TV news broadcast runs Shoot or Don't Shoot video

[lrb111]

Charles, as odd as this may sound, one of our local tv stations ran a shoot or no shoot scenario this evening. I got the impression it was one of a series that they produced.
http://www.kwes.com/ is their site. http://www.kwes.com/Global/story.asp?S=6086897 is the video and feedback.
I never watch that station and only caught it by accident.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I split this post from mine asking for Shoot/No-Shoot videos so we can have a discussion on this video and the Sheriff's response. While I think the answer to the poll question was clear as presented in the video, I guess a large majority (63%) didn't see it that way. I also think the video is an excellent example just how dynamic such encounters really are. The answer to the "shoot or don't shoot" question can very well be different at different times during the encounter and they can change in an instant. For example was the homeowner faced with a different situation when the burglar was approaching him, as compared to when he turned his back apparently to leave by the back door? What if his hands disappeared as he turned his back apparently to leave by the back door? Thanks for posting this, it can be a great learning tool!

This video has me thinking that age-ranger’s and TX Rancher’s suggestion to make a Shoot/No-Shoot video is a very good idea. The exact scenario they filmed for the TV news spot could be varied slightly multiple times, with each version presenting new elements for the homeowner to consider.

Chas.

[nitrogen]

I just watched the video, but not the sheriff's response yet.

In the video, it looks like the guy lunged. If he did not follow the command to stay put, if he lunged at me, i'd have shot him, fearing an imminent attack with a weapon I might not have seen.

Now i'm going to watch the sheriff's response, and we'll see how wrong I am.

[nitrogen]

Figures it was "don't shoot"

I still stand by my decision: I would have NOT let him lunge at me.

I have to support what the sheriff said though, if I remove the part in the video where he lunges at me to escape.

[jimlongley]

I am of two minds on this one. Here you have a guy caught in the act, and the first thing he does is start telling YOU to calm down and then he advances on a (probably) loaded gun. I might consider that an act of agression and shoot.

OTOH, if he said it was his intention to leave peacefully, I might distance myself further dnd let him go (while making careful note of ALL physical characteristics), but still, he advanced on someone with a gun pointed at him. If I did indeed decide to let him go, I might insist, forcefully, that he empty his pockets before he leaves.

Lots to think about, which I do already.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Figures it was "don't shoot"

I still stand by my decision: I would have NOT let him lunge at me.

I have to support what the sheriff said though, if I remove the part in the video where he lunges at me to escape.

That's what I like about the video. My answer to the "shoot or don't shoot" question would be different in different portions of the video. The answer given by the TV station and the sheriff was based solely on the end of the video - i.e. when the burglar fled. Another interesting twist would be to place the events outside your home where there currently is a duty to retreat. You could have the same scenario in a different location and the Penal Code could/would impose a greater duty on someone defending himself. This video actually supports the need for the "Castle Doctrine" Bill to pass.

Chas.

[txinvestigator]

I am disappointed in the Sheriff and the news report. They did nothing to educate the public, and the news staff conclusion that it was a "don't shoot" was wrong too. They also gave out other misleading information.

For a LEO, it is a clear "don't shoot". LEO's have an obligation to pursue and apprehend criminals. Most agencies prohibit the use of force over property crimes.

However, for Joe Citizen, The guy WAS escaping with property from a burglary, so DF may have been justified,

If I found myself in the position where the burglar was going out of the door, I would not shoot, but I believe if he was escaping with my property and I reasonably believed there was no other means of recovering the property I would have been justified in using deadly force.

However, back up a few seconds where I have him at gunpoint. I would be forcefully telling him to turn around and get on his knees and keep his hands where I can see them. I would tell him he is under arrest. If continued to approach, it would be difficult to prove a man with his hands up presented a threat of death or serious bodily injury to me.

However, it should never have gotten to that point. If I return home and find a door open, I back off and call the police. Especially if I am dumb enough to leave a handgun in a drawer in the kitchen.

These scenarios are good to make you think though.

[stevie_d_64]

Suggestion...

I believe at the next PSC day event we should have a seminar/discussion over a "shoot, no shoot" video...

Show the video, and give each person attending that class a chance (2 minutes) to voice or explain what they would or would not do...

No discussion necessary about equipment or specific tactics...

I'll post this also in the 2007 PSC day thread if I can...

[txinvestigator]

guys, deadly force is NEVER justified if a person simply "lunges" at you, or if he "might have weapons you might not have seen" or if he makes an "act of aggression".

I know what you mean when you write that, but as I teach my students; please think in terms of what the law allows. Use that terminology. If he lunges at you, can you justify that you reasonably believed he was using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force against you, and your using deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent that? You probably can, but justify it with your words.

