"Good Shoot?"

[C4IGrant]

This question was brought up in another thread as in what constitutes a "good shoot" from a CCW standpoint (not in your home, but out on the street). In an effort to not detour that thread any more, we can discuss it here.


As we all know (or should know), the bad guy decides for us when our gun is to come out. We use our guns are for DEFENSIVE purposes only.

So what defines a "good shoot?" For me, it’s like defining how a pretty girl looks. I cannot describe it, but I know it when I see it!

CCW holders are NOT the police. Your license doesn't give you the right to do anything other than protect yourself and your immediate family (nothing more). It isn't your job to defend people you don't know, break up a fight in a parking lot or rescue a kitten from a tree.

Questions to ask yourself before engaging in said gun fight:

1. Could have I escaped? Was the bad guy 50yds from me and I could have easily ran away, gotten into my car or exited out the back of the restaurant?

2. Was the threat directly at me or my loved ones? Was the gun/knife/weapon pointed at you? Were you directly involved with what was happening?

3. Did you clearly see a weapon? Or did you think you saw it? Was there an actual threat or did you take their word for the fact that they had a weapon?



Questions, comments, ideas??


C4

[PD Sgt.]

In general, the test for the use of deadly force (LE or otherwise) is to protect oneself or a third party from serious physical or mental harm. While serious physical harm is relatively easily understood, the mental harm is not as readily defined by most. The example I usually use is one of sexual assault, where the victim may not suffer serious physical wounding, but the psychological trauma is substantial.

While as a citizen one does not have a legal duty to act in situations where an unrelated third party faces a risk of such harm, it is my opinion that acting to prevent such harm would not be outside the right of the person acting. Should you round the corner to witness someone holding a gun to a person and demanding money, or shooting at six year olds, it would not matter that the gun was not pointed at you. Would you be duty bound to intervene? No. Morally? That is your decision.

There is in some states, a duty to retreat if feasable or reasonable. Other states have enacted a "castle doctrine" that covers not just the home, but autos as well (think carjacking here). It is best to learn the law in the area you live in, so that you know what is going to be expected.

Ultimately, and I feel this is what keeps some from feeling they would act in many situations, the legitimacy of a shooting is subject to review by the legal authority governing the venue. This could be review by a DA, Grand Jury, County Prosecutor, or whatever system is present in your area. Some do not feel these authorities would provide a reasonable review. Having been involved in the investigation of civilian uses of deadly force, I will say that I have never jailed a man I felt acted in self defense and who was able to provide justification (assuming the evidence supported his statements).

[C4IGrant]

In general, the test for the use of deadly force (LE or otherwise) is to protect oneself or a third party from serious physical or mental harm. While serious physical harm is relatively easily understood, the mental harm is not as readily defined by most. The example I usually use is one of sexual assault, where the victim may not suffer serious physical wounding, but the psychological trauma is substantial.

While as a citizen one does not have a legal duty to act in situations where an unrelated third party faces a risk of such harm, it is my opinion that acting to prevent such harm would not be outside the right of the person acting. Should you round the corner to witness someone holding a gun to a person and demanding money, it would not matter that the gun was not pointed at you. Would you be duty bound to intervene? No. Morally? That is your decision.

There is in some states, a duty to retreat if feasable or reasonable. Other states have enacted a "castle doctrine" that covers not just the home, but autos as well (think carjacking here). It is best to learn the law in the area you live in, so that you know what is going to be expected.

Ultimately, and I feel this is what keeps some from feeling they would act in many situations, the legitimacy of a shooting is subject to review by the legal authority governing the venue. This could be review by a DA, Grand Jury, County Prosecutor, or whatever system is present in your area. Some do not feel these authorities would provide a reasonable review. Having been involved in the investigation of civilian uses of deadly force, I will say that I have never jailed a man I felt acted in self defense and who was able to provide justification (assuming the evidence supported his statements).

Excellent points and thank you for your post.


One of the reasons for this thread was based off an ongoing discussion regarding alcohol consumption and a shooting and or crime intervention. In your last sentence, you stated that you have been involved in a civy use of force investigation (and found the CCW holder justified in their actions).

Now, let’s throw alcohol into the mix. CCW holder had 1-2 drinks and was BELOW the state’s legal limit. Would that have mattered to YOU or changed the outcome of your findings??



C4

[tb-av]

Yep, it's got to be locality and incident specific. It's not a good shoot until after it's been shot and all circumstances analyzed.

You are sitting in a boat 150 yards from a youth group at the river. You hear gun shots and screams. You run to see a kid mowing down other kids and adults. You shoot and kill him. Probably a good shoot. Hell, you would probably get some sort of award.

How about this one. You are with your wife and daughter. You see 60 yards away a man with a rifle strike a woman to the ground. You yell at him and with his rifle held in one hand down near it's mid section and down by his thigh. He walks toward you angry looking. You have told your wife and daughter to run and call 911. He's still walking towards you barrel pointed to ground and being held in a non confrontational manner. The other woman is still down. He keeps coming at you with out raising rifle into a ready position. What do you do?

I don't think shooting someone is an accounting procedure that can be reasoned by aligning rows and columns on a spread sheet. You make a life decision and others interpret it after the fact. That's just the price you pay to carry. Always has been and probably always will be.

