Incident in VA over the weekend. Gun owner killed "attacker"

[Lokpyrite]

From the OP the shooter should sue the deceased estate for the cost of ammo and lawyer fees, but who knows what'll happen.

[booker_t]

Reading the online news article, and taking the comment by a woman claiming to be a friend of one of the involved females into consideration, it seems as though the attacker had already brandished a knife, and had laid hands on the shooter's friend(s).

a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.

I'm not sure how VA defines mayhem, but there was supposedly choking involved, so murder was a possibility, and supposedly keys/cars were stolen or attempted to be stolen, so there was robbery involved. The only remaining requirement for justifiable killing is that the shooter acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself/his friend from the above. If their independent accounts given to police, and possible testimony in court, corroborate that he did act under that belief, then I would imagine he (the shooter) would not be charged, or be acquitted. It certainly appears (given the available information) that it was a justified action, assuming our understanding of VA law is correct.

The shooter's decision to leave the gun in the car when he's at the bar might go a long way to show responsibility, whether he was drinking or not. Or it might not even come up.

However, that's a legal discussion, and this is the Tactics & Training forum.

Regarding Tactics, when they saw that this guy was outside in the parking lot, after having an incident already occur, I believe they should have gone back into the bar and called police, wait for police to arrive, and then driven away with no altercation. File a civil restraining order against the attacker the next morning to document the aggression. Everyone goes home in one piece. While some might ride the "one less idiot on the streets" bus, I don't personally know of any one human who has been appointed judge and exocutioner of the free world.

[alloy]

If there was a choking event inside the bar which sparked this, I kinda think the bar owner should have called the police when he threw the bum out. No drunk hanging around outside for hours waiting in the parking lot....maybe no event.

[Jimmy10mm]

Once you pull your weapon and the object of your concern continues to advance you have to be aware that he may attempt to take your weapon unless you use it. If I'm stating the obvious, forgive me. Just thinking out loud.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Hmmm, according to the comments from the news link (assuming these are true and correct, which is a huge assumption), here is what happened:

Shooter and female friend (FF1) are in bar having a good time. Shootee and his female friend (FF2) get into a disagreement. Shootee throws FF2 up against a wall and chokes her. Later that night FF1 goes outside and sees FF2 crying and saying that shootee had stolen her car keys and car. Shootee then calls FF2 and says he wants to come back and apologizes. FF2 agrees. Shootee comes back but begins acting like a jerk again. FF1 tries to get FF2 to walk away and shootee gets verbally aggressive with both women. FF1 mouths off to shootee and shootee lays hands on FF1. Shooter intervenes to calm it down.

There is a big gap in the narrative at this point; the very next comment is that shootee returns to the women's car with a knife and starts chasing FF1 around the car with the knife. Shooter sees this and intervenes, shooting the shootee.

The news article has slightly different facts and says that the two men had a fight inside the tavern and that the shootee was kicked out because he had a knife on him. If this is true, then it could show that the shooter knew that the shootee had a deadly weapon when he advanced.

Either way, much better set of facts for the shooter than the first post suggested.

[LordTio3]

Okay... this one has worked out for me pretty well so I feel that it is time to pass it along.

Whenever I'm confronted at a bar by some drunk being noteably obnoxious, I tell a bartender or a bouncer. It's the same philosophy as filing a report with a police officer to have a record of grievance. I talk about their behavior and give a "just so you know / or just be on the look-out".

It worked out pretty well at a bar concert I went to one night. I made note of a drunken trouble maker to one of the larger bouncers at the club. He had confronted me earlier acting as if he wanted to get into a fight, and I deflected him and asked the bouncer to keep his eyes open. He mouthed off to a trio of other guys right in front of me about 20 minutes later and tried putting one of them in a headlock. All three of these guys turned around and grounded this drunken idiot. I'm armed with a small CCW revolver at this point, so I gain some distance and assess. The last thing I want to do is get into a physical altercation with my gun on me. Once the guy went down, the bouncers came in yelling and pushing. The one I talked to looked right at me and asked if I'd seen anything. I just pointed at the bleeding idot on the ground and shook my head saying, "That's that guy I told about." He nodded his head and told the other bouncers.

No charges were filed and the other guys stopped defending when the drunk went down, so they were out of hot water. Plus having the guy on record as being aggressive helped end the situation with much fewer questions and chaos.

If you see someone acting like a jerk, tell people who may want to know. It could save you down the line or maybe in court.

~LT

[LordTio3]

I also used to worry about my wife getting hurt or being in danger when a physical confrontation was unavoidable. I'm not going to draw my gun on an unarmed person unless he's quite large or menacing; call it a lapse in tactical prepardeness if you want; I don't want the headache. I'd rather take home a couple bruised hands than leave with someone's life if I can help it; and I'm pretty confident on that front.

But the worry came when I thought about this happening when my wife was right nearby. If I ever got taken down by a lucky shot, or the guy pulled a weapon, or had a friend that I hadn't seen and I'm other wise engaged, then I've just put her at risk.