Also, deadly force is justified if you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of burglary. Remember the separate provisions for DF in response to the person and property.



Be safe and keep alert!!

[stevie_d_64]

I agree with you "Txi"...

But, if an encounter creates a "lunge" at you or another person that you "reasonably" believe is threatening serious injury or death, weapon or no weapon readily visible...

I am of the personal opinion that they are not lunging to give you a hug...

But, I can also think (amazing, I know) of a couple other things that could (if you shoose to do so) be done even before reasonably employing deadly force to stop a threat...But thats just me...

[HankB]

I notice that the sheriff said that there are justifications for using deadly force, but then he said words to the effect of ". . . when he allowed him to leave . . . " those justifications were no longer in effect.

Notice . . . when he allowed him to leave. I interpret that to mean you can't tell a bad guy by words or actions (such as backing off and moving out of the way) that he can go, and then plant a shot between his shoulder blades.

I wouldn't engage in a discussion with an intruder - if I didn't shoot him immediately to neutralize the threat, I'm going to TELL him in my best command voice to lie face down on the floor.

If he comes toward me then, he won't come very far.

I'm sure we can think up some unusual scenarios, but in almost all instances, it is reasonable to conclude that someone who broke into your home is up to no good, and is an immediate threat to your safety and the safety of your family. Shooting such an intruder is almost always justified, on the basis of a threat to personal safety.

It's reasonable to conclude an intruder is a threat.

It's unreasonable to assume his intentions are benign.

[txinvestigator]

A threat to your personal safety is NOT enough.


Text
§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31;


(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful deadly force;

Pretty different than a threat to your safety.

for the purpose of defense of a person discussion, I have NOT included language regarding defense of property.

[casselthief]

my thought is, that guy lunging at you, may just very well be lunging for your Agent 45.
I'm familiar with what the law says, but couldn't you argue that since he is burglarizing you, that makes him a felon, and when he lunges, he is a felon attempting to posess a firearm, which we all know is illegal!!
I mean, you're trying to prevent a felon from gettin' their greasey paws on a smokewagon!

a stretch? yeah, maybe.... but you get the point, right?

[Mithras61]

I notice that the sheriff said that there are justifications for using deadly force, but then he said words to the effect of ". . . when he allowed him to leave . . . " those justifications were no longer in effect.

Notice . . . when he allowed him to leave. I interpret that to mean you can't tell a bad guy by words or actions (such as backing off and moving out of the way) that he can go, and then plant a shot between his shoulder blades.

I wouldn't engage in a discussion with an intruder - if I didn't shoot him immediately to neutralize the threat, I'm going to TELL him in my best command voice to lie face down on the floor.

If he comes toward me then, he won't come very far.

I'm sure we can think up some unusual scenarios, but in almost all instances, it is reasonable to conclude that someone who broke into your home is up to no good, and is an immediate threat to your safety and the safety of your family. Shooting such an intruder is almost always justified, on the basis of a threat to personal safety.

It's reasonable to conclude an intruder is a threat.

It's unreasonable to assume his intentions are benign.

I think that the scenario as presented was no shoot, but that's because the homeowner backed away when the BG started moving towards him. If he had commanded "Stop. Lay down." or some such, then the scanario changes if the BG continues to move towards you. When he backed away, he de-escalated the situation, but he also changed it to a "no shoot" for the remainder of the clip. If the BG had moved towards him down the hallway away from the door, it would have changed back, IMHO, but since he made a break for it, the homeowner had to let him go.

I would have made sure and given the police a good clear description of him and anything that was missing (including the $5000 from the bedside table <yeah, I know... false statement to the police is a bad thing> )


Y'know, we need a "yeah, right" smilie!

[kw5kw]

Up until the homeowner backed off and allowed the perp to leave it could have been a good shoot.

After the homeowner backed off and the perp was running out the door, it would have become a NO shoot situation.

If the perp lunges at you, you have no idea what his intentions were... only the Good Lord above knows that, it's up to us to make our best guess. My guess was that it was to:

1) attack me and take my gun away and kill me and my wife with it... it ain't-a-gonna happen, I shoot.

2) attack me and take my gun, then escape with my weapon... that ain't-a-gonna happen either, I shoot.

3) attack me and knock me out of the way, hoping that my morals won't allow me to shoot him, he gets away with my wallet that he had in his hand. Hmmmm... harder call here but I defer to 1 and 2 above... I shoot.

4) He just wants space, so that he can escape as protrayed in this video. Once I allow him to show me his back, It becomes a NO shoot, as it is shown in this video.

The sheriff answered all of the above and I agree with him, the homeowner allowed the perp to gain control of the situation.

As for the gun in the drawer, it's a hollywood type production for effect, that's all.

We all know that we wear our weapons 24/7... right?

Russ