Off -Duty Portland Security Guard Sentencing gives five years after using legally concealed firearm

[Caveman Jim]

Articles from the time are actually less informative:

Man shot outside Shake Bar dies

Police ask public to help identify suspect, who remains at large after early Friday killing.

www.portlandtribune.com

Murder suspect an armed guard with no criminal history

A man accused in a fatal shooting in Northwest Portland has no criminal history, no mental health issues and was a security guard who recently was certified to carry a gun. Willie Mitchel…

www.koin.com

This one, from several months later, seems to have the most info:

He fired a fatal shot outside a Portland nightclub. Was it murder or self-defense?

The night of Willie Mitchell’s 23rd birthday began with family and friends at a club in downtown Portland. It ended with him firing a single, fatal round at a stranger.

www.oregonlive.com

I think it's interesting that he was indicted by a grand jury 4 months after his arrest. Suggests to me there may have been political forces in play.

In Potland? Pfffffft
Who you tryin to kid?

 

[Yarome]

You’re making just as many assumptions….. you also blew quite a few points way out proportion. But that’s your opinion which is fine.

Shoot when you want. Let me know how it plays out.

Internet vs real world conflict/scenarios.

There is a reason why you should have more tools on your belt and in your head than just a gun. Force continuum.

We all have different mindsets though. And that’s fine.

I wasn't making assumptions so much as outlining the very fact that a person can not "know" the intentions of an attacker, what their motivations are or how far they are willing to go. They are by nature unknowns so giving up tactical advantage and going into a conflict assuming you are capable of maintianing control... and that there are indeed limits on the amount of bodily harm you will receive... is a fools game, IMHO.

I fully agree! Many internet warriors and training fanatics typically have a very false sense of what real world altercations may be like and bravado over their abilities to maintain control within the parameters of their chosing in any situation. Even when the intention is to walk away or use de-escalation tactics, you have absolutely no control over how the other party will choose to act.

I could give several personal and first hand experiences illustrating that, but I have no delusions of changing anyones approach to violence.

 

[1775usmc]

I wasn't making assumptions so much as outlining the very fact that a person can not "know" the intentions of an attacker, what their motivations are or how far they are willing to go. They are by nature unknows so giving up tactical advantage and going into a conflict assuming you are capable of maintianing control... and that there are indeed limits on the amount of bodily harm you will receive... is a fools game, IMHO.

I fully agree! Many internet warriors and training fanatics typically have a very false sense of what real world altercations may be like and bravado over their abilities to maintain control within the parameters of their chosing in any situation. Even when the intention is to walk away or use de-escalation tactics, you have absolutely no control over how the other party will choose to act.

I could give several personal and first hand experiences illustrating that, but I have no delusions of changing anyones approach to violence.

Agreed. I was simply saying that the person preforming the act of deadly force against a threat better have some concrete evidence that the person who “may” be charging at them had full intent of causing death or serious bodily harm.

You can’t shoot someone for throwing a punch or squaring up with you. Sure you can try to argue that if he lands the punch it has the potential of knocking you out at which point you become defenseless….. good luck with that. Especially in a 1 on 1 scenario. Add more attackers or weapons and the premise of the situation/deadly force quickly evolves.

You also can’t shoot someone because they “may” have a weapon you can’t see. Or because you’re trying to get the “drop” on them before they pull a weapon. In fact that scenario could bury you.

Hypothetical - you are having choice words with an individual. The exchange takes place and your “opponent” starts to move toward you with haste. Now you pull a gun… guess what you just increased the scenario and MAY have given your opponent grounds to stand on for self defense. You interjected the weapon first. No physical contact/assault has even taken place (your words just hurt eachother feelings……). Now your perceived attacker pulls a weapon on you in self defense. Or even better a bystander sees you pull a gun and is unaware of the situation and shoots you due to the threat you pose to individual advancing. Over what? Some words… a little ego…. Stupid.

Self defense shootings have a myriad or elements that have to be taken into consideration. Through many different lenses. It’s not cut and dry. Black and white.

