Good Tactics vs Ethical Dilemma Gets CHL Killed

[jmorris]

Hmm, they robbed him and he was unharmed after they left, that’s pretty lucky, in one of the deadliest city’s in America.

He then pursued them resulting in a gunfight he lost. Luck goes out the window when you push it. I suppose he died an honorable death...

What if he went 2-0 on the bad guys vs 1-1 but another bystander was injured? Would he have then been on the line for starting the shootout? After all, the one think we can prove is that they didn’t want to hurt anyone or they wouldn’t have left him after taking his stuff and they only did that so their baby could eat that day or maybe pay for college tuition.

At least that’s what the prosecution would have told the jury at his trial, again, if he were not dead.

[Ruark]

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Hampton-...121E/302088605

Yes, this, plus knowing what's going on inside. We didn't see that part. Did he hear shots inside the barber shop, and rush blindly through the front door with utterly no idea what he was going to encounter, where the BGs were, etc.?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Ruark

Yes, this, plus knowing what's going on inside. We didn't see that part. Did he hear shots inside the barber shop, and rush blindly through the front door with utterly no idea what he was going to encounter, where the BGs were, etc.?

Is that a bulletproof bistro table?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[fastbolt]

Not sure where the boggle lies when it comes to "Good Tactics vs Ethical Dilemma".

Nothing in the articles presented indicates the deceased victim had any thought regarding "good tactics", or the use of them.

An ethical (or moral) dilemma is often something contrived in the mind of the beholder. Now, the statutory laws, justice system and the courts can provide some guidance on what might be considered "reasonable", appropriate for the circumstances and justified ... including after the fact of some particular circumstance.

The deceased victim seemingly felt he owed something to his neighborhood, community or perhaps even some person(s) in the business being robbed. His choice and his decision to act. Consequences occurred. Since he made the effort to obtain a CHL, it's reasonable to presume he'd probably thought about the consequences of acting in the manner he acted.

[TailGator]

If you wait until the moment of action to decide what circumstances you are going to act in you may make the wrong choice. . . . I have already made that decision and I think its important to make those decisions ahead of time

I disagree only to the extent that each situation is unique. Certainly a deep and thoughtful advance consideration of these issues is in order for anyone who carries.

[OldMarksman]

... I am curious about what other alternatives would seem a good idea, other than rushing in to the shop

Any other course of action.

I don't see how the subject line fits the incident.

[FireForged]

I agree that a person should come to terms (ahead of time) with what they are actaully willing to do and in what circumstance. Morally, ethically, legally, and at what cost or risk. These are very general consideration of course but consideration which in my opinion should be reconciled as far in advance as possible. As defenders we are already behind the curve, we need to take advantage of the time afforded us. We cant do that if we are running "what if" scenarios in our mind when we should be taking action. You can be sure that the badguy will exploit our moral-ethical-legal conflicts in their favor. The goal is to face the situation without being conflicted. What you say, what you think and what you do- needs to be in harmony.

Generally speaking, I will not chase after or seek out a badguy. I will simply call 911 and be a good witness. If confronted by criminal violence directly, I will use whatever force necessary to preserve innocent life ( my life). If I can walk away, I will walk away. I do not see myself as a public sentinel and only feel an obligation to defend and protect myself and my family. I will extend that protection to friends and those with me. I will not fight someone elses fight.


No matter the risk to self, I will fight to avoid being:

disarmed by a criminal
tied up by a criminal
isolated away from a group or be transported by a criminal
placed on the floor by a criminal
hooded or masked by a criminal

[Lohman446]

Im with FireForged though we may differ slightly. For instance if I’m in a bank robbery and told, as a group, to get on the floor so be it. But being restrained or moving locations will not be done as long as I have the ability to fight

I’m not going to resort to violence when the criminal act is transactional in nature. My will not do list is based on belief that these things represent anti-social violence in that it’s unlikely my self and those under my care will not experience unacceptable outcomes

[fastbolt]

I respect the elements of the thoughts articulated in posts 57 & 58. One of the things learned by some off-duty cops is that it can easily become counter productive to act and escalate a situation from a property crime to a situation where now bullets are flying and innocents become at risk.

