The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 27, 2010, 09:25 AM   #1
yourang?
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2008
Location: upstate ny
Posts: 115
one too many

here is a case where an armed robber grapples with a man
and loses his gun....and gets shot multiple times

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=487787

this is a good example that even the regular non-carrying citizen
needs to know the laws on use of force...and excessive use of force...

he stopped the threat, which is okay

it was the bullet to the head, when he was down, that got him the
murder charge, in what was at first thought to be a good self defense
shoot

might it have been the heat of the moment that got him to go too far?

or should a even a reasonable non carrying person know that the one
to the back of the head was a big no no?

for sure the adrenaline is surging, but this shows that even non gunners
need to know the laws when it comes to self defense


edit: one bullet to the BACK of his head......
__________________
Now I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold.
Other hand I have heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

hunter/garcia (new speedway boogie)
yourang? is offline  
Old July 27, 2010, 12:11 PM   #2
indykappa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2010
Location: charlotte, nc (but indianapolis is home)
Posts: 100
not sure how long this thread will last (tactics and training?), but i agree that even average citizens need to know the rules/laws on excessive use of force.

if someone did, in fact, try to harm me (and/or my family), i think being upset would be an understatement. i couldn't imagine how irate i would be. although i would like to believe that i wouldn't dump an extra round into the back of the guy's head, i don't think i would hesitate to give him a couple rib kicks just for good measure.

tough situation, and i really feel bad for the guy who appears to have legally defended himself (and a family member) PRIOR to making the poor decision to "put a lil extra hot sauce" on the bad guy
indykappa is offline  
Old July 27, 2010, 01:15 PM   #3
CWPinSC
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Posts: 863
If that attorney gets him off, I know who I'm hiring if I'm ever involved in a shooting. He shoulda rolled the BG over.
CWPinSC is offline  
Old July 27, 2010, 01:24 PM   #4
demigod
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,129
Tough one...

It's easy for some bureaucrats to armchair quarterback what this guy did. Nice to be judged by some fool who wasn't there fighting for HIS life.

Proving that the attacker was incapacitated when the head shot was made seems a big stretch to me. I feel bad for the victim having to fight this.
demigod is offline  
Old July 27, 2010, 03:47 PM   #5
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Man with his wife gets accosted by an individual with a gun. He is fighting for his life, was lucky enough or good enough that he got the gun and shot the bad guy. I don't care how many times he shot him or where. He had no way of knowing how bad that man was hurt or if he had another weapon on him or if he was capable of getting up and resuming the fight. Shoot till the threat is no longer a threat. He was fighting for his wife not just himself.

DA is a politician seeking glory for prosecuting a man who used a gun in the hopes of an easy conviction to pad his record. DA wasn't there. I wasn't there, you weren't there. I will not second guess the shooting. He survived, that is what counts. Boogerman is off the street...permanently. No down side.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--

Last edited by Old Grump; July 27, 2010 at 04:08 PM.
Old Grump is offline  
Old July 27, 2010, 04:11 PM   #6
CWPinSC
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Posts: 863
Quote:
Nice to be judged by some fool who wasn't there fighting for HIS life.
Well, too bad, but this is our legal system, and it's usually pretty good. In some countries, he would be taken out and summarily shot or jailed for an indeterminate time. Watch Midnight Express sometime.

Grump, you're 100% correct - none of us were there. We don't know the details of how the BG was reacting once down. Trying to get up? Reaching for another weapon? We just don't know. It's the guy's attorney's job to make the jury think THEY were there and afraid for their lives.

To me, bottom line: Good guy - 1, BG - 0

It IS better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
CWPinSC is offline  
Old July 28, 2010, 08:54 AM   #7
demigod
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,129
Quote:
Well, too bad, but this is our legal system, and it's usually pretty good. In some countries, he would be taken out and summarily shot or jailed for an indeterminate time.
I meant the Prosecutor who decided to procede with this... not our judicial system. I'm sure a half way decent lawyer will help him.
demigod is offline  
Old July 28, 2010, 09:11 AM   #8
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,343
You shouldn't need to be educated in matters of the law to know that executing someone out on the street is not the right thing to do.

It should be a basic moral sensibility.


