If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[Koda]

I am having a hard time conceiving of a scenario where there would be an interim time in there.

He had time to tackle and subdue the first kid after he complied and dropped the gun.. That fight was over.
Also keep in mind we stiil dont know if a jury would find it unresonable to believe a gun that looks exactly like a Glock is reasonable to believe its a Glock. That opinion even here is still split 50 50. When we started this topic we all assumed the kid had a gun in hand. If video shows that true then my points are more valid.

And no, im not defending the guy. The arguments about him starting the fight when wrong is valid and probably what will sink him.

 

[RVTECH]

Finally the reports that we have of the - ah hem - shot placement indicate that some large number of those shots cannot really be justified

Yea, kinda like the one in the side and the six in the back?

IF security footage reveals what was reported, IE that he stood over him and shot him in the back six times - most likely nothing else will matter and this will fry him.

 

[lucusloc]

He had time to tackle and subdue the first kid after he complied and dropped the gun.. That fight was over.
Also keep in mind we stiil dont know if a jury would find it unresonable to believe a gun that looks exactly like a Glock is reasonable to believe its a Glock. That opinion even here is still split 50 50. When we started this topic we all assumed the kid had a gun in hand. If video shows that true then my points are more valid.

And no, im not defending the guy. The arguments about him starting the fight when wrong is valid and probably what will sink him.

I'm not even arguing about whether or not it was reasonable for him to assume it was a real gun. Indeed I think it is reasonable for him to assume that. My follow on point is "so what?" A gun alone is not reason enough to assume malice. You need other aggravating factors to get from "has gun" to "is bad guy". I don't see a good way for mall cop to get there from where he started. Now I agree that he could get to "that doesn't seem right, I should figure out what is up" but that level of intervention does not warrant the deployment of lethal force. It warrants caution for sure, but when you decide to insert yourself into that kind of situation you do not really get the benefit of the doubt especially when it comes to claims of "innocent self defense." I don't care how you slice it, he initiated the confrontation with all three of them. He does not get to slice it up to pretend like it is not all linked together. He had an obligation to figure things out more before he started blasting.

 

[Alexx1401]

Yea, kinda like the one in the side and the six in the back?

IF security footage reveals what was reported, IE that he stood over him and shot him in the back six times - most likely nothing else will matter and this will fry him.

While I have ZERO faith in the big media there are a few things here that make this over the top bad. The multiple shots to the back is one. Another is him trying to justify what he did to the LEO's when it was over. If he really did and this was not made up by Cops? This is him asking for a shovel when he found himself in a hole. Then there is the story that this is not the first time he wanted to play Cop. If this stuff is even "half true" you can bet he has been telling others about his fantasy for a good while. Assuming he will be of course offered some deal to plea too. If he does decide to try his luck in court they will of course get people he told his fantasy about to testify to that too. Bottom line I really do hope others who have his fantasy will either never be presented with a chance to play it out or if they are they will think twice. Not because I care if they screw up their life like this clown did. I only care because they become poster children for those who want me to not be able to carry.

 

[RVTECH]

Then there is the story that this is not the first time he wanted to play Cop.

Yes there is, and it will no doubt be used by the prosecution.

"In March of 2022, the defendant followed a person carrying a metal object that he believed to be a gun from one store, through another store, and away from the second store, all because he may need to intervene and he might have to shoot the person," wrote prosecutors. "In that case, because the defendant had called 911, trained law enforcement officers responded and were able to quickly determine that the person (Myers) was following did not have a gun and posed no threat, without anyone being hurt in the process."

 

[Yarome]

The question is what are you attempting to prevent from happening? Can you articulate it? Can you support it with other observations? We can all assume bad things are happening, and even point to "evidence" that supports the suppositions, the question if is these perceptions are reasonable or if they are nothing but paranoid fever dreams (or some in-between of those extremes).

