If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[Yarome]

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

Which he didn't use against the first teen. He threatened the use of deadly force, yes. He was also facing a person with what he presumed to be a gun in his hand which would be valid to assume presented a deadly threat until the youth disarmed himself.

I think it's quite a gray areas to try and argue that it isn't reasonable to point your gun at someone with a gun in their hand... when all they have to do is raise it before you can raise yours. In that case the prosecution would have to argue that he used a disparity of force. Two people, both with guns in their hands, regardless of where they are pointing, is a pretty hard argument to make a disparity of force claim.

 

[Koda]

Which he didn't use against the first teen. He threatened the use of deadly force, yes.

Thats using deadly force.

I think it's quite a gray areas to try and argue that it isn't reasonable to point your gun at someone with a gun in their hand... when all they have to do is raise it before you can raise yours

If you can cite the article that said his gun was in his hand I might agree with you.

 

[Member 24198]

Thats using deadly force.


If you can cite the article that said his gun was in his hand ill agree with you.

View: https://youtu.be/f16XSB2cORg?feature=shared

 

[Yarome]

Thats using deadly force.

If you can cite the article that said his gun was in his hand I might agree with you.

So if pointing a gun at someone is "using deadly force", what is it called when someone actually shoots someone? "Using used deadly force"?

I guess I would still contend that pointing is threatening deadly force, not using it.

Doing a google search and randomly selecting 5 of many articles none said, "gun in his hand". There were 3 variations used. "Held an airsoft gun", "holding a gun" and "carrying a gun". Maybe it's just an assumption that it means "in his hand" since a person who is holding, held or is carrying something... say like a cellphone, a gun, a pen... typically performs that action with their hand. Versus... when additional qualifiers are used when the "default" does not apply. IE., "Carrying a gun in his pocket/waistband', "held a pen in his mouth", "holding a cellphone in his armpit", etc.

I could be wrong.

 

[lucusloc]

So if pointing a gun at someone is "using deadly force", what is it called when someone actually shoots someone? "Using used deadly force"?

I guess I would still contend that pointing is threatening deadly force, not using it.

Doing a google search and randomly selecting 5 of many articles none said, "gun in his hand". There were 3 variations used. "Held an airsoft gun", "holding a gun" and "carrying a gun". Maybe it's just an assumption that it means "in his hand" since a person who is holding, held or is carrying something... say like a cellphone, a gun, a pen... typically performs that action with their hand. Versus... when additional qualifiers are used when the "default" does not apply. IE., "Carrying a gun in his pocket/waistband', "held a pen in his mouth", "holding a cellphone in his armpit", etc.

I could be wrong.

There is some very minor grey here around the edge cases, but legally speaking the vast majority of time threatening deadly force is equivalent to using deadly force. The only real exceptions I can think of are cases that hinge on the actual injury caused. Maybe someone else can remember cases where there was a clear distinction made between the threat of use and actual use?

 

[Koda]

Maybe someone else can remember cases where there was a clear distinction made between the threat of use and actual use?

It comes down to the fact that the persons life is in immediate danger. There is no legal requirement to " wait and see" (so to speak here).

 

[Koda]

I guess I would still contend that pointing is threatening deadly force, not using it.

Makes no difference. If your not justified in using deadly force your not justified in threatening to use deadly force.
You should know this, if you dont nows the time to write this down...

The mall cop is " finding out", my guess he will be charged with felony ( because he used deadly force) assault on the first guy, murder on the second guy.

 

[lucusloc]

It comes down to the fact that the persons life is in immediate danger. There is no legal requirement to " wait and see" (so to speak here).

Yep. But I do not see any indication that the teens were putting anyone in immanent danger, actually or perceptually. Their "gun" was not being pointed or threatening, just being held. That is alarming and is probably cause for concern, but worst case it would be brandishing, which is a lesser offense than pointing/threatening (in most jurisdictions anyway).

 

[Koda]

Yep. But I do not see any indication that the teens were putting anyone in immanent danger, actually or perceptually. Their "gun" was not being pointed or threatening, just being held. That is alarming and is probably cause for concern, but worst case it would be brandishing, which is a lesser offense than pointing/threatening (in most jurisdictions anyway).

Exactly.
This is the root of mall cops mistake.

Immenance is one of the 5 elements required to use self defense ( in all states). Mall cop failed to find them before acting.

 

[lucusloc]

Exactly.
This is the root of mall cops mistake.

Immenance is one of the 5 elements required to use self defense ( in all states). Mall cop failed to find them before acting.

Legally speaking probably. I would argue that the root of his problem stems from wanting to play hero and not checking his preconceptions against reality before acting.

 

[Alexx1401]

Exactly.
This is the root of mall cops mistake.

Immenance is one of the 5 elements required to use self defense ( in all states). Mall cop failed to find them before acting.