You can’t just shoot someone because of what they might have/or might do….. or what they said to you or the fact they stepped on your ego a bit or said some mean words and wanted to throw down over it. Its not that simple.

There is NORMALLY (not always) a way out.

With all that said if you have a level head on your shoulders. Your emotions are in check. And you are aware of your surroundings and the baseline that should be then you will be able to spot anomalies and warnings so you can move left of bang and get out before anything begins to occur.

 

[Catfishmoon]

I prefer to have pepper spray on me in addition to a concealed carry gun and I prioritize the spray above most other carry items.
In my opinion, unless the other person has something considered a "deadly weapon" they should be sprayed first if the situation allows. if they continue to attack the use of a fireman becomes much easier to justify to a jury...
I am in my 60's and I have no plan to take a physical beating during an assault nor do I have a desire to spend time in prison or be sued by the perp's family for using deadly force at the incorrect time..
Unfortunately, our legal system leaves a lot of ambiguity in what is an acceptable response.

 

[1775usmc]

I prefer to have pepper spray on me in addition to a concealed carry gun and I prioritize the spray above most other carry items.
In my opinion, unless the other person has something considered a "deadly weapon" they should be sprayed first if the situation allows. if they continue to attack the use of a fireman becomes much easier to justify to a jury...
I am in my 60's and I have no plan to take a physical beating during an assault nor do I have a desire to spend time in prison or be sued by the perp's family for using deadly force at the incorrect time..
Unfortunately, our legal system leaves a lot of ambiguity in what is an acceptable response.

You ever been OC’d? That stuff hurts so dam bad. Haha. I’ll take a punch or get tased before I wanna get sprayed. Haha.

Good on ya!

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Reasonableness is subjective to the defender but the jury will look at it through an objective lens. Cause it will be impossible to have the jury see what you saw, heard, felt or the totality of the circumstance.

They will only see the evidence presented. That’s why it would be very favorable to show that you attempted to deescalate the situation, create distance, etc. exhaust all means within reason (that doesn’t mean you have to touch every level in the force continuum) before going to deadly force.

I am hoping that with the advances in CGI and VR technology someday jurors WILL get to see and feel what the defendant did.

An eagle eye camera may have shown that "Oh yeah the attacker was no longer a threat" but from the defendants view on the ground of a 6' 4" attacker lurking over him a step back would have looked like winding up for a kick.

 

[1775usmc]

I am hoping that with the advances in CGI and VR technology someday jurors WILL get to see and feel what the defendant did.

An eagle eye camera may have shown that "Oh yeah the attacker was no longer a threat" but from the defendants view on the ground of a 6' 4" attacker lurking over him a step back would have looked like winding up for a kick.

Not holding my breath on that one. Everyone has their own biases. A video game won’t change that.

 

[Alexx1401]

Articles from the time are actually less informative:

Man shot outside Shake Bar dies

Police ask public to help identify suspect, who remains at large after early Friday killing.

www.portlandtribune.com

Murder suspect an armed guard with no criminal history

A man accused in a fatal shooting in Northwest Portland has no criminal history, no mental health issues and was a security guard who recently was certified to carry a gun. Willie Mitchel…

www.koin.com

This one, from several months later, seems to have the most info:

He fired a fatal shot outside a Portland nightclub. Was it murder or self-defense?

The night of Willie Mitchell’s 23rd birthday began with family and friends at a club in downtown Portland. It ended with him firing a single, fatal round at a stranger.

www.oregonlive.com

I think it's interesting that he was indicted by a grand jury 4 months after his arrest. Suggests to me there may have been political forces in play.

Thanks, strange sounding case still. Would be interesting to hear from someone who was at trial. Since they managed to get a jury to convict him curious as to what they were told and what they were shown. Guessing there has got to be a LOT here we are not having shared with us.

 

[solv3nt]

You ever been OC’d? That stuff hurts so dam bad. Haha. I’ll take a punch or get tased before I wanna get sprayed. Haha.

Good on ya!

I'm a little OCD, does that count?

 

[1775usmc]

I'm a little OCD, does that count?

Swing and a miss. Haha

 

[WillametteWill]

I'm a little OCD, does that count?

