Last edited:
Good intent...Bad outcome
- Thread starter Protected One
- Start date
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Well, while you're busy doin' all that hopin', ought to be hopin' you're a better shot than he was.
okiegtrider
Member
This story about the incident does nothing to make this situation less pathetic.
Hear from man who accidentally shot, killed neighbor during dog attack - WXYZ.com
Hear from man who accidentally shot, killed neighbor during dog attack - WXYZ.com
Damn, damn & damn. Tragic.
Depending on the laws there, if they're similar to some other states, it's not unlikely the man may end up facing an involuntary manslaughter charge.
A manslaughter charge can still be brought even if the man was engaged in the performance of an otherwise lawful act (justified use of deadly force), depending on the rest of the circumstances.
For example, using a CA Penal Code (just copying what might be the relevant subsection of the code):
If the law involving the homicide of a human being is similar in that state, I suspect the police investigation will focus on whether the man handling and shooting the gun, even acting in what he perceived to be the defense of an innocent third person, was acting in a reasonable manner for the circumstances, and was using due caution and circumspection in his handling and use of the gun.
When I used to teach classes to private citizens (think CCW licensees), we had many an eye opening discussion of hypothetical situations where what might otherwise be considered a reasonable and lawful use of deadly force might, because of the totality of the circumstances, potentially result in unexpected criminal charges being brought because due caution and circumspection could be shown as not being present on the part of the "shooter".
Tragic? Absolutely.
As some other posters have opined, sometimes it's possible in private citizen shootings that a lack of relevant training, knowledge of the law and experience could end up putting the private citizen in the position of not being prepared for the sudden, dynamic and possibly chaotic circumstances involved in the use of deadly force.
Yes, of course police also face these same risks, but that's why police training in the laws, and preparation in hopefully using good judgement in making critical decisions, including not only being able to rapidly decide that a use of deadly force is not only lawful, but reasonable and appropriate for the circumstances.
Police also have some additional protection in the form of qualified immunity while invoking their authority for acts done in their official capacity, presuming their actions are not only within the law (which includes relevant examples provided by existing case law), but also within agency policy. Acting within policy can be just as important as statutory law when it comes to the actions of police (yes, this is a gross simplification of things).
This is where police, if acting outside policy, can expose themselves to greater liability (and sometimes provide an opportunity for agencies to distance themselves, to some degree, from the actions of an officer deliberately acting contrary to policy).
Depending on the laws there, if they're similar to some other states, it's not unlikely the man may end up facing an involuntary manslaughter charge.
A manslaughter charge can still be brought even if the man was engaged in the performance of an otherwise lawful act (justified use of deadly force), depending on the rest of the circumstances.
For example, using a CA Penal Code (just copying what might be the relevant subsection of the code):
If the law involving the homicide of a human being is similar in that state, I suspect the police investigation will focus on whether the man handling and shooting the gun, even acting in what he perceived to be the defense of an innocent third person, was acting in a reasonable manner for the circumstances, and was using due caution and circumspection in his handling and use of the gun.
When I used to teach classes to private citizens (think CCW licensees), we had many an eye opening discussion of hypothetical situations where what might otherwise be considered a reasonable and lawful use of deadly force might, because of the totality of the circumstances, potentially result in unexpected criminal charges being brought because due caution and circumspection could be shown as not being present on the part of the "shooter".
Tragic? Absolutely.
As some other posters have opined, sometimes it's possible in private citizen shootings that a lack of relevant training, knowledge of the law and experience could end up putting the private citizen in the position of not being prepared for the sudden, dynamic and possibly chaotic circumstances involved in the use of deadly force.
Yes, of course police also face these same risks, but that's why police training in the laws, and preparation in hopefully using good judgement in making critical decisions, including not only being able to rapidly decide that a use of deadly force is not only lawful, but reasonable and appropriate for the circumstances.
Police also have some additional protection in the form of qualified immunity while invoking their authority for acts done in their official capacity, presuming their actions are not only within the law (which includes relevant examples provided by existing case law), but also within agency policy. Acting within policy can be just as important as statutory law when it comes to the actions of police (yes, this is a gross simplification of things).