I can remember learning of a couple incidents in my early years as a cop where other cops, present in public with family members, decided to intervene in armed robberies where the suspects had not fired any shots. They confronted the suspects and shooting erupted. In both of those incidents family members of the off-duty cops ended up being shot and killed ... over money being stolen from a business.

Learning of those tragic incidents stayed in the back of my mind. I'm unwilling to unnecessarily put the lives of my family, and the family of anyone else, at potential risk without very good reason, meaning it's a situation where if I don't act those lives reasonably appear to be at immediate risk of being lost due to the unlawful and violent actions of someone.

[MTT TL]

I respect the elements of the thoughts articulated in posts 57 & 58. One of the things learned by some off-duty cops is that it can easily become counter productive to act and escalate a situation from a property crime to a situation where now bullets are flying and innocents become at risk.

Not sure what you are getting at. Armed robbery is not a property crime.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Not sure what you are getting at. Armed robbery is not a property crime.

Agreed. Firearms typically escalate situations but regardless of the story version there were already firearms present and being used to threaten.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Lohman446]

Property crime may be technically wrong as used though I get the understanding of what the poster meant. I referenced it as a transactional crime. “Give me your money” is a transactional crime. You give up property and pursue the criminal portion of it later - more properly law enforcement does. In most cases the transaction is not worth escalating to violence because the violent outcomes are not worth it. Even if you win the costs will be far greater than the money in your wallet.

To me this is opposed to anti-social behavior. Someone trying to cause severe injury or death just because. Here there is no talking your way out of it. While not a likely target I classify rape as an anti-social crime as well and not transactional though I suppose it could be argued. Because I believe kidnapping ultimately becomes anti-social I would resist it as well.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Not sure what you are getting at. Armed robbery is not a property crime.

Armed robbery is typically considered a violent crime, regardless of the weapon used. However, not all armed robberies result in shots fired, stabbings, bludgeonings, etc.

The 2 incidents I mentioned in my previous post involved armed robberies where the suspects were armed with guns, but they hadn't yet shot anyone while demanding money. The off-duty cops decided to intervene, which is when the suspects started shooting.

I remember being told as a young cop that if I chose to invoke my status off-duty when on-viewing a violent crime, such as an armed robbery, I needed to consider the totality of the circumstances before taking an action which might escalate the nature of the danger inherent in the crime (robbery) and increase the potential risk to the Public.

Specifically, if the robbery suspect(s) hadn't yet shot anyone, and it appeared they might leave without shooting anyone, it reduced the risk to the Public if I allowed them to leave without pulling my weapon and engaging them. Why start a shooting when one wasn't occurring? I could always act as a trained witness, or even follow the suspect(s) outside to attempt to get a description of any veh (bicycle, or no veh used), and the direction of travel to aid in the attempted apprehension.

In other words, actions can have consequences, and my actions ought to be geared toward helping preserve the Public safety. The safety of innocents was of a higher priority than the loss of someone's money or personal property. We could always attempt to track down the suspect(s) once they'd fled the scene - without them having shot anyone - and taking an unwise action which might cause a shooting to start was both irresponsible and an unnecessary risk to the safety of the victims and bystanders.

It's common sense that any action taken by an off-duty peace officer which involves a drawn weapon and the use of deadly force isn't something to be considered lightly, and especially if that action might increase the risk of injury or death to the innocent Public.

Now, once a suspect has started shooting, or the suspect's actions (threats, manner, etc) gives the off-duty cop a reasonable cause to believe that victims are at an immediate risk of suffering seriously bodily injury or death due to the suspect's violent actions, then the off-duty cop may be forced to choose to take action.

Better be right, though. You can't call bullets back, either yours or those of the suspect(s).

[MTT TL]

Now, once a suspect has started shooting, or the suspect's actions (threats, manner, etc) gives the off-duty cop a reasonable cause to believe that victims are at an immediate risk of suffering seriously bodily injury or death due to the suspect's violent actions, then the off-duty cop may be forced to choose to take action.

Kind of what we had here other than status. The victim gave up his items when he was robbed and when the robbers began shooting in another nearby location he decided to intervene. This is why it was an ethics choice. He had no real duty to those in the shop. In most places police have a general duty to quell disturbances, unrest, prevent crime and preserve life.

