Good intent...Bad outcome

[Watchdog]

We all know to keep our finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target don't we?

Guess not!!

The guy's obviously not a member of this forum.

 

[Watchdog]

This happened recently. A licensed concealed carrier was attempting to help his screaming neighbor who was being attacked by two dogs. In the process of drawing his gun he unintentionally fired an round, striking her in the lower back. She later died of the injury.

Detroit man calls shooting death of dog attack victim an accident

I've read the linked article several times. I don't see anything that says there were two dogs involved, or that the idiot with the gun had a concealed carry license. And frankly, the more I read the article, the stupider Michael Williams sounds.

Unfortunately, he has to wait for the determination of whether he will face any charges.

He shouldn't have to wait too long. I can think of at least two charges right off the top of my head.

It looks like a case of poor trigger discipline...

No, really? But I suppose that's a polite way of describing it. I hope the cops confiscated his gun.

 

[BB57]

It's sad, but these things do happen........

Master Police Officer David Whitson lost his life to friendly fire while on duty.

My one experience with friendly fire was far less, with no injury.
Just a few bullet holes in my vehicle.

.

A couple years ago one of the local officers shot another officer during a training exercise while getting out of a vehicle.

When that happens, or when an officer in the course of an otherwise "justified" use of deadly force happens to shoot an innocent bystander, or has a mistake of fact shooting, the worst thing that usually happens is the officer gets fired. The department accepts all the liability and pays any settlements.

When an armed citizen has a mistake of fact shooting or hits an innocent bystander, the criminal courts are far less lenient in excusing that lapse in judgement and/or marksmanship. Even if the shooter avoids criminal charges, he or she will be held fully liable in civil court.

Armed citizens are playing for much higher stakes when they start skipping bullets all over the neighborhood.

In this case, the guy will be extremely lucky if he avoids being convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Then he'll lose whatever assets he has in the subsequent civil suit.

 

[TomkinsSP]

At the risk of appearing biased (23 years in LE), there is a rational basis for the fact that Police Officers recieve legal protections in situations where they accidentally or mistakenly use deadly force.

They did not appoint themselves to be guardians of others. The State or a subdivision therof did. Presumably with oversight responsibilities, training standards and fitness for duty standards.

If the municipality determined Officer Schmossifer was psychologically fit, properly trained, and ORDERED said officer to respond to an armed robbery at Garcia Grocery. AND the dispatch officer stated the robber had a gun and was wearing a red shirt, AND Officer Schmossifer mistakenly shot Mr Garcia who was holding his own gun and wearing a burgundy apron, that officer made a tragic mistake, but the municipality contributed to the tragic chain of events.

If Officer Schmossifer misses the perpetrator and tragically hits a bystander, one could question the officers situational response and marksmanship, training for both of which were determined by the municipality.

When Mr Jonh Q Public buys himself a 'George Zimmerman signature edition KelTek' and appoints himself guardian angel, his mistakes, his lack of training, his psychology, his four rejected applications are solely HIS responsibility.

I believe in the right of law abiding citizens to CCW and to use deadly force to defend themselves or innocent others any place they have the legal right to be. This is a great power, as Uncle Ben said, with it comes great responsibility.

 

[Old cop]

Does anyone know if he used an auto loader or a revolver? If it's mentioned in the article I missed it and am another who believes this might have made a difference, depending on which auto loader (if that was the case) was being deployed.

 

[wingriderz]

Wow very sad indeed prayers for family's

 

[CalmerThanYou]

^^I do not even care what kind of gun it was, would distract from the fact he had no business even drawing the firearm.

 

[Muley Gil]

"When that happens, or when an officer in the course of an otherwise "justified" use of deadly force happens to shoot an innocent bystander, or has a mistake of fact shooting, the worst thing that usually happens is the officer gets fired. The department accepts all the liability and pays any settlements."

Not always. I have seen police officers hung out to dry if the powers to be didn't like the guy.

 

[JDBoardman]

As an armed citizen, we all need to be aware that every bullet we fire has a lawyer attached to it, In this case, the man's motives might have been as pure as the driven snow, but his judgement appears to have been seriously flawed. Had he hit and killed the dog, would anyone be less likely to pillory this poor schmoo, or would we still in our self-rigorousness hang him out to dry? I would hope I would respond to a cry for help as he did, and I would also hope my response was more tempered with judgement than his.

 

[ContinentalOp]

^^I do not even care what kind of gun it was, would distract from the fact he had no business even drawing the firearm.

While it's not entirely clear from reading the article, and hopefully the investigation will clear things up, but generally speaking I would think that having a gun at the ready when trying to protect a dog attack victim from continued aggression would be prudent and justifiable under most circumstances.

Any conclusions drawn from this article is speculation, at best.

