Don't Let This Happen to You

[Old Bill Dibble]

http://fox6now.com/2016/08/23/milwau...olice-station/

Tough situation here.

This is a great example of why when you carry you have an extra responsibility to be the bigger adult.

Morons like this are exactly the kind that the police deal with every day. They have extra tools, training and experience to deal with these problems. Only going to one tool in your toolbox to deal with these kinds of problems will get you into legal hot water quickly.

Patience and a cell phone might have resolved this problem much more peacefully.

[g.willikers]

It's hard to make any judgement on this kind of thing from just a news story, but it seems like there could be some justification for the shooting.
The guy who got shot was reportedly acting in a very aggressive manner.
In many states, fearing for one's life is grounds for the use of deadly force.
Of course in this particular case, what was wrong with staying in the truck and driving away, while calling the police?
The police didn't have far to travel to intervene.
If the aggressor was under the influence, they would have possibly had grounds for an arrest and all would have ended without harm.
The guy who did the shooting obviously didn't even think of it - training might very well made all the difference.
P.S.
The low bond of only $7500 might suggest the judge might not think the homicide charge is accurate, maybe.
Just a guess though.

[Lohman446]

I've been trying to figure out what I think here. The individual who was shot, form the story, was acting in an aggressive manner. I think the concern here is a fairly high disparity of force - the story does not indicate that the person shot was armed or that he had even landed (or attempted to land) a blow. Further the shooter seems to have had a friend with him and an expectation of a relatively quick police response OR the ability to retreat to a safe haven relatively easily.

As has been noted there are not enough details but my non-professional and limited knowledge, coupled with that scarcity of details, leads me to think this is not going to go well for the shooter.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The thing that gets me from almost all of these stories is that they include a line like "...got into an altercation..." or "...engaged in a verbal dispute with...."

The lesson is, keep your pie-hole shut and keep walking. Do not engage. Defuse or ignore. Never instigate.

Someone parked like an idiot? Keep your trap shut and move on.

Somebody's music is too loud? Keep your trap shut and move on.

Someone cuts you off in traffic? Keep your mouth shut, your fingers all bent and your foot off the gas.

Do not instigate trouble. Ever. Do not respond to trouble unless *absolutely required* and then DEFUSE and DEESCALATE *always*.

[TXAZ]

We will have to wait and see all the details. "News organizations" are becoming more adept at selling "the sizzle", regardless of the truth.

And the fact is there's 4 sides to every story:
The defendant's
The plaintiff's
The verdict
The truth

Seldom are all 4 the same.

[75218ron]

The thing that gets me from almost all of these stories is that they include a line like "...got into an altercation..." or "...engaged in a verbal dispute with...."

The lesson is, keep your pie-hole shut and keep walking. Do not engage. Defuse or ignore. Never instigate.

Someone parked like an idiot? Keep your trap shut and move on.

Somebody's music is too loud? Keep your trap shut and move on.

Someone cuts you off in traffic? Keep your mouth shut, your fingers all bent and your foot off the gas.

Do not instigate trouble. Ever. Do not respond to trouble unless *absolutely required* and then DEFUSE and DEESCALATE *always*.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.

Great advice, Brian Pfleuger.

[357 Python]

I will wait until the investigation is completed. I have seen news stories make the aggressive "victim" out to be some sort of saint only to learn after a full and complete investigation they in reality made Charles Manson look like a choirboy. News people are no longer reporters simply reporting what happened. They are "journalists". To me a journal is similar to a diary, full of wants, sometime needs, desires, and a whole bunch of lies.

[briandg]

Brian p has given the best possible advice.

For another thing, don't make a target out of yourself. Dont wear the wrong "colors". Don't strut around like you own the world. Don't trash the local team in the bar. Don't drive like a dillhole. Don't walk into a gay bar or straight bar or ethnic bar and harass the customers.

Treat everyone you see as if he has had a really rough year. Like he's on his last nerve. like he ran out of his antipsychotic meds a week ago. Like he's right on the verge of exploding, and there is a weapon in his pocket.

Based on two things, I think that this guy is an idiot, and he will be convicted of reckless manslaughter make a similar plea deal.

Why do I think that? there were two people in the car, right? two cell phones, two opportunities to get a couple cops out there to save their lives from a buffoon who was harassing them. One phone call, a few minutes, and a cop walking across the street. The guy had already committed assault and battery. Instead, he made no efforts (by his own admission, it seems) to de-escalate, and wound up killing the guy after putting himself in danger, and doing something that to me seems clearly provocative.

My second reason for concern? This rocket scientist had a guy throw a traffic cone into his window. He had already been assaulted and probably battery fits in. What did this moron do? he left the safety of his vehicle and challenged the guy by putting the cone back.

That is as clearly as it can be can be knocking the chip off of his shoulder or stepping across the line in the dirt. This is the absolute equal of the scenarios I saw as a high school student. Push. Push back. repeat. I wound up fighting a lot and half the time got beaten. Thankfully, people are different outside of the hell hole. I've not punched anyone that I can remember since then. I've not shot anyone over a traffic cone.

