one too many

[yourang?]

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......

[indykappa]

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

[CWPinSC]

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.

[demigod]

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.

[Old Grump]

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.

[CWPinSC]

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.

[demigod]

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

[ZCORR Jay]

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.

[DanThaMan1776]

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.

[demigod]

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.

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

[markj]

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..

[Hook686]

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.

[CWPinSC]

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.

[ScottRiqui]

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.

[CWPinSC]

"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.

[markj]

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.

[mzanghetti]

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

[primetime]

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..

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

[Catfishman]

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.

[Evan Thomas]

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 (http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Police-say-recently-released-felon-murdered/2-7haXMjp0OvXPdBHDzq3g.cspx), "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 (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/self-defense_murder_defendant.html). 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 grâce, 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?

[BlackFeather]

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Suppose he hadn't (allegedly) administered a coup de grâce, 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?


I think that there is a section of law which negates the potential possession charge in a lawful instance of self defense. I've seen it referenced before in NY when a woman who did not have a pistol permit used a handgun in SD.

In this case, theoretically, he would only be charged for illegal possession for the final, illegal shot and not for the others. Technicality, yes.

[markj]

Suppose he hadn't (allegedly) administered a coup de grâce, 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?


I think no charges would have been brought up on him as up until the shot to the back of the head was SD, only after he committed the criminal act would the weapons charge stick.

Convicted felon? Now I do know a lot about this type of person, I sat at a table years ago and watched 2 guys type up a hundred or so birth certs using dead peoples ss numbers. Both had large revolvers in their boots and drugs on the table. Both eventually went back to prison.

Prison folks cant be trusted, not one bit. I have seen a few in my time.

[Evan Thomas]

I think that there is a section of law which negates the potential possession charge in a lawful instance of self defense. I've seen it referenced before in NY when a woman who did not have a pistol permit used a handgun in SD.
Huh. Interesting. State or federal, I wonder? If the former, would it apply to felons, who are prohibited persons under Federal law, or just to those who are prohibited under state law?

Perhaps NavyLT will step in and enlighten us. :)

I think no charges would have been brought up on him as up until the shot to the back of the head was SD, only after he committed the criminal act would the weapons charge stick.
But a charge of "possession" relates to, well, possession, does it not? To having the gun as opposed to using it... the fact that he fired it at all should be irrelevant, except insofar as a specific law makes an exception for self-defense.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not knowning anything about the legality - but absolutism would be silly. Someone comes at you with a gun and you disarm him. Then for that moment in time you are breaking the law?

I wonder if they threw it in just as something to maintain control of the charges - meaning tying the guy up in court.

Also, Jan Libourel from Handguns once told me that many of the self-defense stories we see are just BG vs BG.

[Evan Thomas]

Not knowning anything about the legality - but absolutism would be silly. Someone comes at you with a gun and you disarm him. Then for that moment in time you are breaking the law?
Yes, exactly. It would seem a bit... petty.

I wonder if they threw it in just as something to maintain control of the charges - meaning tying the guy up in court.
One of the articles I quoted (I hope at not too great length :D) did mention that Mr. Peterson had been charged with various other (unspecified) parole violations, in addition to the weapons charge. So, yes, they clearly do want to hang on to him...