This gets right back to my earlier question of what else tipped this guy of to a potential threat other than a gun. What behavior, mannerism or circumstance was there that said "the sum totality of this situation leads to the reasonable assumption that these kids are acting with ill intent, mean harm to others and there is no other also reasonable and innocent justification for theses actions"? That is the threshold he would have needed to jump to lethal force like he did. Past that there simply are too many other reasonable and plausible (even if stupid) scenarios he could be responding to.

The codified standard is not that you must consider and satisfy what would be a reasonable assumption to "all" people (which would require PROOF, and even then it may be disputable).

That's how assumptions work. You don't "know". Given a set of circumstances, there may exist many plausible assumptions that people might make, but to satisfy the legal requirement, whatever assumption a person acted on only has to be one of them.

IOW, "He could have assumed this or that or the other" is not a valid argument. The only thing that matters is that the assumption he did make was "reasonable" to most "reasonably minded persons".

You're right though that having reasonable presumptive cause does not in and of itself immediately grant legal authority to exert deadly force. That would require additional action on the part of the other person that could be reasonably assumed to present an imminent deadly threat. It "does" allow a person to exert equal force though. IE., If someone has a gun in their hand, but pointed at the ground, you are legally justified in drawing your firearm and holding it in your hand... pointed at the ground. A display of potential force against a display of potential force. The question is... is that the smart move? What you "can" do and what you "should" do are not always the same.

What I find curious is that.. say... if what reasonably appears to be a teen was seen walking toward an entrance to a school with what reasonably appears to be a handgun in his hand... most reasonable minds would be most likely be highly inclined to believe that the youth may have ill intentions. If we applied what's being argued in this case though, then people are basically contending that, in that set of circumstances, it would be just as "reasonable" to assume that the youth doesn't have any ill intentions. He may simply be stupidly taking a toy into the school for show and tell(?) It's wooden and part of a woodshop project assigned by the teacher(?) The youth just didn't stop to think that making his project into the shape of a handgun might not be a great idea(?)

Based on only seeing an underaged youth with what a appears to be a handgun walking toward a school entrance... it appears it would be argued by some here that it is, in fact, "unreasonable" for anyone to jump to the assumption that he might have ill intentions without additional factors. IE., Is the youth wearing a mask or tactical type clothing? What appears to be body armor? Does he have additional mags visibly on his person?

That's fair, I guess. Those may be reasonable assumptions some people "could" make and reason not to intervene.

When considering multiple assumptions I guess you also have to consider the weight of those assumptions.
A. The youth has ill intentions.
B. The youth is entirely innocent with no ill intentions.

If you act on A (appropriately) and B is true, no harm no foul and no one get's hurt.
If you act on B (chose inaction) and A is true, then people may die.

The question to consider then is what is a person willing to risk and what potential outcome are they willing to live with(?) That answer would depend on each individual.

I guess the other point here is that by choosing to intervene when a presumed threat already exists does not make the intervening individual the aggressor. He is the respondent. Exactly like LEO's are not considered the aggressor if they detain a person against their will when they have legal presumptive suspicion to do so. They are responding to an action/situation that they are legally able to assume already exists.

In this case, that only applies to the first youth though. If he did in fact point his firearm at the other 2, then he would be the aggressor. He may have assumed they might also be carrying firearms but he had no justifiable presumptive cause that they were and had no legal standing to exert any force over them. On the other hand, a LEO could. They only have to satisfy reasonable presumptive suspicion.


Getting back to this case, I do agree that the man had due presumptive cause to legally intervene with the first youth. He saw what appeared to be a real handgun being carried by what appeared to be an underage youth. That's all that was required, and at the very least, there is presumptive cause to believe it is a case of illegal possession of a handgun (without even speculating about intent). Was the level of force he exerted excessive (pointing his firearm at the youth)? In my opinion it was. Was it even the least bit smart to engage that youth... who he was legally allowed to detain... when 2 other youths were obviously with him (who he was NOT legally allowed to detain)? Flat out NO.