Solution? Arm the wife. It brings a lot of comfort to mind knowing that I could get completely whipped and not have to worry about her. She's got three men protecting her at all times: Me, Smith, and Wesson.

Man she looks cute holding a gun.
~LT

[brickeyee]

On July 1st of this year the retreat law in VA was eliminated.

What retreat law?

Virginia has never had such a law.

If you are in a place you are otherwise allowed to legally be present and have done nothing to provoke an attack you have never had a ‘duty to retreat.’

That is long standing Virginia case law.

I thought it was up to a Jury of our Peers?

That occurs at the trial.

The Commonwealth’s Attorney has the power to drop the case, take it before a grand jury, or simply prosecute.

[pacerdude]

Because of my pacemaker, the right hit by an "unarmed" person could still kill me, all it would take is for one of my wires or the pacemaker itself to get jostled around, and if the wires get disconnected from my heart, I am dead. Therefore, I consider even an "unarmed" person, who looks like they mean business to be a SERIOUS threat to my safety.

Sorry for the rant, but I believe that the man who pulled and fired his pistol was justified. People think that a few hits or kicks are no big deal, but I would beg to differ. It all depends on the person, and due to my pacemaker I am very biased.

[brickeyee]

Law students always get hit with the 'man with the eggshell skull' at some point.

Tort defendants must “take their victims as they find them” is sometimes referred to as the eggshell skull principle or doctrine (or thin-skull rule).

If you strike the man with the eggshell skull and kill him you can be held responsible for the death of the person.

The man's predisposition does not alleviate you of the responsibility for the outcome of you actions.

I have MS and any serious injury can trigger an exacerbation that will do some random damage in my CNS.

Blind is not uncommon (and I have had visual deficits repeatedly over the years that have not been permanent yet).

I know MS folks who DO have permanent visual defects.

I am not going to get in a physical fight that could injure me.

[LordTio3]

Bottom line to stay out of hot water and avoid this issue (in particular) entirely?

-Don't start the fight.

~LT

[booker_t]

pacerdude & brickeyee: Excellent points, thank you very much for sharing your unique situations with us.

[BillCA]

First of all, this is a classic example of why I have avoided bars for the last 20 years or so. I seldom go into one on my own and nowadays it's usually one in a restaurant or casino.

I've seen some pretty hairy things go on in bars and some scary dudes. In my misguided youth, during a barfight my girl and I tried to leave when a guy about 6'5" confronted us. I hit him squarely on the jaw - with a glass beer mug which shattered. After he shook his head he said "I that all you got?" My girl went forward saying "Gee, are you alright?" just before she kicked a field goal with his testicles. (I almost married her.)

Now, WRT the case at hand. There seems to be some disparity in the story as we're getting the information. What isn't in dispute is that there was an altercation between the shooter and shootee, apparently over his treatment/comments to some women present.

Good shoot or not? Good (90% probability)

The shootee showed a violent nature in the bar and was ejected. He then decided to "lay in wait" for his victim - likely to exact some retribution for being ejected from the bar. The shootee was not deterred by a verbal warning nor the sight of a gun pointed at him. He continued to approach the shooter in what we might call a rude, angry or threatening manner.

On the shooter's side, he has several witnesses that agree with his accounts or whose statements support his allegations.

Undisclosed information might turn this case around, of course.

[Maromero]

+1 .

[Cool_Hand]

I dont know how many of you have been in or seen some fights recently but ill tell you this, there is no such thing as a fair fight anymore, its either you vs three of their friends or they pull out a bat, a knife or a brick they find on the ground. In most cases I will try to fight off the attacker with my fists before drawing my gun. But there are certain guys that I am familiar with that will kick you in the head when your on the ground unti'll you are not moving anymore. I personally know someone that after they were knocked out from a fight, the other guy was smashing his face into a sidewalk and he needed facial reconstruction surgery. When it comes down to it people got no class or morals anymore, the days of getting in a fist fight and shaking the other guys hand after are over.

[booker_t]

Cool_Hand; I've noticed the same thing. There was recently a fight in my neck of the woods outside a gym; apparently the attacker got into a shouting match with the victim at a bar the night before, and then ambushed him coming out of the gym the next day. I am close friends with one of the paramedics who was first on scene; the beating was so brutal that the victim, after being stabilized, was given general anesthesia and intubated prior to being taken to shock trauma, which was thankfully only minutes away. Fractured ribs, shattered hand, fractured clavicle, fluid in his chest cavity, massive blood loss, and his face was demolished including a fractured eye socket/orbital rim. I understand that men will always thump their chest and fight, but I just don't understand where the anger or hate to brutally pummel somebody like that comes from.

That said, I frequent bars (mostly because I enjoy listening to live music, and play in a blues band), but stay on the edges and avoid the more crowded locations when possible. I actually think going into those situations can really help you hone your situational awareness skills, and using normal, non-threatening movement to maintain space around your person to avoid conflict. Avoiding excessive consumption and drinking a water between beers/cocktails helps as well.

[ZeSpectre]

I understand that men will always thump their chest and fight, but I just don't understand where the anger or hate to brutally pummel somebody like that comes from.