Notice, I say "should". I no longer have that expectation for our society.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 28, 2010, 09:40 AM   #9
ZCORR Jay
Member
 
Join Date: July 23, 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 99
I'd have to agree that it went too far. As nice as it would be to rid the world of one more slim ball and execution style shot may be legally excessive. I wasn't there and have never been in a situation like that so this is nothing more than an outsiders opinion.

We had case here in Rochester a year ago where a guy approached a few teens who had broke into his car, as they fled hey shot one kid twice killing him. The kid should have never been there breaking into cars so I don't sympathize for him at all but then again the shooter may have gone a little far shooting a person who is fleeing.
__________________
ZCORR Products
10% Forum Member Discount Code ZCORR-FORUM2013
Free shipping on all domestic & APO/AFO orders over $75
ZCORR Jay is offline  
Old July 28, 2010, 01:43 PM   #10
DanThaMan1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 395
If the man doesn't have his gun anymore (because you are holding it.. duh), and he is on the ground....... you DON'T shoot him. You get some distance from him and prepare for the off chance that he defies simple human reaction and charges you... then you shoot.
__________________
Amateurs think equipment,
Students think techniques,
Experts think tactics.
DanThaMan1776 is offline  
Old July 28, 2010, 02:23 PM   #11
demigod
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,129
Quote:
It should be a basic moral sensibility.
It should have been basic moral sensibility not to try to rob someone at gunpoint.

I'm not judging the vicitm based on what little we know. I agree that we don't have the right to execute criminals. But just because the attacker took a round to the back of the head doesn't make it per se murder.

Quote:
I'd have to agree that it went too far.
I'm glad you can make that assumption without the whole story. I mean... if there were video of the victim with his foot on the attacker's neck holding him down and shooting him, then yeah... we might be able to conclude that it "went too far".

Short of that, making the call from an article is just more internut armchair second guessing.
demigod is offline  
Old July 28, 2010, 02:52 PM   #12
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by demigod
It should have been basic moral sensibility not to try to rob someone at gunpoint.

I'm not judging the vicitm based on what little we know. I agree that we don't have the right to execute criminals. But just because the attacker took a round to the back of the head doesn't make it per se murder.

I'm judging the story as presented.


The old cliche "Two wrongs don't make a right." Mr BG was wrong. If the story is as presented, Mr Good Guy became Mr Bad Guy. Worse, in fact, than a mere robber, he is a murderer.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 28, 2010, 04:04 PM   #13
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,965
Quote:
But Fitzpatrick says the medical evidence shows that Bean was also shot in the back of the head while he was on the ground. Fitzpatrick says, up to that point, Peterson was within his right to defend himself. But once Bean was down and incapacitated, it went from self defense to murder.
Moral of this story? Quite shooting when he tries to crawl away......never shoot a guy in the back of the head either, it shows he was attempting to escape your area and no longer a threat is he..
markj is offline  
Old July 28, 2010, 07:23 PM   #14
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,903
Simply be aware that no matter how each of us rationalizes a scenario, it will be a jury, not a DA, that decides our fate.
__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.
Hook686 is offline  
Old July 29, 2010, 06:22 AM   #15
CWPinSC
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Posts: 863
Quote:
Quite shooting when he tries to crawl away......never shoot a guy in the back of the head either, it shows he was attempting to escape your area and no longer a threat is he..
Or crawling towards a weapon.
CWPinSC is offline  
Old July 29, 2010, 09:39 AM   #16
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Or crawling towards a weapon.
So you tussle with the bad guy, take his gun away from him, shoot him with it, and as he's crawling away, you execute him with a shot to the back of the head because "you thought he might be crawling toward another weapon"???

I couldn't even type that with a straight face.

Next, you're going to be telling us to carry a "throwdown" gun to put in his hand.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old July 29, 2010, 02:52 PM   #17
CWPinSC
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Posts: 863
Quote:
"you thought he might be crawling toward another weapon"???

I couldn't even type that with a straight face.

Next, you're going to be telling us to carry a "throwdown" gun to put in his hand.
No, learn to read. I said "crawling toward another weapon." Not, "...thought he might be crawling..." One is absolute, one is speculative.

Gee, everyone's got a smart ass comment (that'll probably get me kicked out)...no need for a throwdown gun if he's still a menace. Only the people at the scene can determine that. The "victim" has only a second or two to determine what the BGs motives are for his movements. The penality for being wrong is severe. I'm not saying the shoot was righteous or excessive force was used - I wasn't there. What I AM saying is ALL possibilities MUST be considered before comment can even be made, much less a judgment given.
CWPinSC is offline  
Old July 29, 2010, 03:45 PM   #18
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,965
Quote:
Or crawling towards a weapon.
No other weapon was mentioned. He did a bad thing, learn from it and move on. Dont duplicate it thinking you will be OK, you may face a jury then prison as this man is now facing.