Mass shooters typically act alone, which he wasn't, so even assuming it's more reasonable that the youths may only be planning to rob the place it would be reasonable to also assume the other youths are also likely to be armed. Not actually seeing anything indicating they are though, the man lacked any presumptive cause, and therefore, legal authority to detain them, too.

If his assumption was true, and if nothing else... tactically speaking... it was a really stupid position to put himself in. Going in full hog displaying excessive force and barking commands that will immediately put the teens into flight or fight mode... stupider still when facing 3 to 1 in close quarters and you don't even have any legal authority over the other 2 teens.

However! How he went about it doesn't negate the fact that he did have due legal presumptive cause to intervene with the youth he witnessed carrying a firearm.


Given all that, I might have chosen to personally intervene, but my "intervention" certainly wouldn't have looked anything like his. Part of that is based on the fact that I don't personally feel like sitting in my car and jamming people up with LE based solely on what I assumed I was witnessing would be warranted. More specifically in this case, I trust myself a whole lot more than LE not to go "mag dump" on someone just because, "I thought he had a gun". Maybe if their demeanor/body language/etc was clearly menacing I might, but if they appeared to be rather benign... experience has taught me that assumptions don't often prove to be true.

More than likely I would take more of a casual and deterrent intervention approach. Maybe from a distance and behind ready cover I might put my phone camera on them and make it known they are being watched. Maybe a, "whatcha guys up to today?" to get their attention. Maybe I might have my hand moved to a pre draw position. Like flat on my front hip with my thumb under my shirt to speed up an appendix draw, but also give them clear indication that I may be carrying too. It would depend.

If they responded casually, "Oh.. it's just an airsoft I'm returning" and continued casually on their way with no overtly suspicious reaction, I might relax a bit but remain suspicious and would still follow them at a distance. My "intervention plan" basically being that if they really did intend to rob the place, my presence, attention and likely armed (in their minds) would ultimately change their minds.

If they did in fact head toward the appropriate department and follow through with a return or whatever... no harm, no foul, everyone walks away happy and no one even got jammed up unnecessarily with LE.

If their demeanor dramatically changed then I would be prepared to respond and I still have the option of calling 911 at any point. I admit though that even then it's not going to be my first priority. Not knowing there are LEO's in the near vicinity I'm still operating under the assumption they are at least 10 minutes out and likely more. No help whatsoever if the youth suddenly kicked anything off... and knowing that if they do... others in the store will immediately be calling 911, anyway. YMMV

 

[Yarome]

On the other side if you believe that he was not correct and/or justified in getting out of his car in the first place to violently assault the 3 teenagers than everything that happened after he got out of his car becomes 'Fruit Of The Poison Tree' and nothing that he did could ever be correct and/or justified.

That's quite a vast oversimplification. IE. If "Z" proves to be wrong, then "A-Y" were illegal and never should have happened. What's the flip side of that? If "Z" proved to be correct, then "A-Y' was legal and justified?

Neither case is an absolute.

 

[Yarome]

Yea, kinda like the one in the side and the six in the back?

IF security footage reveals what was reported, IE that he stood over him and shot him in the back six times - most likely nothing else will matter and this will fry him.

What was reported was that he was shot 6 times and the man "stood over him" and shot him once more. Not that he was on the ground and shot in the back repeatedly.

What does "stood over him" mean? The kid, at some point, obviously went down when he was shot and the man was still standing? Is "stood over him" media hype for affect to instill in the reader an image of a man straddling a helpless victim with a grin on his face maliciously emptying his gun into his victim? Does it track that the media thrives on enflaming peoples emotions to drive a specific narrative or to buy clicks?

Could be.

Is another possibility that the kid went down, his toy gun was within reach and the kid was still moving? The man was simply still standing and in his state of mind fired again from defaulting to his training that you keep firing until no possibility of threat exists?

Could be.

