The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 8, 2008, 04:32 PM   #26
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
Once sentencing occurs, I can get some updates.

WildihavesavedthisthreadAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 07:08 PM   #27
GWbiker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 154
IMHO, it was a "bad shoot". From what I read, there was no immediate lethal threat from the assailant against Mr. Saafi. Also, a double tap to center mass of the assailant as he was advancing to close distance, in my opinion, might have given Mr. Saafi more defense credibility than several shots to the victims face.
GWbiker is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 08:20 PM   #28
SLOMountaineer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 23, 2006
Posts: 238
Obviously the jury had access to more of the facts than we do. However, the number of shots fired and where he hit the guy have nothing to do with whether it was a good shoot or not.

By the way, if it was "at distance", the guy was a darn good shot to get head shots.
SLOMountaineer is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 09:08 PM   #29
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
Another thing to consider besides the distance from Saafi to Kagel is the distance from Kagel to the woman or the child.

Also, the number of shots and the shots in the face- he hit the legs, face, and arms. That sounds like someone was really fearful and inaccurate. It's likely it took seven shots to stop if they were that poorly placed.

If Kagel was on meth, that just makes it more likely that the seven shots were necessary.

There could be a whole pile of other actions that support the prosecution's argument however.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 09:21 PM   #30
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,442
My quote:
Quote:
In my opinion, no matter what the history of the aggressor, he/she has to display an action that if you don't fire your gun immediately, your life WILL end.
Quoted by Kenpo:
Quote:
Of course, by that time, it is often too late.
So, what you're saying is that you need to shoot to stop before imminent danger is at hand?

There's a fine line in time between murder and self-defense...
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 10:48 AM   #31
Kenpo
Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Posts: 46
Quote:
There's a fine line in time between murder and self-defense...
Agreed sir, and that is essentially what I am saying. It is much easier to gainsay someones actions after the fact. It is much less clear when you are the one standing there, dealing with a known criminal, past violent offender, high on meth, who is threatening a woman and child.

I agree, by the numbers and the letter, that this probably wasn't a "good shooting" however, I don't believe that means it wasn't necessary, needed or the right thing to do. The right thing to do will, unfortunately put you on the wrong side of the law sometimes.

A "preemptive strike" will most often put you on the wrong side of the law, but it is a tactically sound way to win and save lives. Action is always faster than reaction.

There was an incident when I lived in Southern California, during an argument a man told another man "I am going to rape your wife, you can't be with her all the time, I am going to do it." Cops were called, the threat was reported, they filed for a restraining order etc. The man who made the threat raped the other mans wife, just as he said he would, and I remember in hearing about the case that the fella made the threat before carrying it out.

So, was there any eminent danger? Not by the letter. Would the husband have been justified in eliminating the threat as soon he recognized it as one? As soon and he looked in the mans eyes and knew something was wrong?

Should a man go to prison because there is one less meth head to threaten women and children?

A fine line indeed.
Kenpo is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 11:03 AM   #32
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Should a man go to prison because there is one less meth head to threaten women and children?
Yes, if that "meth head" was not actually posing a physical threat to his ex-wife/wife and child when he was killed, then the guy that pulled the trigger needs to spend the rest of his life in prison. There is a big difference between action to stop an immediate and real threat and acting to get rid of someone you feel is a bad person.

How many people in here have alcoholics in their family. Do you think they should be allowed to be gunned down and people should so "oh well, one less drunk in the world." I find it funny how people will decide abuse of one drug is ok but the abuse of another means you are not fit to live.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 11:19 AM   #33
Kenpo
Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Posts: 46
Quote:
How many people in here have alcoholics in their family
I do, as well as some very close friends. I also have/had meth/crack heads in the family. I understand the differences very well.

Quote:
Do you think they should be allowed to be gunned down and people should so "oh well, one less drunk in the world."
I don't recall ever mentioning drunks, but to answer your question, no. Of course, that doesn't have anything to do with what we are discussing. That is a bit of a red herring.