Why did this happen? I made a target out of myself. I was from big city nebraska and moved to a place that smelled like manure seven days a week. I have mild asperger's. I didn't fit in and just couldn't be left alone.

[FireForged]

nobody wants to be involved in a fist fight but if its just one guy and he is seemingly unarmed.. I am sure as heck not pulling a gun on him. geeesh!

[armedleo]

Unless outnumbered and no way out, it is unbecoming, if not ungentlemanly, to shoot an unarmed man.

[OldMarksman]

In many states, fearing for one's life is grounds for the use of deadly force.

Not really. Nowhere.

Not unless there is reason to believe that deadly force is immediately necessary.

The fear must be real and it must be reasonable. And deadly force must be a last resort.

[K_Mac]

In many states, fearing for one's life is grounds for the use of deadly force.

If that were the only qualification, I could shoot folks driving in rush hour traffic on a regular basis!

[Lohman446]

All he had to do to avoid "having" to use deadly force was stay in his car with his friend and call the police station in abnormally close proximity. Unless there are other details I just do not see this ending well for the shooter

[Koda94]

I've been trying to figure out what I think here. The individual who was shot, form the story, was acting in an aggressive manner. I think the concern here is a fairly high disparity of force - the story does not indicate that the person shot was armed or that he had even landed (or attempted to land) a blow. Further the shooter seems to have had a friend with him and an expectation of a relatively quick police response OR the ability to retreat to a safe haven relatively easily.

I'm thinking if there was a large disparity of force the guy would have never got out of his car. Given the totality of the situation my guess is its not looking good for the shooter.

[g.willikers]

"In many states, fearing for one's life is grounds for the use of deadly force."
Not really. Nowhere.
Not unless there is reason to believe that deadly force is immediately necessary.
The fear must be real and it must be reasonable. And deadly force must be a last resort.

Reason to Believe, by whom?
Real and Reasonable to whom?
Convincing those who will charge and judge is the job for his lawyer, isn't it?
How about I change it to May be the grounds for the use of deadly force, with scrutiny and judgement to follow?
Here's a thorough definition of the subject in one state's law about it:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html
This part especially:

The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle

More comments expected.

[Old Bill Dibble]

Nobody forcibly entered his vehicle. The dead guy threw a traffic cone in to the vehicle. The shooter will be hard pressed to prove a traffic cone, already thrown, proved a deadly threat.

The elements go to intent, means and opportunity. There is nothing in here that indicates the dead guy had the intent or means. He threw a cone and was leaving. I am sure there is more to the story but I wouldn't want to be the shooter right now.

Reason to Believe, by whom?
Real and Reasonable to whom?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ma...lapham_omnibus

The man on the Clapham omnibus is a reasonably educated and intelligent but nondescript person, against whom the defendant's conduct can be measured.

[Deaf Smith]

Well if I was asked if I was a cop I'd just have said nope. I mean, why be belligerent?

Deaf

[briandg]

The stand your ground laws involve a few inflexible principles.

The victim has no duty to retreat from a threat, if in a place where he has a legal right to be.

The threatened person has the right of defense against threats, or perceived threats.

This involves the reasonable belief that his attacker intends to cause serious bodily harm or death. Serious bodily harm is not legally defined, but something that involves treatment in a hospital generally defines it. If the guy has any sort of weapon, anything that can injure a person, that automatically gives the reasonable belief that the victim will wind up in an ER with serious bodily harm.

Other overriding restrictions may apply, but essentially, the only overriding circumstances involve the shooter just throwing the principle of "defense" out the window, or being involved in criminal behavior at the time.

This isn't discussing the case at hand.

Since my state extends castle law to my car and the area around it, The fact, the simple fact, is that under these guidelines, I'm not required to let someone who has gotten belligerent and aggressive punch me in the face. Punching leads to beatings, beatings lead to serious bodily injury. This is not at all covered when the shooter has provoked th altercation, this involves DEFENSE AND ONLY DEFENSE.

That is the plain ,simple, clearly stated, five paragraph law of my state. If I in my car or get out of my car, and someone comes at me, and I am convinced that he intends to harm me, if he persists in face of my own warnings to stop, I am clearly, legally justified in my use of deadly force, unless I have violated other principles that negate those laws.

I just find it completely incomprehensible that people are continually being lectured on the limitations, for example, saying that just thinking that a serious attack is underway is a violation of the line in the sand laws.

Why do I think that this guy was wrong?

These laws are absolutely clear on one thing, he has no duty to retreat. The line was the door of his car, and the justification was fear of serious injury. Stepping out of his car in the face of an attacker so he could reach his weapon to save his life is covered.

What he did throws out those laws. He crossed the line in the sand into hostile territory. He is no longer entitled to use a stand your ground law.

For that matter, was he there illegally selling that firearm? There you go, another possible roadblock.

[TheGunGeek]

The Castle Doctrine in FL would only protect you if the person was forcibly trying to enter your vehicle. Throwing a traffic cone inside doesn't apply. Let's say someone is beating on your car with a bat. It still doesn't apply until the person penetrates the vehicle with a part of their body.