 

[lucusloc]

The codified standard is not that you must consider and satisfy what would be a reasonable assumption to "all" people (which would require PROOF, and even then it may be disputable).

That's how assumptions work. You don't "know". Given a set of circumstances, there may exist many plausible assumptions that people might make, but to satisfy the legal requirement, whatever assumption a person acted on only has to be one of them.

IOW, "He could have assumed this or that or the other" is not a valid argument. The only thing that matters is that the assumption he did make was "reasonable" to most "reasonably minded persons".

You're right though that having reasonable presumptive cause does not in and of itself immediately grant legal authority to exert deadly force. That would require additional action on the part of the other person that could be reasonably assumed to present an imminent deadly threat. It "does" allow a person to exert equal force though. IE., If someone has a gun in their hand, but pointed at the ground, you are legally justified in drawing your firearm and holding it in your hand... pointed at the ground. A display of potential force against a display of potential force. The question is... is that the smart move? What you "can" do and what you "should" do are not always the same.

What I find curious is that.. say... if what reasonably appears to be a teen was seen walking toward an entrance to a school with what reasonably appears to be a handgun in his hand... most reasonable minds would be most likely be highly inclined to believe that the youth may have ill intentions. If we applied what's being argued in this case though, then people are basically contending that, in that set of circumstances, it would be just as "reasonable" to assume that the youth doesn't have any ill intentions. He may simply be stupidly taking a toy into the school for show and tell(?) It's wooden and part of a woodshop project assigned by the teacher(?) The youth just didn't stop to think that making his project into the shape of a handgun might not be a great idea(?)

Based on only seeing an underaged youth with what a appears to be a handgun walking toward a school entrance... it appears it would be argued by some here that it is, in fact, "unreasonable" for anyone to jump to the assumption that he might have ill intentions without additional factors. IE., Is the youth wearing a mask or tactical type clothing? What appears to be body armor? Does he have additional mags visibly on his person?

That's fair, I guess. Those may be reasonable assumptions some people "could" make and reason not to intervene.

When considering multiple assumptions I guess you also have to consider the weight of those assumptions.
A. The youth has ill intentions.
B. The youth is entirely innocent with no ill intentions.

If you act on A (appropriately) and B is true, no harm no foul and no one get's hurt.
If you act on B (chose inaction) and A is true, then people may die.

The question to consider then is what is a person willing to risk and what potential outcome are they willing to live with(?) That answer would depend on each individual.

I guess the other point here is that by choosing to intervene when a presumed threat already exists does not make the intervening individual the aggressor. He is the respondent. Exactly like LEO's are not considered the aggressor if they detain a person against their will when they have legal presumptive suspicion to do so. They are responding to an action/situation that they are legally able to assume already exists.

In this case, that only applies to the first youth though. If he did in fact point his firearm at the other 2, then he would be the aggressor. He may have assumed they might also be carrying firearms but he had no justifiable presumptive cause that they were and had no legal standing to exert any force over them. On the other hand, a LEO could. They only have to satisfy reasonable presumptive suspicion.


Getting back to this case, I do agree that the man had due presumptive cause to legally intervene with the first youth. He saw what appeared to be a real handgun being carried by what appeared to be an underage youth. That's all that was required, and at the very least, there is presumptive cause to believe it is a case of illegal possession of a handgun (without even speculating about intent). Was the level of force he exerted excessive (pointing his firearm at the youth)? In my opinion it was. Was it even the least bit smart to engage that youth... who he was legally allowed to detain... when 2 other youths were obviously with him (who he was NOT legally allowed to detain)? Flat out NO.

Mass shooters typically act alone, which he wasn't, so even assuming it's more reasonable that the youths may only be planning to rob the place it would be reasonable to also assume the other youths are also likely to be armed. Not actually seeing anything indicating they are though, the man lacked any presumptive cause, and therefore, legal authority to detain them, too.