Quote:
I find it funny how people will decide abuse of one drug is ok but the abuse of another means you are not fit to live.
I don't find it funny at all, in fact, I think it is quite serious. If you will go back and re-read, you will find that I never stated in any way that someone should
Quote:
just get rid of someone you feel is a bad person
or that
Quote:
abuse of one drug is ok but the abuse of another means you are not fit to live.
For your information, your average person who gets drunk and your average person who gets spun, are worlds apart, as is what they are capable of. But again, that is not the point, and never even inferred it. You'll also note, if you re-read, that when I asked the question, I mentioned "a meth head, with a know past of aggressive behavior, who threatens women and children - that hardly fits your red herring; just one less drunk in the world.


Back to the point; what makes a "good shoot"? As I stated previously, the law is written, and it would appear, that by the letter, this was not a good shoot. However, it is not that simple, and for those that have delt with truly violent individuals, and have experienced first hand what people on certain drugs can and will do (even those you love, who somewhere inside love you) you probably realize it is not so simple. Threat assessment, action/reaction in a violent situation, when others (women/ children) may be hurt, is much easier to pick apart after the fact. The law is ancillary to many, protecting there loved ones is first. That changes the nature of the equation.
Kenpo is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 11:25 AM   #34
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Kenpo

Addiction is addiction...plain and simple. Just because one drug has more severe immediate effects is a moot point. Alcohol has just as severe an effect on the body and mind, it just works differently and can be more easily controlled. Once you cross the line from casual drinker to alcoholic your "disease" makes you no different than someone sticking a needle in their arm.

To pretend that meth has caused more violent behavior or spousal abuse than alcohol would be a really bad position to try and defend.

And if we as gun owners start executing people based on what they "might do" instead of what they are "doing" or if we even start to condone such actions by others then I fear we would then not deserve the freedom to own a gun.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 11:27 AM   #35
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,442
Kenpo,

I think we're in the same church, but in different pews.

To set my tone with you, I'm not angry nor trying to be combative in you response. I'm trying to convey in detail of what I think over a lousy computer and am wanting a discussion, not argument (not that I think you're trying to argue).

Just because he has the history of agressive behavior and "says" he's going to act, doesn't necessarily condone killing him. Again, I wasn't there and every situation is different. However, I must see an action that imposes the imminent threat to one's life before I pull the trigger.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 11:32 AM   #36
BreacherUp!
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2005
Posts: 566
Beyond the good/not shoot argument, I'm amazed at some respnses regarding the victim being shot in the face v. torso, and # shots fired.

Assuming Saafi thought that deadly force was required, the immediate neutralization of the threat is required. Modern training incorporates head shots b/c it is the fastest way to neutralize a threat. Kagel being shot in the face should be of no surprise. From a training point of view, it should be expected.

Another thought. Judging from what I've seen when people shoot in a high stress environment, rounds do not tend to go where you want them. Some people shoot higher than point of aim during stress-induced strings of fire.

# of shots fired: Woe to the self defense crowd that gets swept into this defense minded argument. Number of shots, again, is not the issue. The issue is when the target of deadly force, in the eyes of the shooter, no longer presents a threat. That may be 1 shot, or after a reload.
__________________
Life's tough. But it's tougher when you're stupid.
BreacherUp! is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 11:33 AM   #37
Kenpo
Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Posts: 46
Quote:
Addiction is addiction...plain and simple. Just because one drug has more severe immediate effects is a moot point. Alcohol has just as severe an effect on the body and mind, it just works differently and can be more easily controlled. once you cross the line from casual drinker to alcoholic your "disease" makes you no different than someone sticking a needle in there arm.

To pretend that meth has caused more violent behavior or spousal abuse than alcohol would be a really bad position to try and defend.
Again sir, you are trying to argue with me about something I never said, that has little to nothing to do with the question.

Quote:
Addiction is addiction...plain and simple.
Agreed.