This is where police, if acting outside policy, can expose themselves to greater liability (and sometimes provide an opportunity for agencies to distance themselves, to some degree, from the actions of an officer deliberately acting contrary to policy).
Last edited:
The entire account makes no sense. I'm confused as to how, if he was standing in between the victim and the dog, he managed to shoot the woman without facing her, without wildly waiving his firearm around.
You'd think that, but no.
What actually happens when you're under stress is that you don't notice how much pressure your finger is applying to the trigger, or that your finger is moving, or even that your finger is on the trigger. Part of that is the chemicals your brain is dumping into your body. The other part is that your brain is hyper-focused on the danger, and isn't processing much else. Remember, for about 1.5m years, we've been using pointy sticks and rocks to defend ourselves--that's what we're evolved to use.
End result being, it doesn't matter how long or how heavy the trigger is, once you get into the realm of reasonable. The type of gun you carry will not keep you from doing stupid things. Consciously keeping your finger off the trigger until ready to fire, and training that to be a habit, will.
lolno. Some jurisdiction stand by their people. Some hang them out to dry.
And really, police officers should be indemnified against liability to an extent. After all, they're carrying a gun because they're doing their jobs, jobs we ask them to do. They're in dangerous situations because, hell, somebody has to be.
Ordinary citizens are free to not be in dangerous, stupid situations, and thus are responsible for themselves.
Lobster Picnic said:
You'd think that, but no.
What actually happens when you're under stress is that you don't notice how much pressure your finger is applying to the trigger, or that your finger is moving, or even that your finger is on the trigger. Part of that is the chemicals your brain is dumping into your body. The other part is that your brain is hyper-focused on the danger, and isn't processing much else. Remember, for about 1.5m years, we've been using pointy sticks and rocks to defend ourselves--that's what we're evolved to use.
End result being, it doesn't matter how long or how heavy the trigger is, once you get into the realm of reasonable. The type of gun you carry will not keep you from doing stupid things. Consciously keeping your finger off the trigger until ready to fire, and training that to be a habit, will.
lolno. Some jurisdiction stand by their people. Some hang them out to dry.
And really, police officers should be indemnified against liability to an extent. After all, they're carrying a gun because they're doing their jobs, jobs we ask them to do. They're in dangerous situations because, hell, somebody has to be.
Ordinary citizens are free to not be in dangerous, stupid situations, and thus are responsible for themselves.
In reverse order...
We're in total agreement that LEOs should be indemnified to the extent that they do not intentionally over step their authority or intentionally break the law.
In terms of what actually happens, I have perhaps described the ideal, or at least the norm rather than the exceptions where some departments may hang an officer out to dry. It seems to be a bigger issue in municipal police departments where the chief is a political appointee, beholden to a mayor or panel of commissioners with a political agenda.
However, it also works the other way as well, with some departments retaining officers with histories and behavior patterns that suggest they should not.
----
Trigger discipline and what happens under stress is one of the major areas where LEO firearms training falls short. Most officers are not gun people and do not shoot recreationally. Given the limited training in a training academy, followed by shooting no more often than required or perhaps semi-annual qualification, officers never get to the point where the necessary habits become conditioned and ingrained responses that hold up under extreme stress.
The same is true in spades for those individuals who conceal carry who have even less training or lack any proper training at all. Even with proper training it is still imperative to practice on a regular basis and I'll wager most people who conceal carry do not practice nearly enough.
Some of that practice also needs to be directed at pre-cognition of how you might respond under various scenarios, with an eye on 1) the laws pertaining to use the deadly force, 2) the need to actually shoot or draw a weapon (versus just the pure legality of it), and 3) your actual ability to meet the demands of the situation.
Number 3 however is a tough one as most people badly over rate their actual ability, in part because they are usually not familiar with how they actually respond under extreme stress and time pressure.
Shooting in practical pistol matches where there is time pressure and some competitive stress helps. If nothing else it gets the person out shooting more under closer to real world conditions, and more often than not gives people a reality check on their actual ability. That applies to all shooter - LEOs and armed citizens alike.