His (Mall Cop) mistakes were so many its hard to imagine. Started with him jumping out of his car to play hero instead of calling 911. Then the open panic of him firing multiple times into someone's back. Then icing on the cake him trying to "tell his side" to Police after it was over. If other people who carry learn nothing else from this I would hope they get that last one. No matter how "good" the shoot seemed do NOT start trying to talk your way out of it. After you are read your rights wait for a lawyer to talk. Even shoots that were FAR better than this one see the shooter in a bind after their mouth starts going.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Remember that mall shooting?. guy gutshot an unarmed pesterer/ prankster and walked.

 

[Koda]

Legally speaking probably. I would argue that the root of his problem stems from wanting to play hero and not checking his preconceptions against reality before acting.

Im still going to leave out the hero part, many people act on good intentions.

My guess is he fell back entirely on his use of force training ( clearly he dominated the situation) thinking he had the tactical skills to intervene, but had zero training on the legality of using deadly force.
Ive said it before in this forum, before anyone recommends handgun training they should be recommending legal training.

 

[Koda]

Remember that mall shooting?. guy gutshot an unarmed pesterer/ prankster and walked.

Pranksters brought the fight to him, and he made every effort to deescalate and flee.
Huge difference.

 

[Alexx1401]

Remember that mall shooting?. guy gutshot an unarmed pesterer/ prankster and walked.

Are you talking about the guy who was some kind of food delivery driver and that moron was holding a phone up to him? I thought they did convict the guy of something from that. Not the shoot but some other crime?? Been too long since it happened. I'm sure someone here will remember if it is that one you are talking about?

 

[Yarome]

Makes no difference. If your not justified in using deadly force your not justified in threatening to use deadly force.
You should know this, if you dont nows the time to write this down...

The mall cop is " finding out", my guess he will be charged with felony ( because he used deadly force) assault on the first guy, murder on the second guy.

Obviously, I agree you are right in that you can't threaten the use of deadly force if the use of deadly force is not legally allowed. But they are not one and the same. Just like there were two parts denoting two different actions in that last sentence.. that you also used... right(?)

When a firearm is involved there is no way to argue that a person used deadly force without a trigger being pulled. It most absolutely does make a difference and there are very clear distinctions.

That's exactly why there are so many different types of charges for varying degrees and types of firearm use.

 

[Koda]

When a firearm is involved there is no way to argue that a person used deadly force without a trigger being pulled. It most absolutely does make a difference and there are very clear distinctions.

The only difference is in the charges brought against you.

 

[Flopsweat]

Obviously, I agree you are right in that you can't threaten the use of deadly force if the use of deadly force is not legally allowed. But they are not one and the same. Just like there were two parts denoting two different actions in that last sentence.. that you also used... right(?)

When a firearm is involved there is no way to argue that a person used deadly force without a trigger being pulled. It most absolutely does make a difference and there are very clear distinctions.

That's exactly why there are so many different types of charges for varying degrees and types of firearm use.

Well I don't know about that. If someone tried to mug you and you pointed a gun at them and they ran away, that would count as a defensive gun use. You used a gun to defend yourself.

 

[lucusloc]

Are you talking about the guy who was some kind of food delivery driver and that moron was holding a phone up to him? I thought they did convict the guy of something from that. Not the shoot but some other crime?? Been too long since it happened. I'm sure someone here will remember if it is that one you are talking about?

Yeah, that one was a pretty marginal shoot, but the guy made a clear case for why he felt threatened and that was corroborated by the video evidence. I think the only thing that got him was illegal possession, the shoot itself was deemed legit. It really helped that he was fleeing the situation at the time of the shot, it showed a clear intention to deescalate and get out, and the fact that the "pranksters" were not letting him do that lead directly to the decision that his shot was justified even if he was not reading the situation 100% correctly. And honestly, having been in a situation like that I can see how he could feel like these guys had ill intent (e.g. a mugging under the pretense of being a prank) and why lethal force might be the best option to get away. So while I might have had more confidence in my ability to just walk out of the problem, I can see how someone with less confidence in that ability might feel they had to escalate their options. It is fortunate the courts agreed, because he was right there at the edge of "you got away, situation resolved."

Im still going to leave out the hero part, many people act on good intentions.

My guess is he fell back entirely on his use of force training ( clearly he dominated the situation) thinking he had the tactical skills to intervene, but had zero training on the legality of using deadly force.
Ive said it before in this forum, before anyone recommends handgun training they should be recommending legal training.

Any good self defense course is going to be at least have legal issues and nothing to do with guns. His problem was not anything to do with his gun, that just helped him dig his own hole faster. His problem was all mental, as he got into a headspace that he had to do something and was not processing new and relevant information that would have let him deescalate. I attribute that to a hero complex, but that is only because of the other information that has come out about the guy. It may be that he is actually paranoid, or is just a really poor decision maker. I don't know his motivations, all I can do is infer. But what I do know is, for whatever reason, he does make some rally bad decisions and we all should probably learn something from that.

 

[lucusloc]

The only difference is in the charges brought against you.

Going off of pure memory here, but you can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon even if you never fire the gun right? I remember that being a thing but don't have the time to go refresh my memory right now.