I read a story by Ayoob about a policeman that shot a man that was coming out of a house his mobile camera was running, he went to check on bad guy camera showedd this, jury was going after him tho cause it looked like he went over and finished the bad guy off. This stuff really happens, read up on some of the actual SD cases and learn from them. I would hate to see a person trying to do good go to jail for one silly mistake.
markj is offline  
Old July 29, 2010, 03:58 PM   #19
mzanghetti
Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2000
Location: New London, CT
Posts: 68
Sorry if I don't have alot of sympathy for the BG, it is certain if he had not tried to rob this man he would not have shot him! I am not saying what this man did was right, but I am not sure I would convict if I was called to try the case as part of the jury.
__________________
Mark Zanghetti
http://www.thewebcorner.net

Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit.
mzanghetti is offline  
Old July 30, 2010, 08:28 AM   #20
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzanghetti
I am not saying what this man did was right, but I am not sure I would convict if I was called to try the case as part of the jury.

It seems odd to me that we should have no sympathy on a robber but would exonerate a murderer because he "only" murdered a robber.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 30, 2010, 09:08 AM   #21
primetime
Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2010
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 55
No sympathy for the BG...none. He deserved it, the one to the back of the head...well, again, no sympathy... The man was protecting his wife and himself, and in the heat of the moment things like this obviously can happen.. If you don't want to be shot, don't play with guns and commit crimes while you're doing it... Unfortunately our judicial system may see it otherwise...

Now having said that..Would I do the same? Considering the potential outcome and court case..I don't think so. But of course thats easy to say while i'm typing on a keyboard..

Last edited by primetime; July 30, 2010 at 09:24 AM.
primetime is offline  
Old July 30, 2010, 01:32 PM   #22
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,343
I can say with certainty that I will not murder a person who is no threat to me, regardless of what threat they may have been 5 seconds prior.

Defense becomes murder in the blink of an eye and anyone who believes that they may not know or care when to stop shooting should not be carrying a gun.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 30, 2010, 02:05 PM   #23
Catfishman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 682
I think too much has been assumed. Just because some Medical Examiner says he was murdered doesn't make it so. The guys story seems completely plausible to me.

He wrestles with a theif for a gun. Fires the gun multiple times and the theif falls down and dies. Sounds entirely possible that he fired a burst of shots the instant he got some control of the gun. The BG began to turn away as soon as he realized he was being shot. As he turned away he caught one in the back of the head.

My point is that all the M.E. knows is there is a hole in the front of the BG and a hole in the back of his head. CSI is fiction.
Catfishman is offline  
Old July 30, 2010, 02:45 PM   #24
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,803
That "good guy" thing again...

The story linked by the OP failed to mention that Mr. Peterson, the defendant, is a convicted felon who was recently released from jail. According to this story, "In 1998, Peterson was sentenced to 20-years-to-life in prison for attempting to buy more than four pounds of cocaine, but he was resentenced to approximately 12 years, including time already served, in 2005."

But wait... there's more. In addition to being charged with second degree murder, he is also charged with "second degree criminal possession of a weapon," based, apparently, on his use of the mugger's own gun in what began as a clear-cut case of self-defense.

And he's being held without bail, because he "...has seven prior felony convictions and four incidents where he failed to appear in court as required."

Does he still get the benefit of the doubt from those who are maintaining that what he did was OK? If not, what difference does his status as a convicted felon make to his fundamental human right to self-defense?

Suppose he hadn't (allegedly) administered a coup de grĂ¢ce, in which case it would have been a justifiable self-defense shooting. Would it still be right to charge him with the weapons violation because he used the mugger's gun to defend himself?
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old July 30, 2010, 03:00 PM   #25
BlackFeather
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 450
As for the situation on defending himself with the gun, he should not have faced any legal problems. However because of the alleged coup de grace, he should face something. I think having his past makes it less probable that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong.
__________________
"Today is victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men." - Miyamoto Musashi

[Insert random irrelevant religious quote here]
BlackFeather is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12755 seconds with 7 queries