I think in previous times the "extreme anger" types came to a "bad end" at a younger age and were weeded out.

[highvel]

I hope the shooter wasnt drinking at all, I am sure that will be a very important aspect of whatever happens!

[Daugherty16]

peetzakilla: I can't speak to the justification of the actual shooting, but I think it should be pretty obvious to everyone that the shooter made a number of poor decisions that, had they been different, could have avoided the whole situation.

Number one, fighting over insults is stupid. Man up and walk away.


He who is armed has a GREATER responsibility to avoid conflict than he who is not armed.

Sad situation all around. This is the smartest thing anyone has posted yet.

[therealdeal]

1)this attacker(later victim) was forced to leave said establishment due to his behavior and/or possible threatening manner(at least the 1st part)

2)the new law helps so if you think different you are wrong

3)he was given verbal and visual commands and their were plenty of witnesses which all helps the guy who pulled trigger

4)autopsy will show at least alcohol + maybe drugs but this is speculation and I admit that(bottom line that will help trigger puller but outcome willnot hurt him

5)its pretty obvious or a defense lawyer can show the dead man didn't want to chitchat; by the way, his past records will help the triggerpuller

6)triggerpuller was only defense for his significant other

7)this is virginia both maryland, nj, or hawaii(sorry I am human+tangents happen//been up all night---once again the state does more to help than hurt his chances

8)he had two knives. would it have helped if the knives were out as he came to him? yes, but the possession will help the triggerpuller and I disagree with anyone who thinks different

9)take plea if you must, but not to a felony

10)deadman was waiting in parking lot which is premeditation(not like legal sense premeditation murder but this wasn't a chance encounter so this helps the triggerpuller

11)its always complicated but basically one can reasonably argue he had no choice was weapon was drawn

12)personally, I have no problem wounding someone in same situation AND I KNOW WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY ABOUT CENTER MASS. one should shoot to kill but there are circumstances where you aren't a robot; you choose your route. that being said, what he dead was fine in my book and same would've been done(as in shot location) if the scenario included me

setbacks: record of triggerpuller possible hurts him but if its good backround this will help

[geetarman]

Any way you slice it, several lives are affected and one is dead.

The fallout from this incident will be long lasting and expensive.

Geetarman

[Bartholomew Roberts]

8)he had two knives. would it have helped if the knives were out as he came to him? yes, but the possession will help the triggerpuller and I disagree with anyone who thinks different.

It only helps triggerpuller if triggerpuller knew he had the knives prior to pulling the trigger.

5)its pretty obvious or a defense lawyer can show the dead man didn't want to chitchat; by the way, his past records will help the triggerpuller

Again, unless the triggerpuller knew about this man's past criminal record (if any), then most of that can be excluded under federal rules of evidence - though a savvy lawyer may still be able to get some of it admitted.

[357 Python]

therealdeal:
No one should shoot with the intent to kill except soldier in battle and police SWAT or HRT units. If you shoot with the intent to kill you just went from defender to possible murderer. You shoot with the intent of stopping the attack. If the attacker dies then that is an act of God. Intent can go along way to being free or being behind bars. I heard of a case back in the 50s or 60s where an FBI agent was on the stand. He was asked did he intend to kill a suspect. His reply was "Yes". He was asked why? He responded "That was how he was trained at the academy". He went to jail. This is why police are no longer taught to kill just to stop the action that caused him/her to shoot.

[jimbob86]

ignores warnings / the sight of a loaded gun pointed at him.

.... and continues to advance?

Darwin wins.

[therealdeal]

please note I had no time to proofread my initial post so you got my roughdraft I barely had time to press submit on(referring to spelling&other points).

bartholomew, good points. however, I disagree with the 2nd part+also about the knives: it can't hurt that the deadman had knives(I do agree with you though). the 2nd part definately makes a difference: example only- the massachusetts case of the professor shooting faculty where she worked in alabama. maybe a bad example since that was premeditated murder BUT your past always is a factor. If the deadman had the same type of incident 3yrs ago where he attacked someone in a restaurant parkinglot, I gurantee you this will help the defense just as if triggerpuller has shot someone at gunpoint before in his past. Yes, the judge does decide if and what evidence is allowed. I mean its always complicated, but what was he to do? remember, its easy to play monday mrng quarterback.

python, I respectfully disagree. I am more sensitive to the wounding argument than most(which I stated earlier). example:

when an inmate is escaping a federal prison and you have to make a decision to shoot this man(whether in the back or even from the front if you are a mobile patrol on the outside of the fence). It can actually hurt you on stand to say you shot to wound. I know people who have been coached to say they aimed center mass. That is what you're supposed to do. You aren't supposed to shoot in the leg or aim for the leg. You are supposed to shoot center mass to eliminate the threat.

That one case you mentioned doesn't change that in my mind. A trained police officer doesn't need to be surround by his buddies in a HostageRecoveryTeam or SWAT to use deadly force. If he pulls his weapon, he is ready to kill if needed(sorry, the more political terminology is eliminate the threat or something of that sort).