Quote:
Alcohol has just as severe an effect on the body and mind, it just works differently and can be more easily controlled.
Which is why it often requires more resolute and immediate action when it does need to be controlled. And while I agree that alcohol does have a powerful effect on the mind and body - it does not equal the effects of meth on either.

Quote:
once you cross the line from casual drinker to alcoholic your "disease" makes you no different than someone sticking a needle in there arm.
One is legal one is not, that does make you different. One is highly invasive, one is not, that makes the threshold different, as well. Again, non of this matters. The point is whether or not the shooting was justified or not, is not so simple as some would like to proclaim as they pick it apart.
Kenpo is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 11:35 AM   #38
Kenpo
Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Posts: 46
Quote:
Kenpo,

I think we're in the same church, but in different pews.

To set my tone with you, I'm not angry nor trying to be combative in you response. I'm trying to convey in detail of what I think over a lousy computer and am wanting a discussion, not argument (not that I think you're trying to argue).

Just because he has the history of agressive behavior and "says" he's going to act, doesn't necessarily condone killing him. Again, I wasn't there and every situation is different. However, I must see an action that imposes the imminent threat to one's life before I pull the trigger.
Tuttle, I'll see you in church, sir!
Kenpo is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 11:43 AM   #39
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Again sir, you are trying to argue with me about something I never said, that has little to nothing to do with the question.
You clearly said "one less meth head threatening women and children."

I would interpret this as using the descriptive term "meth head" as a means to devalue this person as an individual and really do not see how it is relevant to the situation. If he was not posing an immediate threat I do not see how his addiction history means anything.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 11:56 AM   #40
Kenpo
Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Posts: 46
I used the phrase "meth head threatening women and children" as it is an accurate description of the fellow we are talking about, and in short, summarizes who he was at that point in his life, and in part, why he was shot.

I am not devaluing him as a human being - as I said, there has been drug abuse within my family and my circle of friends - I have seen both change, and death regarding it. It is not a statement as to their worth or legitimacy as a human being, but it is a statement as to who they are at that time, and what they are capable of.

Quote:
I... really do not see how it is relevant to the situation. If he was not posing an immediate threat I do not see how his addiction history means anything.
Sir, this makes absolutely no sense to me. I am not arguing that all who have drug problems are terrible people, or that all sober, law abiding citizens should be trusted. Not at all. But honestly, would you feel more threatened or feel a greater sense of danger from an angry, sober, law abiding citizen, or an angry, high, felon? Does his addiction history give you greater or lesser confidence in him as child care giver? It does mean something.

Nevertheless, It was not my intention for the thread to be pulled of the original question. If you want to continue discussing it, we could start a "do some drugs make a person more dangerous than other drugs, and when assessing someones likelihood of violence or potential as a threat should their drug addiction be considered?" thread.... and hash it out there.
Kenpo is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 12:03 PM   #41
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
would you feel more threatened or feel a greater sense of danger from an angry, sober, law abiding citizen, or an angry, high, felon?
I would feel a great deal more threatened by a angry, sober, law abiding citizen that actually attacked me than I would an angry, high felon who was not physically attacking me. So far in this case, I have seen no evidence that the guy was attacking anyone. I see more indication that a "fed up ex-relative" allowed anger and history to overwhelm his better judgement and stormed out of his home and into an argument with guns blazing.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 12:12 PM   #42
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 24, 2005
Location: Steubenville, OH
Posts: 4,446
Thread drift

Guys, it's getting to the point that there's two separate threads ongoing in one. I can see how that would happen, given the subject matter, but let's keep this on the original topic.

Want to debate drugs? There's a long standing, ongoing thread here.
__________________
TFL Members are ambassadors to the world for firearm owners. What kind of ambassador does your post make you?

I train in earnest, to do the things that I pray in earnest, I'll never have to do.

