Naples shooting

TailGator · October 20, 2011, 02:08 PM

In the below-referenced shooting, a man demanded money and then attempted to leave with the clerk's baby in a stroller. The clerk prevented the kidnapping by shooting at the BG's knees. The BG died at a hospital.

I thought it interesting to read that the clerk say that she was trained to aim for the knees. I have to wonder where she received such training. In addition to all the other good reasons for not attempting to shoot for the legs, in this instance it would seem that such a tactic would put the child in the stroller closer to the line of fire.

Also interesting that the BG died after having his legs targeted.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/...-dels-24-hour/

MLeake · October 20, 2011, 02:14 PM

TailGator, since I know you are a veterinarian and are trained on animal and human anatomy, I also know you're aware of the femoral arteries and other blood vessels in the legs. So, I'm pretty sure you weren't so much surprised by the result, as you were trying to point out to others that shooting somebody in the leg can very easily prove fatal to the target.

But I just thought I'd emphasize that: Shooting somebody in the leg is still using deadly force. There is a decent percentage chance that such a shot will in fact be deadly.

Not faulting the clerk - the shot was fully warranted.

I, too, wonder who trained her to shoot for the knee. I wonder if the BG was holding the baby in such a way that a lower extremity shot was the safest option for the shooter, and if she meant she'd been trained to shoot at a body part as far from a potential innocent as possible.

Hopefully, nobody out there is teaching to shoot for the knees, per se.

MikeGoob · October 20, 2011, 03:10 PM

I have heard parents say that if someone snatches their kid they will use deadly force to stop them, even if shooting could endanger the child--

The reason being, if a suspect escapes with your child, the most likely outcome is that the child will suffer a fate worse than death before being found again, if alive.

Brian Pfleuger · October 20, 2011, 03:12 PM

I believe the reasoning was that the BG picked up the stroller.

I was also curious (mentioned it in the other thread on this shooting) about just what class taught someone to shoot at the legs.

TailGator · October 20, 2011, 03:46 PM

I did not realize that this was already under discussion (and can't find the other discussion). My apologies to the moderators. Unify or close this one as you see fit.

In response to MLeake's post: Yes, part of my point is that there is no such thing as non-lethal use of lethal force. You have at least some chance of bleeding out from any gunshot wound, and a better than fair chance if the femoral artery is hit.

No fault at all to the clerk for shooting. I would not have watched someone walk away with my kids when they were little, either. I did not pick up on an indication that the BG picked up the stroller, and assumed it was still on the ground. If the kid is in someone's arms, i.e. up around the chest, shooting for the legs may be your best choice.

I'm for what works.

Brian Pfleuger · October 20, 2011, 04:11 PM

No harm done. Here's the other thread:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show....php?p=4786669

BoyScoutForLife · October 20, 2011, 04:38 PM

"The Sheriff’s Office is continuing its investigation. It is unclear if Easterly could face criminal charges in the shooting."
- lets hope not.

federali · November 1, 2011, 08:43 AM

Two points: While we're mainly concerned with face-to-face encounters with criminals, deadly force could also be justified to prevent the arson of an occupied dwelling, rape or kidnapping. I don't know the laws where this incident occurred but I too would have used deadly force to prevent my child or grandchild from being snatched.

When bad guys occasionally started showing up for work wearing bullet resistant vests, we trained the troops to shoot for the pelvic region, not the legs, if they suspected their adversary was wearing body armor. The pelvic region is filled with good stuff and is easier to hit than the head.

45Gunner · November 1, 2011, 11:00 PM

I have some doubt as to the true events in that the woman claims she was aiming at the perps legs.

I have a life long friend that used to be the Director of Firearms Instruction for all the police academies of a particular state. He also did training and instruction for those civilian women that desired to be CCW holders. He would teach women to aim their guns at a male's family jewels as it apparently made more of an impact on a perp than having a gun aimed at any other part of the anatomy. With this in mind, I would have to think that in the heat of moment with the adrenaline pumping, this woman probably was doing something like that except with trembling hands, hit the perp in the legs where he bleed out because of a lucky shot hitting him in a major artery.

Then again, maybe she did aim for the legs?

Dwight55 · November 2, 2011, 09:13 AM

Whatever the story, . . . outcome is simple, . . . mess with Momma, . . . pay the price.

I just wish the young mother the best possible for the rest of her life. All too many mothers today just don't care, . . . and this one obviously does.

May God bless,
Dwight

pax · November 2, 2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

I have some doubt as to the true events in that the woman claims she was aiming at the perps legs.

I followed this one closely as it was coming out. Apparently, the BG tried to pick the baby up out of the stroller, but the baby was strapped in. So he lifted up the entire stroller and was carrying the stroller when she fired.

I hope I would have the presence of mind to aim for his legs in a similar circumstance; it was probably the safest and most certain shot she could take, since the baby was at his chest & head level and both were moving.

As for him dying, she probably hit the femoral artery. People tend to think, "I'll just shoot him in the leg" as if that isn't deadly force. But it is. The reason shooting someone anywhere on their body counts as deadly force under the law is because shooting someone anywhere on their body can kill them. It's not in the law just for the heck of it, but because the law recognizes the stark reality. If you shoot someone, they might die.

pax

DasGuy · November 2, 2011, 01:05 PM

pax, are you telling me that the movie "Speed" was incorrect about the whole "shoot the hostage" tactic?

skoro · November 2, 2011, 06:37 PM

It appears to be a good shoot.

Baby safe at home.

Dirt ball off the streets.

All's well that ends well.

Double Naught Spy · November 3, 2011, 07:36 AM

Quote:

pax, are you telling me that the movie "Speed" was incorrect about the whole "shoot the hostage" tactic?

Naw, the movie was fine, but the tactic would not work in this case because the baby wasn't ambulatory and helping [against its will] with its own abduction.

DasGuy · November 3, 2011, 12:02 PM

Okay, that right there was funny.

October 20, 2011, 02:08 PM	#1
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,787	Naples shooting In the below-referenced shooting, a man demanded money and then attempted to leave with the clerk's baby in a stroller. The clerk prevented the kidnapping by shooting at the BG's knees. The BG died at a hospital. I thought it interesting to read that the clerk say that she was trained to aim for the knees. I have to wonder where she received such training. In addition to all the other good reasons for not attempting to shoot for the legs, in this instance it would seem that such a tactic would put the child in the stroller closer to the line of fire. Also interesting that the BG died after having his legs targeted. http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/...-dels-24-hour/

November 1, 2011, 08:43 AM	#8
federali Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2011 Location: Nassau County NY Posts: 378	Justification varies with locality Two points: While we're mainly concerned with face-to-face encounters with criminals, deadly force could also be justified to prevent the arson of an occupied dwelling, rape or kidnapping. I don't know the laws where this incident occurred but I too would have used deadly force to prevent my child or grandchild from being snatched. When bad guys occasionally started showing up for work wearing bullet resistant vests, we trained the troops to shoot for the pelvic region, not the legs, if they suspected their adversary was wearing body armor. The pelvic region is filled with good stuff and is easier to hit than the head. __________________ Int'l Assoc. of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors

November 1, 2011, 11:00 PM	#9
45Gunner Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2009 Location: Boca Raton, FL Posts: 1,902	I have some doubt as to the true events in that the woman claims she was aiming at the perps legs. I have a life long friend that used to be the Director of Firearms Instruction for all the police academies of a particular state. He also did training and instruction for those civilian women that desired to be CCW holders. He would teach women to aim their guns at a male's family jewels as it apparently made more of an impact on a perp than having a gun aimed at any other part of the anatomy. With this in mind, I would have to think that in the heat of moment with the adrenaline pumping, this woman probably was doing something like that except with trembling hands, hit the perp in the legs where he bleed out because of a lucky shot hitting him in a major artery. Then again, maybe she did aim for the legs? __________________ 45Gunner May the Schwartz Be With You. NRA Instructor NRA Life Member

November 2, 2011, 09:13 AM	#10
Dwight55 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,568	Whatever the story, . . . outcome is simple, . . . mess with Momma, . . . pay the price. I just wish the young mother the best possible for the rest of her life. All too many mothers today just don't care, . . . and this one obviously does. May God bless, Dwight __________________ www.dwightsgunleather.com If you can breathe, . . . thank God! If you can read, . . . thank a teacher! If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!

November 2, 2011, 06:37 PM	#13
skoro Senior Member Join Date: April 30, 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 1,952	Naples shooting It appears to be a good shoot. Baby safe at home. Dirt ball off the streets. All's well that ends well.

October 20, 2011, 02:14 PM	#2
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	TailGator, since I know you are a veterinarian and are trained on animal and human anatomy, I also know you're aware of the femoral arteries and other blood vessels in the legs. So, I'm pretty sure you weren't so much surprised by the result, as you were trying to point out to others that shooting somebody in the leg can very easily prove fatal to the target. But I just thought I'd emphasize that: Shooting somebody in the leg is still using deadly force. There is a decent percentage chance that such a shot will in fact be deadly. Not faulting the clerk - the shot was fully warranted. I, too, wonder who trained her to shoot for the knee. I wonder if the BG was holding the baby in such a way that a lower extremity shot was the safest option for the shooter, and if she meant she'd been trained to shoot at a body part as far from a potential innocent as possible. Hopefully, nobody out there is teaching to shoot for the knees, per se.

October 20, 2011, 03:10 PM	#3
MikeGoob Senior Member Join Date: January 31, 2006 Posts: 876	I have heard parents say that if someone snatches their kid they will use deadly force to stop them, even if shooting could endanger the child-- The reason being, if a suspect escapes with your child, the most likely outcome is that the child will suffer a fate worse than death before being found again, if alive.

October 20, 2011, 03:12 PM	#4
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	I believe the reasoning was that the BG picked up the stroller. I was also curious (mentioned it in the other thread on this shooting) about just what class taught someone to shoot at the legs.

October 20, 2011, 03:46 PM	#5
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,787	I did not realize that this was already under discussion (and can't find the other discussion). My apologies to the moderators. Unify or close this one as you see fit. In response to MLeake's post: Yes, part of my point is that there is no such thing as non-lethal use of lethal force. You have at least some chance of bleeding out from any gunshot wound, and a better than fair chance if the femoral artery is hit. No fault at all to the clerk for shooting. I would not have watched someone walk away with my kids when they were little, either. I did not pick up on an indication that the BG picked up the stroller, and assumed it was still on the ground. If the kid is in someone's arms, i.e. up around the chest, shooting for the legs may be your best choice. I'm for what works.

October 20, 2011, 04:11 PM	#6
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	No harm done. Here's the other thread: http://thefiringline.com/forums/show....php?p=4786669

October 20, 2011, 04:38 PM	#7
BoyScoutForLife Junior Member Join Date: July 29, 2011 Posts: 14	"The Sheriff’s Office is continuing its investigation. It is unclear if Easterly could face criminal charges in the shooting." - lets hope not.

November 2, 2011, 01:05 PM	#12
DasGuy Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2011 Posts: 318	pax, are you telling me that the movie "Speed" was incorrect about the whole "shoot the hostage" tactic?

November 3, 2011, 12:02 PM	#15
DasGuy Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2011 Posts: 318	Okay, that right there was funny.