If his assumption was true, and if nothing else... tactically speaking... it was a really stupid position to put himself in. Going in full hog displaying excessive force and barking commands that will immediately put the teens into flight or fight mode... stupider still when facing 3 to 1 in close quarters and you don't even have any legal authority over the other 2 teens.

However! How he went about it doesn't negate the fact that he did have due legal presumptive cause to intervene with the youth he witnessed carrying a firearm.


Given all that, I might have chosen to personally intervene, but my "intervention" certainly wouldn't have looked anything like his. Part of that is based on the fact that I don't personally feel like sitting in my car and jamming people up with LE based solely on what I assumed I was witnessing would be warranted. More specifically in this case, I trust myself a whole lot more than LE not to go "mag dump" on someone just because, "I thought he had a gun". Maybe if their demeanor/body language/etc was clearly menacing I might, but if they appeared to be rather benign... experience has taught me that assumptions don't often prove to be true.

More than likely I would take more of a casual and deterrent intervention approach. Maybe from a distance and behind ready cover I might put my phone camera on them and make it known they are being watched. Maybe a, "whatcha guys up to today?" to get their attention. Maybe I might have my hand moved to a pre draw position. Like flat on my front hip with my thumb under my shirt to speed up an appendix draw, but also give them clear indication that I may be carrying too. It would depend.

If they responded casually, "Oh.. it's just an airsoft I'm returning" and continued casually on their way with no overtly suspicious reaction, I might relax a bit but remain suspicious and would still follow them at a distance. My "intervention plan" basically being that if they really did intend to rob the place, my presence, attention and likely armed (in their minds) would ultimately change their minds.

If they did in fact head toward the appropriate department and follow through with a return or whatever... no harm, no foul, everyone walks away happy and no one even got jammed up unnecessarily with LE.

If their demeanor dramatically changed then I would be prepared to respond and I still have the option of calling 911 at any point. I admit though that even then it's not going to be my first priority. Not knowing there are LEO's in the near vicinity I'm still operating under the assumption they are at least 10 minutes out and likely more. No help whatsoever if the youth suddenly kicked anything off... and knowing that if they do... others in the store will immediately be calling 911, anyway. YMMV

Absolutely, and this is what I was talking about in some of my other comments. Did the mall cop have justification to engage with the teens? He sure did. Did he have justification to jump straight to lethal force while doing so? He did not.

Now he could have had justification to jump straight to lethal force if, for example, the teens had engaged him, maybe with some intent to jump scare or some other shenanigans the youts do for "social clout" or whatever. That would have significantly changed the calculus of the situation and would have rendered moot any questions of defensive standing. He would have been well justified to assume the worst and act on it, not least of all because he was no longer in control of how fast the situation played out. In such a scenario the intent and equipment of the teens would have been irrelevant, all that would matter is how fast the guy could process and react to the know (to him) circumstances.

But that was not how it went down. He chose the manner and speed of the initial contact, he choose the level of force to present for the initial contact and he dictated the terms that the engagement would end on. And he did all that, quite tragically, based on a false premise.

I largely concur with your presentation of the correct process to engage with those teens. Is it more risky if they did have real guns with real intent to use them maliciously? Absolutely. If the had ill intent you are giving up the element of surprise and allowing them the chance to retaliate against you before you are fully prepared to respond to such an attack. If you knew you were going into a bad situation that would probably be one of the worse ways to do it.

If you knew.

But this goes back to my earlier comments of how do you know? Do you get to assume the worst from every driver who glares at you as you cross a crosswalk, thinking they are just waiting for the opportune moment to plow you over? Maybe the guy walking down the side of the highway is actually an arsonist, and it is imperative that you detain him least he start some new massive fire that kills a dozen people (as happened a few years ago). Where do we cross the line between fantasy and reasonable assumption?