--Capt. Charlie
Capt. Charlie is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 12:53 PM   #43
FM12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2007
Location: Monroeville, Alabama
Posts: 1,683
Bad shoot, IMO. Opportunity, jeopardy, ability must be there. Most jurisdictions DO NOT allow the use of deadly force in the case of "bare fear". And, you may meet force only with (basicly) commensurate force.

I have addressed this before on this forum, and was pretty much flamed for it.

Careful in the use of deadly force, especially EXCESSIVE use. You may verywell, in the eyes of liberal juries, end up as the agressor, as shown in this topic.
FM12 is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 05:35 PM   #44
SLOMountaineer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 23, 2006
Posts: 238
Quote:
Careful in the use of deadly force, especially EXCESSIVE use.
Excessive? Dead is dead, isn't it?
SLOMountaineer is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 06:19 PM   #45
FM12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2007
Location: Monroeville, Alabama
Posts: 1,683
Well, dead IS dead. But if the threat is stopped after a double tap, and you empty a full magazine into the assailant, you have pretty much overstepped the bounds of reasonable deadly force. Especially if the ME rules the rounds after #2 caused the death.

Many think they can shoot to slide lock and then reload and shoot some more. You might wish to do some study on case law about this, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

The purpose of defensive firearm use is defensive, not offensive. Shoot to neutralize, not to kill.

Parents cannot legally beat to death their children and then use the "I was just discilplining my child" defense". Very much the same here.

This won't sit well with some, and I expect some flaming, about how they'll shoot till the victim rots, but that's OK
FM12 is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 06:30 PM   #46
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
"all but two of the bullets into Kagel's face, side and leg"

With a spray of shots like this was two enough to stop? There's nothing magic about handgun bullets. I read of a case in our state in which a police officer needed to fire six shots COM with a .40 before a woman's drugged assailant finally let go of her.

I don't doubt for a minute that seven shots spread out across an attacker's torso, legs and face might be necessary to neutralize.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old March 9, 2008, 06:51 PM   #47
tony pasley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,641
Not enough information to call one way or another. We have all seen short vid clips that reportedly show what happened only to find out what the rest showed later. We all also know that juries are always right i.e. O.J. Simson. Since the law is only about the law and no longer about right and wrong the jury did what it was told to do. That has very little to do with this being a god or bad shoot.
tony pasley is offline  
Old March 19, 2008, 01:21 PM   #48
stantonizm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 148
Was Saafi picking up his two-year old at the house of his cousin and her husband, or am I confused? It would seem that you would not leave your toddler in a household with a person you knew was a meth-using ticking timebomb.
stantonizm is offline  
Old March 19, 2008, 02:56 PM   #49
toybox99615
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2007
Location: Kodiak Alaska
Posts: 767
jury decision

regardless of how we on this site feel about the case the simple fact is the jury, based on the information they had, judged the guy guilty.

If you ever served on a jury you know the drill. You can not speculate by bringing imaginary ideas into the decision. You have to decide based on what information is presented and not what you would like to imagine maybe could have possible happened.

If there is a lesson to be found in this case it probably is more in line with each of us finding out what is self defence in the jurisdiction where you live. There are some differences from local to local. While there may be a bit of gray at the time you need to defend your self or other times there are very certain reasons when shooting is not justifiable.


Wild I've seen a bit on this case since the original shooting. I'll just say I'm with the jury decision. I believe there are stil a couple of similar shooting in Anchorage that have yet to come to trial.
toybox99615 is offline  
Old March 19, 2008, 03:27 PM   #50
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 13,805
Nobody can really internet quarterback on this article as we weren't there to experience the 'event'.

That being said, a class instructor pointed out it's not a good idea to shoot with verbal threats and gestures. If the knife comes out, all bets are off.

A couple years ago a homeowner in MD confronted someone busting in his front door. He managed to get his gun in time. One thing that stood out, he couldn't remember how many shots were fired. Turns out he emptied his gun, 8 shots IIRC.
chris in va is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 04:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.13469 seconds with 8 queries