ETA: Grant in your alcohol scenario, if a person needed to be shot and someone was legally drunk but somehow got a gun and killed a bad guy. The alcohol would make no difference to me. Only provided the facts show the bad guy was indeed a bad guy in need of being shot. Three people are drunk. One sober bad shows up and shoots one of the drunk guys while robbing him. The other two drunk guys kill him. No problem by me.

[MarkG]

motive + opportunity + jeopardy = good shoot

Why should retreat be a consideration?

[C4IGrant]

Yep, it's got to be locality and incident specific. It's not a good shoot until after it's been shot and all circumstances analyzed.

You are sitting in a boat 150 yards from a youth group at the river. You hear gun shots and screams. You run to see a kid mowing down other kids and adults. You shoot and kill him. Probably a good shoot. Hell, you would probably get some sort of award.

How about this one. You are with your wife and daughter. You see 60 yards away a man with a rifle strike a woman to the ground. You yell at him and with his rifle held in one hand down near it's mid section and down by his thigh. He walks toward you angry looking. You have told your wife and daughter to run and call 911. He's still walking towards you barrel pointed to ground and being held in a non confrontational manner. The other woman is still down. He keeps coming at you with out raising rifle into a ready position. What do you do?

I don't think shooting someone is an accounting procedure that can be reasoned by aligning rows and columns on a spread sheet. You make a life decision and others interpret it after the fact. That's just the price you pay to carry. Always has been and probably always will be.

Agree. Like I said, "I know it when I see it."


C4

[C4IGrant]

motive + opportunity + jeopardy = good shoot

Why should retreat be a consideration?

Actually it should ALWAYS be a consideration. I know that the "hero" comes out in us (especially if you have been highly trained on how to use a firearm), but at the end of the day, you arriving at home safely and or your family doing the same is priority one. So if that means escaping, then that is your best option.




C4

[tb-av]

Actually it should ALWAYS be a consideration.

Yeah, I think you have to answer the question "how could we have all gotten away safely without guns?" after it's over. If there is a reasonable or multiple reasonable answers to that... you could be in trouble. Maybe the answer is as simple as this happened in five seconds, or even... I was 40 yards away but he had a rifle and I would have had to run across an open field to get to my car where he could have shot me. But if you were in a shopping mall with multiple safe exits available... you better retreat.

[PD Sgt.]

C4, good question. I have never had that come up firsthand, so this is all off the cuff, so to speak.

With the introduction of alcohol, as is the case with other matters, the hoops get a bit higher. If there is no question the person had ingested alcohol, I would attempt to determine blood alcohol content, be it by breath, or preferably, blood. While some may balk at this, it actually can benefit the person involved. If the BAC is below legal limit, there is now proof of that level. This may help mitigate civil action later where the amount of alcohol ingested or degree of impairment could be questioned. It also verifies the story of the person involved, and can add credibility to their statements.

I think the big problem is that while there is a legal limit for operating a motor vehicle, there is not usually a statutory limit for the carry/use of a firearm. There are usually laws against the intoxicated possession of a firearm, but the limit is not as clearly defined as with operating an automobile. This is then seized upon by some who feel any presence of alcohol is cause for charges.

Personally, I feel that if the person is not impaired, and this is borne out by observation and testing, the legitimacy of an otherwise jusifiable shoot is not diminished. I would not book the person that night. As is customary, I would send the package to the DA, and they would determine if it is presented to a Grand Jury, and the GJ would decide if an indictment would be issued. My personal input would be a good shoot is a good shoot, and I have had good results in the past with my input being considered in the decision to present. I realize however, that I have less control over the outcome once the file leaves my desk.

I feel the presence of alcohol creates a greater liability in a civil court, where the threshold for conviction is lower, and it is even easier to obfuscate the facts than in a criminal proceeding.

[C4IGrant]

C4, good question. I have never had that come up firsthand, so this is all off the cuff, so to speak.

With the introduction of alcohol, as is the case with other matters, the hoops get a bit higher. If there is no question the person had ingested alcohol, I would attempt to determine blood alcohol content, be it by breath, or preferably, blood. While some may balk at this, it actually can benefit the person involved. If the BAC is below legal limit, there is now proof of that level. This may help mitigate civil action later where the amount of alcohol ingested or degree of impairment could be questioned. It also verifies the story of the person involved, and can add credibility to their statements.

I think the big problem is that while there is a legal limit for operating a motor vehicle, there is not usually a statutory limit for the carry/use of a firearm. There are usually laws against the intoxicated possession of a firearm, but the limit is not as clearly defined as with operating an automobile. This is then seized upon by some who feel any presence of alcohol is cause for charges.

Personally, I feel that if the person is not impaired, and this is borne out by observation and testing, the legitimacy of an otherwise jusifiable shoot is not diminished. I would not book the person that night. As is customary, I would send the package to the DA, and they would determine if it is presented to a Grand Jury, and the GJ would decide if an indictment would be issued. My personal input would be a good shoot is a good shoot, and I have had good results in the past with my input being considered in the decision to present. I realize however, that I have less control over the outcome once the file leaves my desk.

I feel the presence of alcohol creates a greater liability in a civil court, where the threshold for conviction is lower, and it is even easier to obfuscate the facts than in a criminal proceeding.

Thanks again for a good post from the eyes of a police officer. I think doing a BAC test is an excellent idea (personally).


C4