[Lohman446]

Has it been clarified. Did the gun shots start before his attempted intervention?

[OldMarksman]

Armed robbery is not a property crime.

That bears repeating.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

That bears repeating.

It's also a finger pointing away at the moon.

[OldMarksman]

This poor fellow exhibited no tactical prudence whatsoever.

He may have believed he had an ethical duty to put himself at extreme risk, without understanding the likely outcome.

Personally. I would not do anything in suc ha circumtanceswith a best case outcome of incurring tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.

[Don Fischer]

Bottom line to this is that not a one of us can possibly know what we are going to do before hand and the idea of what to do after you've run into the situation is gonna likely be a spur of the moment idea that may very well back fire. I think if you run into a situation the best course of action is get out of sight. From there you can walk away of sit out a situation to see what is going to happen. If the bad guy's haven't fired on anyone yet, you rush in and that all by itself can start the shooting. You action just may have caused it! If the guy's are content to get the money and walk away shooting, let them! It's only money. Never have being put i a situation like this, this is easy for me to say! But then I also believe my gun is for protecting myself, family and close friends. I don't think I want to go beyond that.

[FireForged]

I respect the elements of the thoughts articulated in posts 57 & 58. One of the things learned by some off-duty cops is that it can easily become counter productive to act and escalate a situation from a property crime to a situation where now bullets are flying and innocents become at risk.

If my life is in danger, it doesn't really matter what kind of crime is involved. If my life is not in danger, my gun would certainly not be part of the equation anyway.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by fastbolt

I respect the elements of the thoughts articulated in posts 57 & 58. One of the things learned by some off-duty cops is that it can easily become counter productive to act and escalate a situation from a property crime to a situation where now bullets are flying and innocents become at risk.

It has been noted, but perhaps bears repeating, that armed robbery is not a "property crime." Whether or not shots are fired, the use or even display (and, in some jurisdictions, even the threat) of a firearm constitutes use of deadly force. If a bad guy has a gun, innocents ARE at risk ... by definition.

The case under discussion serves to demonstrate this point. The two thugs walked into a barber shop. It's unlikely that the barber or the patrons were armed -- there has been nothing in the news reports to suggest that they were armed. Yet the bad guys shot one of the patrons. So the patrons obviously were at risk.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by fastbolt

It's also a finger pointing away at the moon.

Please explain.

[fastbolt]

Some of you are overlooking the potentially tragic obvious. Let's not get caught up and dragged down in the "but it's an armed robbery" riptide.

Yes, robbery (including the attempt) is classified as a violent crime. It's one of the Part 1 serious offenses in the UCR.

However, while the use of deadly force may be justified, it's arguably still prudent to consider whether the specific totality of the circumstances (as known to the person at the moment, etc) also make it reasonably necessary and appropriate at any moment in time. In other words, it's not an automatic "check the box - the suspect is armed - let's shoot" response.

If shots (or a stabbing, etc) by some suspect hasn't yet occurred, is the risk of running in and starting shooting worth it? From the LE perspective, if the suspect hasn't already shot anyone, it's safer for any innocent victims and bystanders if attempts to engage the suspect are delayed until the suspect leaves the immediate scene.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Please explain.

Paraphrase of an old Bruce Lee quote. Don't get so distracted by looking at the finger pointing up at the moon that you forget to see the moon (heavenly glory).

The fact that robbery is a serious crime and not a simple property crime is the finger.

Whether the use of deadly force is not only justified, but also reasonable and appropriate for the specific circumstances, is the moon.

[Lohman446]

The case under discussion serves to demonstrate this point. The two thugs walked into a barber shop. It's unlikely that the barber or the patrons were armed -- there has been nothing in the news reports to suggest that they were armed. Yet the bad guys shot one of the patrons. So the patrons obviously were at risk.

Did shooting start before the attempted intervention of the Good Samaritan concealed carrier? I’m not denying his motivation but if this situation could have ended without shots being fired without his intervention perhaps everyone would have been better off had he left it alone. Had shots (actual shots intended to do harm) already been fired then all bets are off. I guess I am looking for clarification. The premise seems to be offered that he only responded after shots were fired. Is this premise backed by evidence?