unarmed shooting and CCWs

[240 towles]

I was looking into a self defense shooting in erie, NY involving a man with a CCW that shot another man after being stopped in the street, physically struck and supposedly threatened with a knife.The CCW holder was convicted of murder and several other charges.
As a CCW holder myself, I have often wondered what actions could be justified when having to deal with a violent unarmed man. While equal force is considered the standard, I know of no law that says you have to get beaten before trying to stop it, and I know that it is always unwise to attempt hand to hand combat when you are armed [you could lose control of your weapon, get knocked unconscious, etc].
In the 911 call [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVcFub0byFo ] the shooter clearly tells the man to step back several times, and warns him of the repercussions of continuing his behavior. He also A: calls 911 B: asks for an ambulance and identifies himself as the shooter C: fully complies with law enforcement and alerts them to his possession of both a firearm and a CCW..
The shooter in question was a college student criminal justice major who seems to have done everything right [except for keeping a cool head, but he did just have to kill a man for the first time, so he is justifiably in shock]. The man he shot was legally drunk and also on hydracodone.

My question is, at what point does a lawful CCW holder have the right to shoot an unarmed man? Turning and running is a poor choice [especially if the chaser is faster than you] Hand to hand puts you at the disadvantage and threatens both of you with a negligent discharge. If you have your firearm drawn, and the person you are attempting to stop calls your bluff, what do you do?

 

[Docster]

The answer to that question will not be general, but based to a large degree on the laws of the state one is in. That's why it's a good idea for all CC's to be very well-versed in state law and when NOT to shoot.

 

[lx1x]

The answer to that question will not be general, but based to a large degree on the laws of the state one is in. That's why it's a good idea for all CC's to be very well-versed in state law and when NOT to shoot.

this..

just learned recently also about "use of force continuum" (Maryland State Handgun Qualification Instructor Class)

plenty of civilian charts out there but here's sample.

its to easy to move up the ladder but the outcome is higher too.. and no stepping down either.

 

[240 towles]

So according to that graph, you must be receiving a felony assault before you can fire? Or you must be receiving an assault before you can even draw?

 

[lx1x]

So according to that graph, you must be receiving a felony assault before you can fire? Or you must be receiving an assault before you can even draw?

if you make bad decisions that's what you going to get or equals to if the outcome doesn't favor your action.

dont know the full story..

the guy probably just threat the ccw with a knife.. but ccw shot the knife wielding person anyways which made him the aggressor..

the outcome would have change if the knife wielding person started striking or in a motion of striking the ccw holder.. he could have walked free.

 

[hvymax]

Why I keep 55gal drums handy.

 

[240 towles]

if you make bad decisions that's what you going to get or equals to if the outcome doesn't favor your action.

dont know the full story..

the guy probably just threat the ccw with a knife.. but ccw shot the knife wielding person anyways which made him the aggressor..

the outcome would have change if the knife wielding person started striking or in a motion of striking the ccw holder.. he could have walked free.

The story as best I could decipher it was that the CCW was driving next to this guys house and was speeding [possibly not the first time]. The victim forcibly stops the car by standing in the road. The victim is with his brother and there are more people in the house. The victim has been drinking [.014] and is also taking hydrocodone [possibly for back issues]. The CCW driver exits the vehicle [possibly to see why the man stopped him] the man is loud and obnoxious and supposedly wielding a knife [not recovered]. The man punches the CCW in the face. The shooter pulls his weapon and tells the man to stay back/ get back and calls 911. The victim refuses and attempts to disarm the CCW [the victims brother confirmed this] the CCW gains some distance and calls 911 while holding the victim at gunpoint. He instructs the victim to not move any closer, but the victim continues and is shot. Another house guest states he is going to get his gun and enters the home. The CCW continues to hold the brother at a distance via gunpoint while maintaining contact with 911 until the police arrive. The CCW holder was found guilty of murder in 2010 and has tried to appeal.