Last edited:
TomkinsSP
Member
I wasn't there. This is not fact or even speculation, just a mental exersise.
He is standing between the lady and the dog, facing the dog. Weapon holstered in snug holster with FBI cant. He draws on dog, touches trigger, ND while gun is canted muzzle to his back. Lady is shorter, maybe even on the ground, report says she was hit in lower back.
otasan56
US Veteran
I wonder if the gun was a Glock? No safeties on Glocks.
There are three safeties on a Glock, and the presence or absence of a safety is unlikely to have altered the outcome of this tragedy. Proper firearm handling, on the other hand . . .
otasan56
US Veteran
I meant to say no THUMB safety on Glocks. I carry a Glock 17 since 1989, BTW.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
If nothing else it's consistent with the rest of the story. The shooter said the dog was hungry. I guess the dog must have mentioned that after the woman was shot. The shooter has no idea how he shot the woman but after firing two shots at the dog, which hasn't been found, knows the dog wasn't hit.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Yep.
That's their right to do so. And you aren't giving the full particulars of that case...just saying the little girl was maimed by the dog. With only your account of it to go on, we don't know if the dog was loose, or she went into the dog's yard, or was she teasing the dog or fooling with its food, or what.
Also, the court, by law, is required to hear cases brought before it, even if they end up being almost immediately dismissed. Just because the judge is "considering" the case doesn't make him a "sorry" judge. It's his job to follow the law, and the law dictates that he hear the case.
Not necessarily. Unfortunately, dogs get loose in spite of an owner's best intentions or efforts. That doesn't make the owner irresponsible. Liable? Possibly. Irresponsible? No.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Let me put it this way, so you can understand it. You'll note that I said I read the article several times. That's what I based my comments on, not on your coming along later saying you saw a report about it on local television, which you didn't mention in your OP.
The linked article doesn't have any of those "he said" or the "reporter said" things in it, and it doesn't mention any neighbors or number of dogs, either.
Your opinion is that the man isn't an idiot. Fine. My opinion is that he meets the criteria to be classified as one in my book.
I don't even know why this thread is in the Concealed Carry & Self Defense section, cause it's one of the worst examples of "self defense" I've ever seen. What it is, though, is a textbook example of how an idiot can kill an innocent person.
Thank God we don't have people like this "patrolling" my neighborhood.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Most States require training for a CWP or equivalent time spent in armed public service. I believe most also require a "qualification" of 6 rounds or so at a Bullseye target. I will reserve my opinion but the issuing authority declares such to be "training".
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
That's true, of course. But to refer to it as "training" is using the term about as loosely as possible.
Speaking for North Carolina only...yes, I received training so I could qualify for my CHL.
Training: A one-day "class" wherein bare bones explanations of the rules and law involved in carrying a concealed weapon are provided to applicants.
Qualification: A quick trip to an outdoor range where the applicants are required to fire a total of 30 rounds at a standard "bad guy" target. This consists of 10 rounds at 3 yards, 10 rounds at 5 yards (yawn), and 10 rounds at 7 yards.
Even if I'd never fired a handgun in my life (and there were people there who hadn't), I would have considered the training to be minimal, inadequate, and boring.
Would I want to be around some of the applicants at a later date if I knew they were carrying a gun? What would your first guess be?
Disclaimer: Just doing my part here to contribute to thread drift.
Doug M.
Member
The correct answer if one has to use deadly force on an attacking animal in a case of this nature is to get as close as possible, nearly contact, before shooting. This is to ensure a) hitting the attacking animal, and b) NOT hitting the victim. The flaw here MAY have been firearms training related, but certainly was related to horrible tactics. To a great extent, this applies to all contact attacks on a human, whether by a dog, wild animal, or human using a contact (knife, club, etc.)or personal (bare hands/feet, etc.) weapon.
A shot in a case such as this might have to be taken at a distance, but that is not even close to optimal.
A shot in a case such as this might have to be taken at a distance, but that is not even close to optimal.
He'll get a carbine next I bet.
