March 8, 2008, 04:32 PM | #26 |
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 ™ |
March 8, 2008, 07:08 PM | #27 |
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.
|
March 8, 2008, 08:20 PM | #28 |
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. |
March 8, 2008, 09:08 PM | #29 |
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. |
March 8, 2008, 09:21 PM | #30 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,442
|
My quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
||
March 9, 2008, 10:48 AM | #31 | |
Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
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. |
|
March 9, 2008, 11:03 AM | #32 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
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. |
|
March 9, 2008, 11:19 AM | #33 | |||||
Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||
March 9, 2008, 11:25 AM | #34 |
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. |
March 9, 2008, 11:27 AM | #35 |
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 |
March 9, 2008, 11:32 AM | #36 |
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. |
March 9, 2008, 11:33 AM | #37 | ||||
Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
March 9, 2008, 11:35 AM | #38 | |
Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
|
|
March 9, 2008, 11:43 AM | #39 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
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. |
|
March 9, 2008, 11:56 AM | #40 | |
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:
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. |
|
March 9, 2008, 12:03 PM | #41 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
March 9, 2008, 12:12 PM | #42 |
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 |
March 9, 2008, 12:53 PM | #43 |
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. |
March 9, 2008, 05:35 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 23, 2006
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
|
|
March 9, 2008, 06:19 PM | #45 |
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 |
March 9, 2008, 06:30 PM | #46 |
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. |
March 9, 2008, 06:51 PM | #47 |
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.
|
March 19, 2008, 01:21 PM | #48 |
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.
|
March 19, 2008, 02:56 PM | #49 |
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. |
March 19, 2008, 03:27 PM | #50 |
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|