"Good Shoot?"

[ST911]

Keeping strictly within the scope of citizen-CCW where there is no duty to act...though some is applicable to LE/gov uses of force...

In simplest terms, a "good shoot" is one that meets the statutory criteria for uses of lethal force in the defense of self or third parties. A "better shoot" is a shoot in which the citzen had no other option but the use of lethal force in defense of self or third parties. Given the choice, I would choose a "better shoot", where I had no other option than lethal force, than simply a "good shoot."

I often note this distinction, as it's one that colors investigative actions, court proceedings (criminal or civil), and personal ramifications thereafter. There is a difference between force you can use, and force that you have to use. This distinction may also be expressed as a "justifiable" vs a "necessary" use of force.

Reflect on this.

[C4IGrant]

Keeping strictly within the scope of citizen-CCW where there is no duty to act...though some is applicable to LE/gov uses of force...

In simplest terms, a "good shoot" is one that meets the statutory criteria for uses of lethal force in the defense of self or third parties. A "better shoot" is a shoot in which the citzen had no other option but the use of lethal force in defense of self or third parties. Given the choice, I would choose a "better shoot", where I had no other option than lethal force, than simply a "good shoot."

I often note this distinction, as it's one that colors investigative actions, court proceedings (criminal or civil), and personal ramifications thereafter. There is a difference between force you can use, and force that you have to use. This distinction may also be expressed as a "justifiable" vs a "necessary" use of force.

Reflect on this.

Well put and a good way for Civy's to look at the use of a firearm.



C4

[stinkyDrunk]

It's asking for login. Is there a public link by chance?

Sorry about that. Got permission to repost it here.

I lost my first criminal trial in 12 years last week and my client, an MGO member, is going to be going to prison for the next 2+ years. He has given me permission to share this as a warning to others.

CLIENT was driving down an icy dirt road in January when he encountered a car stuck in the ditch. CLIENT pulled over to offer assistance. For reasons not relevant to this discussion, the driver of the stuck vehicle, an amateur cagefighter who was 15 years younger than CLIENT and outweighed him by 100lbs. became belligerent. CAGEFIGHTER started unzipping his coat and threatened to kill CLIENT.

CLIENT, reasonably fearing for the safety of himself and his wife drew his pistol and painted CAGEFIGHTER with the laser sight. CAGEFIGHTER stopped and backed up. CLIENT dropped gun to a "low ready" position. CAGEFIGHTER continues to back up and CLIENT jumps in his vehicle and leaves. While leaving CAGEFIGHTER takes down CLIENT's license plate.

CLIENT goes home and is freaked out. He has reason to believe CAGEFIGHTER knows where he lives. CLIENT decides not to call the police and report the incident. Instead, CLIENT decides to have a stiff drink, which becomes several drinks.

A couple of hours later CLIENT hears a banging outside. He looks out the window and doesn't see anything. CLIENT puts his pistol in his IWB holster and goes to his front door. Two MSP troopers who had just come out to "question" CLIENT are waiting in an ambush position. When CLIENT opens the door he finds someone blinding him with an LED flashlight and screaming at him while another person is grabbing him and throwing him to the ground. Not knowing what is going on he puts up a struggle. His shirt rides up and the gun is exposed. One of the MSP troopers screams "GUN!" and ends up disarming CLIENT after a bit. CLIENT never heard the MSP troopers identify themselves as police and only fully grasped he was being "pounced on" (in the words of the MSP troopers) by police after the cuffs were being placed.

CLIENT is charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (4-year felony) Felony Firearm (2-year MANDATORY prison term to be served prior to any other sentence), two counts of Resisting & Obstructing a Police Officer (2-year felony) and Possession of a Firearm while Intoxicated (misdemeanor).

CLIENT insists on going to trial. After a two-day trial CLIENT is found guilty of all four felonies. He is now awaiting sentencing at the Oakland County Jail.


LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

1. Always file a report if you have to draw your weapon

I always tell people not to submit to police interrogation without a lawyer present and I stick by that advice. That being said, reporting an incident to the police is NOT submitting to interrogation. CLIENT should have called 9-1-1 and reported that he had been forced to draw his weapon in a self-defense situation. He should then have said I will come into the station to make a statement after I consult with an attorney.

2. Establish a relationship with a defense attorney and always have his/her number available

Had CLIENT contacted an attorney after the encounter he would have received proper advice on how to handle the situation. By not having an attorney lined up he paid the price here.

3. Guns and alcohol do not mix.

Obvious? Yes and no. Remember, drinking does NOT nullify your right to use a gun in self-defense but it certainly make it more difficult to justify if you are inebriated.


I have intentionally omitted many of the facts of the case and won't elaborate on those. That being said, the above summary contains those most relevant. Had CLIENT done this in all likelihood he would never have been charged. CLIENT now has four felonies on his criminal record. CLIENT is going away for a minimum of two years. CLIENT is going to lose his house. CLIENT is out a significant amount of money for legal fees.

[PD Sgt.]

Well put and a good way for Civy's to look at the use of a firearm.



C4

I agree, a very good distinction to make.

[SeriousStudent]

I absolutely agree with the points IAPilot and Skintop911 make. In fact, the later gentleman and I discussed exactly that point not long ago.

There is a huge difference between "can" and "should". When I first got my CHL years ago, that was the one thing my instructor stressed above all else. And he was wise to do so.

Have To > Should > Can.

[az doug]

...
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

I too have investigated officer involved shootings and civilian shootings as both a homicide detective and homicide supervisor. A justified shooting is a justified shooting regardless of the introduction of alcohol. Undercover officers drink alcohol while on duty...

It is the facts and circumstances surrounding the shooting and your perception of those facts and circumstances that make it a justified shooting, or not. Can alcohol alter your perception, yes, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

If the shooting is justified then alcohol content of the shooter should not matter in the criminal case. Do you lose your legal right to defend yourself or an innocent third party because you had a couple drinks, or you were impaired??? Civil cases are another matter.

We draw blood from officers that are involved in shootings. We do this not only for our criminal investigation, but also to protect the officer and agency during any civil litigation.

If I were involved in a shooting, and blood was not drawn by the investigators, I would have it drawn to protect myself.

Regardless of what I just wrote, I do not believe firearms and alcohol mix.

In AZ you are justified in using deadly physical force in order to prevent serious physical injury and or death to yourself or an innocent third party.

[J-Dub]

Easy answer : What would an objectively reasonable person do? As long as its Objectively Reasonable, you're gtg.


Thats the diet version.

[gunrunner505]

Ok, my 1.5 cents on this.

According to the model penal code, lethal force is justifiable if the actor believe that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or forcible felony, i.e. rape. This is also extended to the defense of an innocent 3rd party.

Self defense boils down to basically 2 flavors, castle law and duty to retreat.

The problem with duty to retreat is that it promotes thuggery.

It emboldens the bad guy because he knows he can threaten you and you are required to run away. You have to retreat if you can do so with complete safety. But what is complete safety and how do you know for sure? Technicality used to hang you after the fact. I don't think anyone on this forum would seriously choose lethal force over leaving the area, if you can.

Now, there is a little detail in duty to retreat. According to the model penal code you only lose the right to self defense if you can avoid the need for lethal self defense with complete safety AND without undue sacrifice of ones liberty. That's a pretty broad thing if you research it.

Now, We live in a rather anti social society. Most people will not approve of someone other than the police coming to the aid of another person in need, no matter what the circumstances. I personally find that disgusting so here is a scenario laid out by my defensive pistol intructor. Who also happens to be a 25 year police veteran and master firearms instructor.

You are walking in a parking lot at the mall, you have 2 things at your disposal, a cell phone and a concealed pistol. You notice a man armed with a bat standing beside a mini van, the mini van is blocked in to the front and sides by parked cars and to the rear by the mans vehicle. There is a woman and small children in the van. The man is yelling at the woman in the van that he's going to kill her and starts beating on the van, breaks the window and starts to hit the woman with the bat.

What do you do? Do you call the police and wait for them to respond or do you shoot the guy and save this woman from almost certain death? What you see and hear in front of you meets all the guidelines for lethal force.

Either way you go you will be Monday morning quarterbacked to death. If you shoot him the wimps will ask why didn't you just call the cops? You had a cell phone right????? If you call the cops everyone, wimps included, will look at you and ask why didn't you shoot the guy and save this poor woman? You had a gun right?????

You as a citizen do not have the duty to intercede. But as many here have said, what about the moral requierment to intercede? Or the fact that it's the human thing to do?