Well actually "reasonable person" standards are not exactly explicitly defined, but are at least decently well understood. Most lawyers who deal with such things have a decent grasp on it, and there are indeed whole treaties written on the topic and dissecting the grey zones around the edges. My own understanding of the topic leads me to conclude this guy was nowhere near that line, no matter how fuzzy you try to make it. Yes, he had every right to take some kind of action with those kids given the circumstances. Actions like you describe would have been both reasonable and moderately safe for both parties no matter what the outcome of the initial contact was. If he had done that everyone would have gone home safely after things got sorted out. But he was stuck in fantasy land making wild assumptions, pushing the altercation forwards way too fast and escalating what was once a not out of control situation into one that was. Definitely a textbook case for how not to do it.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

That's quite a vast oversimplification. IE. If "Z" proves to be wrong, then "A-Y" were illegal and never should have happened. What's the flip side of that? If "Z" proved to be correct, then "A-Y' was legal and justified?

Neither case is an absolute.

You are just proving my point

 

[Yarome]

He had time to tackle and subdue the first kid after he complied and dropped the gun.. That fight was over.
Also keep in mind we stiil dont know if a jury would find it unresonable to believe a gun that looks exactly like a Glock is reasonable to believe its a Glock. That opinion even here is still split 50 50. When we started this topic we all assumed the kid had a gun in hand. If video shows that true then my points are more valid.

And no, im not defending the guy. The arguments about him starting the fight when wrong is valid and probably what will sink him.

As I see it, regardless of what happened leading up to it, the insurmountable issue with the shoot itself it that he only assumed the other kid had a gun. By all reports he didn't actually see one, and simply reaching for... "something"... didn't provide cause or present an imminent threat before he decided to swiss cheese the poor kid.

It proved out he did have an airsoft, but even if he WAS reaching, it's more reasonable to assume the kid knew it was just an airsoft, had zero intention of trying to threaten the man with it and, at most, was intending to remove it and place it on the ground. At no time did he actually withdraw it and raise it as if to present a presumptive imminent threat before he was shot.

No doubt the guys gonna hang.

 

[Flopsweat]

If I'm taking an airsoft gun back to a store it's going in a box or a bag. If I see someone going to rob a store, I'll call 911 and keep an eye out, but that will be all. One exception is one particular local, family-owned convenience store. Everyone is super nice and I've spoken with the father of the family several times. We all get along well. If you try to rob them, I'm going to take that personally and act accordingly. If you want to rob a store while I'm inside, so long as you don't trap me in the store or point a gun at me, this is what we have cops for. For those who won't or can't defend themselves.

It seems like both sides were stupid. The kid was a little stupid and the shooter was colossally, criminally stupid. He's going to be found guilty, and the court should not accept a plea deal.

 

[lucusloc]

That's quite a vast oversimplification. IE. If "Z" proves to be wrong, then "A-Y" were illegal and never should have happened. What's the flip side of that? If "Z" proved to be correct, then "A-Y' was legal and justified?

Neither case is an absolute.

I already covered this. This guys mentality was incorrect no matter how you slice it. He went in with preconceived notions that he acted on before validating if they were true. But yes, this is reality, and if he had guessed correctly no one would be the wiser. We would have a story about a guy who confronted some dangerous teens, wound up shooting one of them and the entire thing would have appeared 100% justified to all outside observers. Every assumption that he made would have had some corroborating fact that would back up his claim whether he knew them in the moment or not. How would anyone know they were a guess at the moment he took action? We wouldn't, and therefor would never be having this conversation. The only reason we know he was guessing in his actions was because those guesses turned out to be wrong. How could he know they were going to rob the store when they had a justified reason to be there? How could he know they were a threat when they weren't? Obviously he could not know these things, which is how we can work backwards to discover that he was mentally in the wrong space before he even started. Indeed that is the only way we can work back to that conclusion. If it had gone the other way the only real conclusion we could come to would be he was a damn good observer (with, maybe, only the most cynical skeptics among us whining that "he got lucky").

But even in the situation where he guessed right that would not make his starting mentality correct, it just means we would not be able to detect that incorrect mentality and he would have been lucky, not good.

