Short article on when u can use deadly force

[Dinglenutz]

Lots of cops have their weapon out and alongside their leg while doing simple traffic stops.

They sure do. I'm not a police officer, the rules are different for me.

I do think Mr Strickland would have been way better of if, after reconsidering the decision to shoot, he'd exercised better discipline and kept it pointed down as you describe. Defending the choice to not undertake the task of reholstering under duress should be pretty defensible I would think, but IANAL.

The waving it around with no intention to shoot anyone specific is assault I believe.

 

[ma96782]

Not exactly.

The assistant DA who discussed the issue with me put it this way. Before I pull, I should have decided I have to shoot. I have whatever time elapses between deciding to shoot and actually shooting to change my mind, and I should keep the no shoot option open as my first choice if it presents itself.

Strickland pulled his gun out and waved it around. That's not OK. Once he reconsidered and decided not to shoot he handled it poorly IMO.

Well....perhaps we are closer to an agreement then I first thought.

Strickland..."waving around" his firearm was to ward off what he saw as MULTIPLE attackers coming from a multiple of directions. IIRC.....he thought he was being mobbed by violent people bent on doing him great bodily injury/harm/possible even resulting in his ultimate death. He had already been threatened on that day.

Not to mention, his past episodes/experiences with Antifa. Which certainly was a factor in his mind. Though the Judge did not agree was relevant to the case at hand.

Note that Strickland was charged and found guilty of multiple felonies. I'd assume......that the prosecutor believed that to include the "other people/other attackers in the group" as being endangered by his actions was a smart move. You know....protection of the Portlandia Mob is important. Though it could have also been a move to try and convince Strickland to plead out.

YES.....I can believe that some of that "mob" may not have been directly involved in violence or the threatening of Strickland at all. Yeah....anything is possible. LOL.

Rrrrright.....I wasn't doing anything. But, the Police fired rubber bullets at us and used tear gas to choke me! I just happened to be standing there.....using my phone to record the injustice of the police.

So then....
Ever notice how many actual agitators there are vs. how many people are holding their phone up recording stuff? And, it's not like the people with the phones are standing to the side. They are right up in the faces of those that they wish to "get a rise out of". So, really? Are they innocent bystanders or are they actually antagonizing/escalating the situation? What's their responsibility to all of this mess that we see? Not to mention that the ranks of the mob appear to be "bigger" with the presence of these photographers/videographers who claim to be "not involved".

Aloha, Mark

 

[Dinglenutz]

Strickland..."waving around" his firearm was to ward off what he saw as MULTIPLE attackers coming from a multiple of directions.

He might have seen it that way, but a handgun isn't a magical ward. In the moment we aim it at something, we should intend to shoot that thing. Period. We can always change our mind, but waving it around invites the kind of legal trouble he's finding himself in now.

Additionally, his continuing to juggle a bunch of gear unrelated to his immediate survival was a bad choice IMO. If it's down to the point where life and limb are really in immediate danger, drop that crap and concentrate on surviving the next few minutes. This last thing I'm not sure about, I didn't watch the video over and over, but I did notice he seemed encumbered.

 

[Dinglenutz]

A good source of info about self-defense law is Andrew Branca.

He was the source of the "at the end of your prison term" quote I believe.

 

[bbbass]

Not exactly.

The assistant DA who discussed the issue with me put it this way. Before I pull, I should have decided I have to shoot. I have whatever time elapses between deciding to shoot and actually shooting to change my mind, and I should keep the no shoot option open as my first choice if it presents itself.

Strickland pulled his gun out and waved it around. That's not OK. Once he reconsidered and decided not to shoot he handled it poorly IMO.

They sure do. I'm not a police officer, the rules are different for me.

I do think Mr Strickland would have been way better of if, after reconsidering the decision to shoot, he'd exercised better discipline and kept it pointed down as you describe. Defending the choice to not undertake the task of reholstering under duress should be pretty defensible I would think, but IANAL.

The waving it around with no intention to shoot anyone specific is assault I believe.

I'm confused by the constant claims that DGUs don't always involve pulling the trigger. In other words, if for every actual gun use, there are 5000 (pulled number out of azz) that merely displayed/waved/pointed the firearm to successfully ward off attack/assault/robbery, then why aren't all those 5000 people in jail?