Just don't be an Oleoresin Capsicum Depository

 

[Provincial]

A review of the trial of the guy who killed two men on a MAX train a few years ago may help see how Portland juries view these things.

From one perspective, two men confronting a single man on the train could be seen as an "attack" and if they made a move to physically restrain him they could be viewed as the "aggressors." On the other hand, the knife guy could be the "aggressor" by yelling at and intimidating the women, hence starting the altercation. That seems to be the view accepted by the jury.

I'm sure that there are more "comparable" incidents that could give guidance, and it would take a lot of research to establish a trend. For the moment, it appears that, in Portland, it appears self-defense judgements depend more on "Social Justice" than objective facts. Act accordingly.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

A review of the trial of the guy who killed two men on a MAX train a few years ago may help see how Portland juries view these things.

From one perspective, two men confronting a single man on the train could be seen as an "attack" and if they made a move to physically restrain him they could be viewed as the "aggressors." On the other hand, the knife guy could be the "aggressor" by yelling at and intimidating the women, hence starting the altercation. That seems to be the view accepted by the jury.

I'm sure that there are more "comparable" incidents that could give guidance, and it would take a lot of research to establish a trend. For the moment, it appears that, in Portland, it appears self-defense judgements depend more on "Social Justice" than objective facts. Act accordingly.

Which one was this and how did it turn out?

 

[Provincial]

Which one was this and how did it turn out?

It was a couple of years ago. A disturbed man was yelling insults and threatening a coupe of women who were wearing burkas on a MAX train. Two young men approached him and told him to stop. He pulled out a knife and cut both their throats.

Here is a link to his sentencing.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/lo...cing/283-2eb6ec46-d52c-4fa2-a49d-b8a919edd87d

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

It was a couple of years ago. A disturbed man was yelling insults and threatening a coupe of women who were wearing burkas on a MAX train. Two young men approached him and told him to stop. He pulled out a knife and cut both their throats.

Here is a link to his sentencing.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/lo...cing/283-2eb6ec46-d52c-4fa2-a49d-b8a919edd87d

I thought that was the one. Did the crazy guy try to claim selfdefense?

 

[Provincial]

I thought that was the one. Did the crazy guy try to claim selfdefense?

I didn't follow that case, so I don't know. I suspect that he had a Court-Appointed lawyer who plea-bargained a deal. I also suspect that the DA played hard guy to show the public that the authorities were making Portland safe.

Since the guy was crazy, I doubt that he was very well engaged in his defense.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Reasonableness is subjective to the defender but the jury will look at it through an objective lens. Cause it will be impossible to have the jury see what you saw, heard, felt or the totality of the circumstance.

They will only see the evidence presented. That’s why it would be very favorable to show that you attempted to deescalate the situation, create distance, etc. exhaust all means within reason (that doesn’t mean you have to touch every level in the force continuum) before going to deadly force.

The jury will look at it through a highly subjective lens. It will be swayed by emotions of those who have never faced mortal danger. It will be swayed by the prosecuter and the defense.

The legal standard of reasonable fear is highly subjective anyway.

The evidence presented will be skewed as well. Emotional mischaracterizations will occur.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I am going to double post, but the posts are rather different.

I survived an unarmed assault from a gang member in 2009. Cracked the section of skull where my ear is off from the rest of the skull. The fact that it cracked loose is the only reason I am alive today. Obviously, this knocked me out. The story goes downhill from there. I woke up with my teeth on a curb. 2 kids were arguing over whether to curb stomp me. One argues it will bring too much police attention and I get let go and drag myself into the building. Ends in LA PD breaking up a siege of said building. Unarmed assault can kill you. My quality of life has changed since that day. I get headaches when that section of skull vibrates. I get migraines. My upper teeth are chipped from the curb. But I should have been dead. My brain had a place to swell courtesy of the broken off chunk. Thankfully I recovered. It was not a quick or easy recovery.