 

[Yarome]

You are just proving my point

Read it again. It's a rhetorical question and I "don't" agree with that ideology. Absolutism rarely exists and you can't deem all preceding events either valid or not based solely on the ultimate outcome.

 

[Flopsweat]

Read it again. It's a rhetorical question and I "don't" agree with that ideology. Absolutism rarely exists and you can't deem all preceding events either valid or not based solely on the ultimate outcome.

I don't trust absolutists. Not a one of them.

 

[Koda]

On the other side if you believe that he was not correct and/or justified in getting out of his car in the first place to violently assault the 3 teenagers than everything that happened after he got out of his car becomes 'Fruit Of The Poison Tree' and nothing that he did could ever be correct and/or justified.

Curiosity got me to dig where I got it from. Super short version: your correct, I'm wrong.

Long version: I'm right that some cases can be separated in separate instances where the second instance (fight) the aggressor can be justified to defend themselves but only if the aggressor (mall cop) "regains innocence" by clearly stating they no longer want to fight by communicating their withdrawl. [Source]
Anyways, I concede the second separate fight argument and say the discussion was a good way to refresh that topic.

Mall cops only hope is if he can convince the jury it was reasonable to assault someone over the possession of a gun which IIRC the overwhelming consensus here we all agree is not reasonable. Mall cop is toast.

 

[Flopsweat]

Curiosity got me to dig where I got it from. Super short version: your correct, I'm wrong.

Long version: I'm right that some cases can be separated in separate instances where the second instance (fight) the aggressor can be justified to defend themselves but only if the aggressor (mall cop) "regains innocence" by clearly stating they no longer want to fight by communicating their withdrawl. [Source]
Anyways, I concede the second separate fight argument and say the discussion was a good way to refresh that topic.

Mall cops only hope is if he can convince the jury it was reasonable to assault someone over the possession of a gun which IIRC the overwhelming consensus here we all agree is not reasonable. Mall cop is toast.

That is a great response. Good on yah.

 

[lucusloc]

Curiosity got me to dig where I got it from. Super short version: your correct, I'm wrong.

Long version: I'm right that some cases can be separated in separate instances where the second instance (fight) the aggressor can be justified to defend themselves but only if the aggressor (mall cop) "regains innocence" by clearly stating they no longer want to fight by communicating their withdrawl. [Source]
Anyways, I concede the second separate fight argument and say the discussion was a good way to refresh that topic.

Mall cops only hope is if he can convince the jury it was reasonable to assault someone over the possession of a gun which IIRC the overwhelming consensus here we all agree is not reasonable. Mall cop is toast.

Yeah, that is what I was trying to communicate in an earlier post. There has to be a clearly delineated break and cessation of the altercation before you can reclaim innocence of starting something. This can be by clear communication, but it can also be by one or both parties leaving and then recontacting or having a third party intervene and "break up the (first) fight" or possibly some other way. I just do not see it here at all and it seems there is pretty clear case law that backs that assessment up. That is great info to have hard data on, thanks for digging.

 

[Yarome]

Mall cops only hope is if he can convince the jury it was reasonable to assault someone over the possession of a gun which IIRC the overwhelming consensus here we all agree is not reasonable. Mall cop is toast.

Yup. In the first case with the first teen, it was justifiable. Using deadly force against the second teen was not.

I think the only way a self defense claim would have even the slightest bit of weight would be if the teen was verbally threatening him at the time he was supposedly reaching. IE., "I got my gun too and gonna kill you MF'er!". That might demonstrate intent, but by all reports... that never happened.

Of course, not even all media reports are consistent with each other, but assuming the fair majority is "true enough", I don't see any way a self defense claim can be made. Heck, there's no cop that could walk away from this one either.

 

[Koda]

Yup. In the first case with the first teen, it was justifiable.

It might be reasonable to intervene, but it was not a proportional response. You cannot use deadly force to defend against non deadly force.