 

[lx1x]

The story as best I could decipher it was that the CCW was driving next to this guys house and was speeding [possibly not the first time]. The victim forcibly stops the car by standing in the road. The victim is with his brother and there are more people in the house. The victim has been drinking and is also taking hydrocodone [possibly for back issues]. The CCW driver exits the vehicle [possibly to see why the man stopped him] the man is loud and obnoxious and supposedly wielding a knife [not recovered]. The man punches the CCW in the face. The shooter pulls his weapon and tells the man to stay back/ get back and calls 911. The victim refuses and attempts to disarm the CCW [the victims brother confirmed this] the CCW gains some distance and calls 911 while holding the victim at gunpoint. He instructs the victim to not move any closer, but the victim continues and is shot. Another house guest states he is going to get his gun and enters the home. The CCW continues to hold the brother at a distance via gunpoint while maintaining contact with 911 until the police arrive. The CCW holder was found guilty of murder in 2010 and has tried to appeal.

i can see why he was charged. first mistake (first ladder).. he got out of his car (he had the option to retreat) which he didnt. mistake two (jump to ladder 4).. pulled his gun without 100% proof the other guy have a weapon.

like i said.. the victim was empty handed (no weapon) aggressor.. ccw initiated the weapon which in turn made him the aggressor. used deadly force even (dont think you mentioned if the drunk guy started punching).

 

[240 towles]

according to the CCW holder, he was punched before drawing. I see the option for retreat, but, if someone stops your vehicle, they may need assistance/ help and getting out of the vehicle shouldn't be considered as an immediate bar for self defense. After being struck, I personally would draw my weapon as I see no lawful reason for anyone to have to take a beating for any reason. Not saying you have to fire, but there should be no issue with drawing once a bodily threat has been established. Just because an individual is not armed, doesn't mean they are not dangerous. Imagine if you struck a police officer, would he have to see a weapon before drawing his? Not taking into account the less than lethal options for force that officers have at thier disposal.

 

[lx1x]

just saw the link you posted.. ccw said drunk guy tried to punch him and/or trying to grab something and shot was heard.

too quick the time has gone by.. ccw didnt know what to do but chose to shoot the drunk guy.

i highly doubt any leo will pull their sidearms without restraining an empty handed assailant (yes.. i know there are few that will).

back to the ladder.. the ccw jump the ladder 0 to 4 within a second without assessing the scene. the reason why he was charged.

im speaking for myself here... training is major influence on ccw. if you dont know how to handle the situation at hand quickly and make judgement accordingly, it can turn in the wrong way and get you in trouble. not only with ccw... i've been trained to deal with hand to hand fight.. same way, the ladder scenario, been taught to us. if you can walk.. walk away... if not.. verbal vs verbal.. hand vs hand... weapon vs weapon. you have to be equal or less than the aggressor to come out as the victim.. not other way around.

 

[240 towles]

I agree with your post except for the hand to hand. No person has a right to make you fight with them, nor make you a victim of their assault. If you draw on a person who has or is attempting to cause you bodily harm, the choice is now in their hands to comply and stand down, or to go for the gun in which the shooter has every right to defend themselves and their firearm. Last time i was at weapons retention [about 6 months ago] any attempt at taking an officers firearm was cause for lethal force.

 

[lx1x]

I agree with your post except for the hand to hand. No person has a right to make you fight with them, nor make you a victim of their assault. If you draw on a person who has or is attempting to cause you bodily harm, the choice is now in their hands to comply and stand down, or to go for the gun in which the shooter has every right to defend themselves and their firearm. Last time i was at weapons retention [about 6 months ago] any attempt at taking an officers firearm was cause for lethal force.

I agree with you.. but we didn't see the taking part.. its only hearsay from the ccw via the phone call.

The ccw still had control of the situation until the gunshot which made him the aggressor in the eye of the jury.

I surely can understand the two vs one scenario. But this wasn't the case since it was all verbal until the "punch" and "taking" ccws gun from him.

 

[marko]

Alot of us "ANGRY" guys probably would be better off without a CCW.

 

[lx1x]

Alot of us "ANGRY" guys probably would be better off without a CCW.

That or take anger management class.