It is a very slippery slope. And until there is some laws in place to defend the average joe who finds himself staring this situation in the face, because let's be honest, the cops can't be everywhere..... Nobody will put themselves in a position to go to prison for anyone not a family member or a real damn close good friend.

Where I live, we don't have concealed carry, but if we ever get it, unless it's me and mine, what do you do?

[Warp]

This question was brought up in another thread as in what constitutes a "good shoot" from a CCW standpoint

No, Grant, that is not what came up. You completely and totally missed the point, multiple times.

The question was: Who determines what is and is not a good shoot?

The question was asked because some people, myself included, pointed out that consuming alcohol while carrying a gun in public can, should you use your gun defensively, lead to problems that would not have existed otherwise.

You responded by saying "a good shoot is a good shoot". I asked "Who determines what is or is not a good shoot?".

The point is that it is NOT as simple as "a good shoot is a good shoot". The prosecutor, who is an elected official (read: politician) may act based upon how they want to appear in the public's eye come the next election. Don't think the prosecutor's office will simply look at the law and then look at what happened from a fair, unbias, reasonable perspective and say "yeah, I know a good shoot when I see it, and that's a good shoot". You are a fool if you think a jury if you "peers" will have no problem with the fact that you were under the influence of alcohol when you got into that drunken fistfight. (because that could be exactly how you are portrayed, accurate or not)

This is the real world we are talking about, and having alcohol in your system if you shoot somebody is not going to do you any favors. Please don't tell people that it won't be a factor. It very well could be, and people need to realize this before they make a decision.

[Warp]

Ok, my 1.5 cents on this.

According to the model penal code, lethal force is justifiable if the actor believe that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or forcible felony, i.e. rape. This is also extended to the defense of an innocent 3rd party.

Self defense boils down to basically 2 flavors, castle law and duty to retreat.

The problem with duty to retreat is that it promotes thuggery.

It emboldens the bad guy because he knows he can threaten you and you are required to run away. You have to retreat if you can do so with complete safety. But what is complete safety and how do you know for sure? Technicality used to hang you after the fact. I don't think anyone on this forum would seriously choose lethal force over leaving the area, if you can.

Now, there is a little detail in duty to retreat. According to the model penal code you only lose the right to self defense if you can avoid the need for lethal self defense with complete safety AND without undue sacrifice of ones liberty. That's a pretty broad thing if you research it.

Now, We live in a rather anti social society. Most people will not approve of someone other than the police coming to the aid of another person in need, no matter what the circumstances. I personally find that disgusting so here is a scenario laid out by my defensive pistol intructor. Who also happens to be a 25 year police veteran and master firearms instructor.

You are walking in a parking lot at the mall, you have 2 things at your disposal, a cell phone and a concealed pistol. You notice a man armed with a bat standing beside a mini van, the mini van is blocked in to the front and sides by parked cars and to the rear by the mans vehicle. There is a woman and small children in the van. The man is yelling at the woman in the van that he's going to kill her and starts beating on the van, breaks the window and starts to hit the woman with the bat.

What do you do? Do you call the police and wait for them to respond or do you shoot the guy and save this woman from almost certain death? What you see and hear in front of you meets all the guidelines for lethal force.

Either way you go you will be Monday morning quarterbacked to death. If you shoot him the wimps will ask why didn't you just call the cops? You had a cell phone right????? If you call the cops everyone, wimps included, will look at you and ask why didn't you shoot the guy and save this poor woman? You had a gun right?????

You as a citizen do not have the duty to intercede. But as many here have said, what about the moral requierment to intercede? Or the fact that it's the human thing to do?

It is a very slippery slope. And until there is some laws in place to defend the average joe who finds himself staring this situation in the face, because let's be honest, the cops can't be everywhere..... Nobody will put themselves in a position to go to prison for anyone not a family member or a real damn close good friend.

Where I live, we don't have concealed carry, but if we ever get it, unless it's me and mine, what do you do?

I intervene. I probably shoot him without saying a word, because the woman doesn't have time for me to talk to him and then wait to see if he stops. Not like he'd probably hear me or pay attention to me anyway.

But that is my answer. It may not be the answer of another. And of course that course of action involves many risks. But I am willing to accept those risks, given the situation as you presented it and I interpreted it/saw it in my mind's eye.