I have pulled my gun in Portland for a rather unusual attempt on my life, and frankly, I would have been within my rights to shoot him, but he had kind of dumped gasoline on me and was trying to get his lighter to light. I have never been so glad for a stiff wind or that Bic makes cheap lighters. I took his gas can and his knife. I disposed of them after rendering both unusable.

This was in 2017, and I was walking to a MAX stop.

The first case was far more serious, and in California. I was blindsided. But I am sure by some people here's responses they would assume lethal force was not an option. To this day I don't know who exactly assaulted me or with what. They came from behind and I was down at the first blow. But it could easily have been a fist.

Juries have seen a thousand action movies where you take 300 punches to the head if you are a real man. But it just takes one to change or end your life.

 

[1775usmc]

I am going to double post, but the posts are rather different.

I survived an unarmed assault from a gang member in 2009. Cracked the section of skull where my ear is off from the rest of the skull. The fact that it cracked loose is the only reason I am alive today. Obviously, this knocked me out. The story goes downhill from there. I woke up with my teeth on a curb. 2 kids were arguing over whether to curb stomp me. One argues it will bring too much police attention and I get let go and drag myself into the building. Ends in LA PD breaking up a siege of said building. Unarmed assault can kill you. My quality of life has changed since that day. I get headaches when that section of skull vibrates. I get migraines. My upper teeth are chipped from the curb. But I should have been dead. My brain had a place to swell courtesy of the broken off chunk. Thankfully I recovered. It was not a quick or easy recovery.

I have pulled my gun in Portland for a rather unusual attempt on my life, and frankly, I would have been within my rights to shoot him, but he had kind of dumped gasoline on me and was trying to get his lighter to light. I have never been so glad for a stiff wind or that Bic makes cheap lighters. I took his gas can and his knife. I disposed of them after rendering both unusable.

This was in 2017, and I was walking to a MAX stop.

The first case was far more serious, and in California. I was blindsided. But I am sure by some people here's responses they would assume lethal force was not an option. To this day I don't know who exactly assaulted me or with what. They came from behind and I was down at the first blow. But it could easily have been a fist.

Juries have seen a thousand action movies where you take 300 punches to the head if you are a real man. But it just takes one to change or end your life.

You 100% had the right to self defense using deadly force in both those scenarios.

With that being said shooting someone before physical contact and with no weapon presented is going to be hard to beat in court. That’s all I am expressing. Not that it’s impossible…..

Sorry for your luck. I’m sure there have been plenty of lessons learned.

Out of curiosity is there a reason you were attacked in both scenarios? I’d be interested in knowing what took place previous to the attacks. Although there are plenty of crazies out there too.

Glad you’re ok man.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

You 100% had the right to self defense using deadly force in both those scenarios.

With that being said shooting someone before physical contact and with no weapon presented is going to be hard to beat in court. That’s all I am expressing. Not that it’s impossible…..

Sorry for your luck. I’m sure there have been plenty of lessons learned.

Out of curiosity is there a reason you were attacked in both scenarios? I’d be interested in knowing what took place previous to the attacks. Although there are plenty of crazies out there too.

Glad you’re ok man.

In L.A. I worked for 4 years in a gang prevention program at a church. Because we provided safe places for homework, college applications, meals, prenatal care and parenting classes, therapy,, and a chance to get out of the life, local gangs respected us. The Bloods and MS-13 had declared us off limits. I know a few other gangs did as well, but those were the neighborhood heavy hitters. The event that transpired is below.

1) Because I prevented a group of young girls being molested. Long story, but I kicked a kid out of our program, pants down in a girl's bathroom filled with prepubescent girls. He was blocking the door and making obscene demands. I did not leave the door intact when I heard what was going on from the foyer.. He had friends come back 4 weeks later. (Without consulting higher ups in the gang as events would show) Turns out he was ashamed I removed him physically. We were officially an enforced neutral territory and I did get a formal apology from the Bloods. 20 or so members showed up for the apology.. They found out why and it turns out the local ranking Blood`s representative had a niece in the bathroom. I was assured the situation was dealt with. I didn't ask what that meant.


2) Was a former patient to the psych ward who recognized me. He had been involuntarily been brought in by police. Anyway, he thought he could rob me and get revenge.