 

[HeatSeeker]

Looking at a graph or reading what constitutes using lethal force is where I get a little confused. You see it is just too easy to say when or to show on a graph when a person can decide to use deadly force. Actually being in the situation is an entirely different ballgame. Lets use this scenario: You are outside of your home, it is dark, you see someone that you have not seen in your neighborhood in the past walking behind the homes, and that person is wearing a hood that looks like they might be trying to hide their identity. In the process of trying to see what they are up to, they attack you. You end up with your nose smashed on your face. Anyone that has ever had their nose broken by a punch knows that you would now be in a great deal of pain, bleeding, and most likely bordering on losing consciousness. No matter what happened leading up to this point, you are now the victim of a violent crime, but it does not stop there. Now the person is on top of you and is pounding your head into the ground. This is where I get a little confused about how long I am suppose to wait before I can decide between using reasonable force or deadly force to try and stop this brutal attack. Try to think of being in this situation and then decide if you should be reasonable and just try to cover up and hope you do not pass out or die before the cops get there or if you should use any means possible to stop this attack before you do pass out and end up dead.

 

[obnoxious2]

Replace the shooter with a cop and you know that they would have skated by with no story

 

[lx1x]

Looking at a graph or reading what constitutes using lethal force is where I get a little confused. You see it is just too easy to say when or to show on a graph when a person can decide to use deadly force. Actually being in the situation is an entirely different ballgame. Lets use this scenario: You are outside of your home, it is dark, you see someone that you have not seen in your neighborhood in the past walking behind the homes, and that person is wearing a hood that looks like they might be trying to hide their identity. In the process of trying to see what they are up to, they attack you. You end up with your nose smashed on your face. Anyone that has ever had their nose broken by a punch knows that you would now be in a great deal of pain, bleeding, and most likely bordering on losing consciousness. No matter what happened leading up to this point, you are now the victim of a violent crime, but it does not stop there. Now the person is on top of you and is pounding your head into the ground. This is where I get a little confused about how long I am suppose to wait before I can decide between using reasonable force or deadly force to try and stop this brutal attack. Try to think of being in this situation and then decide if you should be reasonable and just try to cover up and hope you do not pass out or die before the cops get there or if you should use any means possible to stop this attack before you do pass out and end up dead.

Hmmm that sounds familiar. Lmao

 

[HeatSeeker]

The story as best I could decipher it was that the CCW was driving next to this guys house and was speeding [possibly not the first time]. The victim forcibly stops the car by standing in the road. The victim is with his brother and there are more people in the house. The victim has been drinking [.014] and is also taking hydrocodone [possibly for back issues]. The CCW driver exits the vehicle [possibly to see why the man stopped him] the man is loud and obnoxious and supposedly wielding a knife [not recovered]. The man punches the CCW in the face. The shooter pulls his weapon and tells the man to stay back/ get back and calls 911. The victim refuses and attempts to disarm the CCW [the victims brother confirmed this] the CCW gains some distance and calls 911 while holding the victim at gunpoint. He instructs the victim to not move any closer, but the victim continues and is shot. Another house guest states he is going to get his gun and enters the home. The CCW continues to hold the brother at a distance via gunpoint while maintaining contact with 911 until the police arrive. The CCW holder was found guilty of murder in 2010 and has tried to appeal.

As far as I can see, and especially if Zimmerman is found guilty, the only way a CCW can justify using their weapon is if they are being assaulted with a deadly weapon(gun, knife). If Zimmerman is found guilty it will set a precedent pertaining to self defense. Even if someone is beating you to death you will not be justified in using deadly force to stop the attack. You will just have to take the beating and hope that you will survive because if you shoot them you will go to jail.

 

[240 towles]

I agree with you.. but we didn't see the taking part.. its only hearsay from the ccw via the phone call.

The ccw still had control of the situation until the gunshot which made him the aggressor in the eye of the jury.

I surely can understand the two vs one scenario. But this wasn't the case since it was all verbal until the "punch" and "taking" ccws gun from him.

Though none of the victims friends or family backed the story involving a knife, or the initial punch, the brother of the deceased did testify as to his brother trying to disarm the CCW holder with strikes/ blows. And I made a mistake, the BAC was .14

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090627/NEWS02/306269852

 

[lx1x]

Though none of the victims friends or family backed the story involving a knife, or the initial punch, the brother of the deceased did testify as to his brother trying to disarm the CCW holder with strikes/ blows. And I made a mistake, the BAC was .14

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090627/NEWS02/306269852

Yup.. Exactly what I thought per article.. Got out of car with gun out.

Ccw may be criminal justice student in which probably studied multiple threat charts in his study. still failed to assess the situation at hand and to keep his mouth shut when the police came (The police even mention for him to stop talking) which got him to jail.