I'm up for "discussion" since I can't afford to hire an attorney for a chat. (I don't buy ammo in bulk either )

 

[Diamondback]

Three easy words: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. You have to be able to articulate all three in a manner that a jury will agree that your belief of them was "reasonable."

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy | Cornered Cat

 

[Dinglenutz]

I'm confused by the constant claims that DGUs don't always involve pulling the trigger. In other words, if for every actual gun use, there are 5000 (pulled number out of azz) that merely displayed/waved/pointed the firearm to successfully ward off attack/assault/robbery, then why aren't all those 5000 people in jail?

It's probably more than 5000, but the cases categorized as DGU are not, as far as I know, closely documented. The advice my instructor gave me was intended to prevent legal trouble. It's probably not near the line as to where one can pull a gun and get away with it. It's probably designed to be well clear of that line. That works for me.

The lawless situation in Portland is a problem for citizens who want to exercise their rights safely. I hope Strickland gets off, as I don't see what he did as criminal myself. It's just the sort of behavior that might cause legal trouble.

 

[bbbass]

It's probably more than 5000, but the cases categorized as DGU are not, as far as I know, closely documented. The advice my instructor gave me was intended to prevent legal trouble. It's probably not near the line as to where one can pull a gun and get away with it. It's probably designed to be well clear of that line. That works for me.

The lawless situation in Portland is a problem for citizens who want to exercise their rights safely. I hope Strickland gets off, as I don't see what he did as criminal myself. It's just the sort of behavior that might cause legal trouble.

Most of the "display" type DGUs that I personally have knowledge of were from friends. The incidents took place in cars near Washington D.C. during people having road rage and trying to accost or pull the female friend out of the/her car. Once, she was actually struck by a man thru her open side window. Pulling her S&W .357 snubbie calmed things down right away. But these incidents were not in public view where cameras are everywhere, and certainly not in the middle of a "mostly peaceful" riot.

What is it that John C from ASP asks....

1. Can I shoot
2. Should I shoot
3. Must I shoot

 

[ma96782]

He might have seen it that way, but a handgun isn't a magical ward. In the moment we aim it at something, we should intend to shoot that thing. Period. We can always change our mind, but waving it around invites the kind of legal trouble he's finding himself in now.

Additionally, his continuing to juggle a bunch of gear unrelated to his immediate survival was a bad choice IMO. If it's down to the point where life and limb are really in immediate danger, drop that crap and concentrate on surviving the next few minutes. This last thing I'm not sure about, I didn't watch the video over and over, but I did notice he seemed encumbered.

I used the words "waving around" (and you'll note that it's in quotes)....because YOU had previously said.......

Strickland pulled his gun out and waved it around.

Yeah....
To some people......"waving around" a gun brings to mind "irresponsible behavior". Perhaps that was the wrong words to use?
Rrrright.....because to some.....it brings with it a vision of a person frantically waving their arms up in the sky.

Yeah, I wasn't there.....
But I can imagine.....Strickland sweeping the crowd of the potential attackers. Call it "waving around" if you insist or just wish to describe it as such.

Then.....
Competitive shooters faced with multiple targets frequently are required to engage targets across a wide-angle of "attack." And YES.....they sweep and make/take target/visualizations of what is to come. Maybe Strickland isn't/wasn't as keen? Or maybe he was?

The crowd backed down, if just for that moment......THAT allowed for his escape. And, you'll note that he was continued to be chased down, by the more dedicated actors in the mob.

Who? Is really looking to escalate things?

Aloha, Mark

 

[Dinglenutz]

To some people......"waving around" a gun brings to mind "irresponsible behavior".

Allowing the muzzle to cover someone you're not intending to shoot is pretty sloppy. That's just me perhaps. He was in a tough situation, and I don't see anything he did as criminal, I just believe some of his avoidable choices did lead to his current legal problems.

 

[CRBMoA]

By way of anecdote and with the disclaimer that I am only one guy and have limited exposure to the issue, I can say that I have PERSONALLY had WAY more people tell me of non-discharge DGU then anyone telling me they fired.

 

[Dinglenutz]

By way of anecdote and with the disclaimer that I am only one guy and have limited exposure to the issue, I can say that I have PERSONALLY had WAY more people tell me of non-discharge DGU then anyone telling me they fired.

