Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Case Law on Number of Rounds Fired

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    97
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    This case is believed to be being prosecuted based mostly on the number of rounds fired by police.

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ok...lved-shooting/

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,655
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTick View Post
    This case is believed to be being prosecuted based mostly on the number of rounds fired by police.

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ok...lved-shooting/
    I totally forgot about that one. Anyone care to take bets that this Lt. attended a DoJ-BJA SLATT workshop on Criminal Elements of the Sovereign Citizen Movement?
    What if this whole crusade's a charade?
    And behind it all there's a price to be paid
    For the blood which we dine
    Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,625
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I really don't think the Oklahoma Case is really germane to this discussion. I'd like to know who the expert witnesses were, and what they said. In that area of Oklahoma, Kay County, I'd think it would be likely that any Grand Jury empaneled wouldn't be overtly anti-LE, so I'd like to know what the issues addressed were.

    On a side note, a long time ago, several years after Garner, I saw the coolest poster ever on a convenience store door. IIRC it had a picture of a uniformed officer complete with campaign hat aiming a shotgun at the camera - the caption said 'The Blackwell Police Department Shoots ARmed Robbers.' As I said that was so long ago it wouldn't have any bearing on the current case

    That being said, unless you are part of a three person burn 'em to the ground 54 round shoot-out on one subject, reasonable multiple shots fired in your defense won't be an issue. If you look at police cases where rounds fired are made into an issue, you generally have multiple officers firing, often in cases where they have misidentified the presence of a weapon, or other errors.

    Where you will possibly/probably get into trouble is if you do anything that indicates you were anchoring or death-checking the individual. So when he quits shooting, you quit shooting, then don't shoot again unless he makes an overt move to use deadly force against you or another innocent.

    JMO
    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.

    Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    97
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 26 Inf View Post
    I really don't think the Oklahoma Case is really germane to this discussion. I'd like to know who the expert witnesses were, and what they said. In that area of Oklahoma, Kay County, I'd think it would be likely that any Grand Jury empaneled wouldn't be overtly anti-LE, so I'd like to know what the issues addressed were.

    On a side note, a long time ago, several years after Garner, I saw the coolest poster ever on a convenience store door. IIRC it had a picture of a uniformed officer complete with campaign hat aiming a shotgun at the camera - the caption said 'The Blackwell Police Department Shoots ARmed Robbers.' As I said that was so long ago it wouldn't have any bearing on the current case

    That being said, unless you are part of a three person burn 'em to the ground 54 round shoot-out on one subject, reasonable multiple shots fired in your defense won't be an issue. If you look at police cases where rounds fired are made into an issue, you generally have multiple officers firing, often in cases where they have misidentified the presence of a weapon, or other errors.

    Where you will possibly/probably get into trouble is if you do anything that indicates you were anchoring or death-checking the individual. So when he quits shooting, you quit shooting, then don't shoot again unless he makes an overt move to use deadly force against you or another innocent.

    JMO
    I have to disagree that the case isn't relevant to the OP. Obviously we don't know exactly who said what during the GJ, but an indictment was handed down and it's quite possible that a large part of it had to do with the number of rounds that Lt. Mitchell fired within the time frame that he fired them. I completely agree with the theory that a high round count fired by multiple officers is easily achievable, but this wasn't that. This was one officer going through two AR magazines. There's a difference in the way a jury, right or wrong, is going to look at one cop going through 52 rounds from his G17 with two reloads that allow time to assess as opposed to three cops each firing a magazine or if one cop fired 34 rounds while another fired 18. The jury, again right or wrong, is going to want to know why the first cop fired until lock-back, reloaded, and then poured it on again while the other didn't. I know you know what I mean.

    We won't know until this goes to criminal and/or civil trial if that was a deciding factor, but it absolutely could be. In my opinion (take that for what it's worth), it probably was the main reason for the indictment because, it appears to me based on information available to the public, that you could easily articulate that the subject was a threat of serious bodily injury or death and therefore deadly force was justified. It's just how and how much it was applied to include *possible* anchor shots. The shooting "looks bad", but we all know that does not mean that it isn't "clean", but it's easy to pull on a GJ's heartstrings by just playing the video showing the volume of fire.

    But, as far as case law, this isn't that specifically and wouldn't be for quite a long time if it even becomes so, which is likely won't
    Last edited by TheTick; 03-28-20 at 05:50.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,625
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Tick - PM'ed you
    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.

    Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •