There were holes in his story and time discrepancies. I still think Mr. Fish did the right thing and he shouldn't be in jail, but it's a case of him not doing what he should have. it's also a case for bad lawyers and dumb juries.

[allenomics]

CCW laws in Florida do not address the right to fire a weapon; just right to carry.

Yes, "dawg23" is mostly correct; a law states that if you have a right to be somewhere, and you fear eminent death or the emiment death of someone near you, you can defend yourself/them.

However, in a practical sense, the first obligation is to flee and call police. Every concealed carry class teacher makes this crystal clear.

If you use a firearm to defend yourself, you also have a better legal defense if you can prove that flight was not an option.

[FM12]

PAX: THANKS for mentioning Massad Ayoob's book "In the gravest Extreme". I also men tion it as much as possible.

Long/short" GENERALLY, there are three elements that must be met to justify the use of deadly force: The assailant must have 1. The ABILITY to do harm, i.e. you cant shoot someone just because he is theatening. 2. He must have the OPPORTUNITY, i.e. must be able to be in a threatening position, which is pretty long considering the range of firearms. 3. You must be in JEOPARDY, i.e. the weapon (or what you consider a weapon) ready for him to use. In other words, if a guy is standing across the street stating he is going to beat you with a baseball bat, he has the ability, but you are not in jeopardy and he dosent have the oportunithy ( but CAN have, very quickly), and you have no right, in general, to shoot. A holstered weapon does not place you in jeopardy, even when coupled with a threat, but when removed from the holster, becomes a different situation. Also, there is no need for words to have been exchanged, i.e. threats made from the assailant. There are hundreds of variations on these three elements, but check & KNOW you local laws. You cannot, by and large, shoot someone out of what the law calls "bare fear", nor for stealing your property. You may, in most states, intervene on the behalf of another person, if you believe a "serious" crime is about to be committed against that person, i.e. rape, assault, and other physical crimes. KNOW YOUR LAWS!! They can make you or break you!

I know I'll catch a lot of flak from some about this,from those who think they can use deadly force,( in most cases a firearm) in any situation they want to, but this is accurate in my opinion. Ability, opportunity & jeopardy. Be able to recognize them, watch for situatuations that develop and come up with a plan if all three are met. You want to defend you life and the lives of others, but do it legally

As PAX mentioned, get a copy of Mas Ayoob's book "In the Gravest Extereme" and read it a couple of times... Watch their hands, thats where danger comes from. FM12

[williamd]

Gotta know when to walk away .... from the body.

[BanginMusket]

I like that.


__________________
Musket Cap Nipple - Download the Blackpowder Guns & Accessories Catalog by MidwayUSA, Inc

[Mannlicher]

not saying your story is bogus, but without verification, its not a valid report, nor are your fears valid.

[revjen45]

I saw some evidence that Mr. Fish had incompetent representation. His shysters seemed to have no idea how to present a self defense case. For one thing the assailant had a screwdriver, which the "homeless" often carry because it's an effective thrusting weapon without being a weapon in the eyes of the law. After being attacked by the deceased's dogs and having to draw his pistol, was he supposed to allow the the obviously enraged crazy man to grab the gun and contend with him for posession of it, or turn around to run and get the screwdriver in the back? Firing warning shots at the dogs was a mistake- he should have shot them. A dog is a deadly weapon when applied as such, and we are all taught that warning shots are not an option. Given that I have sacro-lumbar arthritis, no more cartilage in my knees, and my big toes are fused I couldn't outrun a drunk on a pogo stick. "Retreat" is not an option for me beyond backing up a few steps to give me some room to draw. Harold Fish was screwed by a persecuting shyster who based his decisions on the demands of a bunch of college hippies, and incompetent shysters who had no idea how to defend an innocent man.

[ursavus.elemensis]

I do a lot of hiking deep in the woods of northeastern PA, usually to where the trails peter out and then there is just forest. Sometimes, I will find some weird kind of folks at the parking areas, or a little ways into the woods, sometimes I find some weird folks deep in. My dog has been attacked by another hiker's dog once. After that incident, I started carrying bear spray (a large canister of pepper spray) that rides in a "holster" type device that is held in place by light straps that go around my shoulders. The canister is positioned at the middle of my chest so that it can be fired from that spot, or quickly removed from the harness and held in my hands. I also carry a pistol. I can say, having gone through the situaiton where my own dog was bitten by another hiker's dog, that even if I'd had the pistol back then, I would not have shot another person's dog. Maybe if it was lunging at me, but to shoot someone's dog only escalates the whole situation. I've also heard that shooting dogs is not so effective at stopping them unless you hit the brain, and of course, you need to be certain you will not hit your own dog at the same time through a missed shot or overpenetration, etc. So, the bear spray is a good optrion, but again, you need to avoid squirting your own dog.

ANYWAY, if I came up on this same "crazed mountain man/homeless man" with his dogs and his screwdriver, etc, I'd deploy the pepper spay as a first line defense and only draw the pistol if the situation was not contained by the pepper spray. Everyone knows that pepper spray is not totally effective and may just make a drug-crazed person angrier, but then, hey, there you go, he's angry, not stopped by sub-lethal force, intent, opportunity, ability, etc. Shooting warning shots is a waste of ammo. Shooting someone's dogs is a very good way to make an angry, irrational person even angrier and thinking even less clearly.