Based on the laws of my State, this wouldn't meet the imminent death or grave bodily harm requirement (from the details reported). Firearms aren't and shouldn't be the only defense option. I always advocate the additional carrying of mace as a non lethal option. Even then, you have to use sound judgment or you'll be charged with assault. The shooter is now going to have a great deal of criminal and civil problems.

[briandg]

And I never said that it did. The castle laws as they apply to the state that I live in and drive in protects a person out of the car, from an armed or unarmed individual, whether or not I have an opportunity to escape that I am either unaware of or uncertain about, if that individual presents, in my genuine belief a threat of serious bodily harm, whether or not anyone else disagrees. That is what protection from anticipated bodily harm means..
As I clearly said, if a person violates the clear and simple laws that govern it, those protections are void. But, regardless of the the laws in Florida, the castle laws here also apply to extreme damage to property.

Another consideration, if you personally have an attacker beating on your car with a weapon and you expect that he will attempt to hurt you, you have NO OBLIGATION to retreat or withhold dangerous force. Just as it would in a house, according to our written statutes, the person who is beating on your car has already clearly passed the zone that gives me the right to defend myself against a perceived threat.

These are laws, not suggestions, and I suspect that many, many jurisdictions follow them. Laws should be examined and followed.

Btw, seriously, beating your car with a bat will be clearly defined as assault in probably every jurisdiction of the United States.

Why would you suggest that the use of pepper spray could result in charges, especially a jurisdiction where lethal force is an attack that justifies lethal defense?

Why would a law deny protection inside the car? The castle laws in my state cover defense inside the home, and identical coverage inside the car.

Once again, as I said in my first post, the man did something totally stupid. A traffic cone through an open window as justification for use of force was beyond ridiculous. When he left his zone of protection and deliberately stepped into a dangerous situation, he probably blew every legal coverage he had.i agree absolutely with your assessment of that.

[OldMarksman]

...if you personally have an attacker beating on your car with a weapon and you expect that he will attempt to hurt you, you have NO OBLIGATION to retreat or withhold dangerous force.

That's quite an oversimplification.

"Beating on your car"?

What kind of a weapon?

What is the basis for your "expectation"?

What is it that would make you reasonably believe the use of deadly force to be immediately necessary?

[briandg]

As he said beating on the car with a bat, by law in my jurisdiction , my expectation is whether I am really worried that he's going to go through that glass and possibly injure me, (the attacker has already given me legal justification for use of lethal force by coming though the legal "castle" zone and attacking me in a manner that makes me fear for my life.

That was absolutely not a simplification, that is the legal situation here in my state.

Frankly, if a person approaches my car with a gun in his hand, I will put him Down. Walking up to me armed with a gun is sure as the sun rises and sets going to fear for my safety. I don't even have to wait until he gets close. If I killl him, it's really simple, I am legally justified in use of lethal force in defense of me or any passenger in my vehicle.

How can that be any simpler? That is state law.

Everyone should learn state law, and act accordingly, and ignore anyone who says that state laws of immunity can be avoided because there are limitations, like the guy should be allowed to hurt you before you engage in legal means of defense.

LEARN YOUR LAWS.

[OldMarksman]

...my expectation is whether I am really worried that he's going to go through that glass and possibly injure me, (the attacker has already given me legal justification for use of lethal force by coming though the legal "castle" zone and attacking me in a manner that makes me fear for my life.

"Possibly" may not cut it, and your worry, while necessary, is not sufficient. It will be a matter to what others, knowing what you knew at the time, would have done under similar circumstances.

You may find yourself unpleasantly surprised to find that not everyone would have believed that pounding on your car constituted attacking you.

A clear attempt to enter would be one thing. You had better pray for clarity.

Everyone should learn state law, and act accordingly,

Yes--and that state law is not intended to permit citizens to harm others in the absence of immediate necessity.

[briandg]

Possibly is clearly covered by the law.

If this person invades the space of my vehicle and that's kind of vague, and he attacks my vehicle violently, I've already got all the legal justification I need. It's my decision whether a guy who is inches away from my face beating on my car with a crowbar, bat, or whatever, presenting me with the concern that in less time than I can draw, he can kill me.

According to the law, I don't have to prove diddly or squat if he attacked me in a manner that could have lead to injury and showed any possible intent to harm me. I can't imagine how a person could even conceivably choose to believe that a violent attack on a vehicle doesn't present as a probable threat to personal safety. It's that simple. I don't have to run, I don't have to let him hit me, I don't have to wait until he bashes in my glass, If he presented in any way inside of my castle, which goes outside of my home and my car, unless I have clearly and without legal questions violated another overarching law I will be immune to prosecution.

I have no idea why people insist on undermining clear understanding of the law. Whatever laws apply, they should be followed. I believe that every state will have clearly written laws concerning assault, battery,and defense against any attack.

I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't cast any more doubt on the clearly and simply stated law of my land.

[marines6433]

Seems to me there would be some video footage of all of this, I mean right outside a police station and all?