Estimates for non-shooting DGU run 500,000 a year and up. Defensive shootings are much lower.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

FWIW, in Portland alone there were 12 reports of actual shots fired last Sunday night (all in different locations). I didn't keep track of how many assaults or suspicious activities or whatever else the showing of a weapon would be classified under. That doesn't include the one I heard which was 5 rounds of what sounded like 22LR.

 

[Dinglenutz]

FWIW, in Portland alone there were 12 reports of actual shots fired last Sunday night

I don't remember a week going by back when I lived near Inglewood without some gunfire within earshot. First week I was there the police shot an armed guy off the roof of an out of business gas station next door to the hotel.

 

[ma96782]

Allowing the muzzle to cover someone you're not intending to shoot is pretty sloppy. That's just me perhaps. He was in a tough situation, and I don't see anything he did as criminal, I just believe some of his avoidable choices did lead to his current legal problems.

Then you have this......


I believe that.....
The human mind is capable of making decisions (even under extreme stress). And that includes even a split second one.

But of course.....the decision made in a split second.....is also subject to some amount of discussion afterward.

YOUR level of experience and/or training might/maybe influence how you see things. Or perhaps not? Rrrright.....isn't that universal?

But Strickland, was not allowed to introduce (as a defense) his personal views/his assessment, of what was taking place to him.

Then.....
"Intending to shoot"

Well.....it also comes to mind......a variety of situations where things might just change and evolve. Rrrrright.....If I take a visualization/sight picture on some criminal and don't actually shoot......was I ALWAYS intending to kill him to begin with? Or perhaps/maybe, I was also giving the criminal a chance/choice to rethink the situation? IF I NEED to pull/press the trrigger.....well, there you are. But, I don't really WANT TO.

YOU on the other hand.....have your own decision(s) to make.

Perhaps, it's another disconnect? INTENDING vs. WANT TO?

Aloha, Mark

 

[bbbass]

Allowing the muzzle to cover someone you're not intending to shoot is pretty sloppy. That's just me perhaps. He was in a tough situation, and I don't see anything he did as criminal, I just believe some of his avoidable choices did lead to his current legal problems.

His was a pretty strong "BACK OFF" message.

I've seen advice given to NOT scan or observe thru your sights, rather to have the gun at low/chest/high ready. But I don't think he was scanning as much as he was warning.

 

[ma96782]

"Back Off"

Story time......in Hawaii, near Yokahama Beach (an almost deserted stretch of beach) it's the '90s.....
I can remember an incident where.....a tourist type person had been at the beach with his friends. His illegally carried handgun was in the glove box.

A group of "Mokes" (call it a personality type, as opposed to a racial group) approached his group and were intent on causing trouble (can't remember if was, robbery, rape of the GF, assault, etc...). Yeah anyway, you get the picture.

Rrrright......and today it might just be another racist/racial incident?

Anyway, the tourist retrieved his firearm and told the group to "Back Off".

The Mokes did just that. Rrrrrright.....who knows what that crazy *Haole with a gun would do? LOL.

Once things settled down and the Mokes had left, the guy contacted the Police.

Hummmm.......what do you think happened after that?

Imagine yourself as the Police Officer? And what about......if it had been YOU, as the intended victim (the Haole with the illegal gun)?

*"Haole" means foreigner. Though, it could also be perceived as being a racist remark. Rrrright....depending on the tone and context that it is used. Like the word: F@#*

Aloha, Mark

 

[Stomper]

Prison food sucks, but not horrible. You can still order from the store. In WA, you get cable TV in your cell. The Prison Rape Elimination Act pretty much keeps you from being corn-holed.

Riiiiigggght.... just like laws against murder keep you from being murdered.

 

[Stomper]

Sometimes. Some people get totally locked up. They should shoot before getting sprayed. Some just get real angry and would rather beat you to death.

We trained to still fight when ran through the "disco hut" and got CSed.... ain't fun, but it can be done.



Hey, that rhymed!!

 

[No_Regerts]

Riiiiigggght.... just like laws against murder keep you from being murdered.

Its more like a change in the way physical plant used to be conducive to cornhole due to the blind spots. Remove blind spots, add cameras and more checks, screen inmates for vulnerabilities and house them with people that aren't predators, that kinda thing.

Welcome to Prisney Land!