 

[BB57]

At the risk of appearing biased (23 years in LE), there is a rational basis for the fact that Police Officers recieve legal protections in situations where they accidentally or mistakenly use deadly force.

They did not appoint themselves to be guardians of others. The State or a subdivision therof did. Presumably with oversight responsibilities, training standards and fitness for duty standards...

That's exactly why the courts extend a great deal of latitude to officers in terms of criminal liability when a mistake of fact shooting occurs.

If the municipality determined Officer Schmossifer was psychologically fit, properly trained, and ORDERED said officer to respond to an armed robbery at Garcia Grocery. AND the dispatch officer stated the robber had a gun and was wearing a red shirt, AND Officer Schmossifer mistakenly shot Mr Garcia who was holding his own gun and wearing a burgundy apron, that officer made a tragic mistake, but the municipality contributed to the tragic chain of events.

If Officer Schmossifer misses the perpetrator and tragically hits a bystander, one could question the officers situational response and marksmanship, training for both of which were determined by the municipality.

That's why the department is going to be stuck with the civil liability when a innocent bystander is shot, or a mistake of fact shooting occurs.

When Mr Jonh Q Public buys himself a 'George Zimmerman signature edition KelTek' and appoints himself guardian angel, his mistakes, his lack of training, his psychology, his four rejected applications are solely HIS responsibility.

I believe in the right of law abiding citizens to CCW and to use deadly force to defend themselves or innocent others any place they have the legal right to be. This is a great power, as Uncle Ben said, with it comes great responsibility.

I'm not in full agreement with this bit. Police officers are paid to respond to situations where they ae required to go looking for bad guys.

In contrast, even in states with a castle doctrine or stand your ground type laws that do not place a duty to retreat on an armed citizen, there is still a question of whether what you are doing is prudent and responsible. That's because all our rights come with a commensurate requirement to wield those rights responsibly. A responsible armed citizen will use good judgement and situational awareness to minimize the possibility that he or she will ever have to utilize deadly force to defend him or herself. That's the difference between some one who carries a gun fro self defense and someone who goes looking for trouble.

We are probably more in agreement than not, as while Zimmerman ultimately was determined to have a legal right to be where he was at, and to have still had the right to use deadly force to defend himself, pretty much anyone with a functioning brain agrees that he acted irresponsibly and demonstrated incredibly poor judgement.

 

[BB57]

While it's not entirely clear from reading the article, and hopefully the investigation will clear things up, but generally speaking I would think that having a gun at the ready when trying to protect a dog attack victim from continued aggression would be prudent and justifiable under most circumstances.

Any conclusions drawn from this article is speculation, at best.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being armed and ready.

However it's a real stretch to find that shooting the victim of a dog attack in an attempt to defend that victim from the dog was a prudent thing to do. If you don't have clear shot, and very high degree of confidence in taking that shot, the prudent and responsible thing to do is not take the shot. The prudent thing to do is to wait for a clear opening and then stop the attack and/or wade in and close to point blank range with the dog.

One of the few, and perhaps only, exceptions would be if the damage being done to the victim was so severe and so imminently life threatening that the victim is likely to be dead if any delay was incurred.

This incident is just one of a number of reasons where "defense of others" can go south on you in an instant.

 

[GypsmJim]

No question the shooter should not have been armed. An armed citizen "on patrol" without proper training is an accident waiting to happen.

OTOH, in my neighborhood in recent months there have been 3 cases of dog attacks with severe consequences. In one case a woman was killed by a neighborhood dog. In another case, a young child was maimed by a dog that went for the poor child's face and neck. After multiple surgeries and many months in the hospital the little girl is home now with pitifully disfigured face. To make matters even worse, the dog owners are fighting to "save" the dog from being euthanized, and the sorry judge is actually considering their case!

The root cause here is the irresponsible dog owner. They should be held just as accountable as the shooter.

 

[Protected One]

I've read the linked article several times. I don't see anything that says there were two dogs involved, or that the idiot with the gun had a concealed carry license. And frankly, the more I read the article, the stupider Michael Williams sounds.

I caught the story on local TV, where they were speaking with him (and several neighbors). He stated in his comments that there were two dogs - one attacking the woman and the other keeping people away. He also said that he had a cpl.

The news reporter said the police detained him briefly before releasing him and that police say he was cooperating fully.
It was apparent while listening to him talk that he was not an idiot, but rather someone who didn't invest quite enough time in handgun training.

 

[BB57]

As an armed citizen, we all need to be aware that every bullet we fire has a lawyer attached to it, In this case, the man's motives might have been as pure as the driven snow, but his judgement appears to have been seriously flawed. Had he hit and killed the dog, would anyone be less likely to pillory this poor schmoo, or would we still in our self-rigorousness hang him out to dry? I would hope I would respond to a cry for help as he did, and I would also hope my response was more tempered with judgement than his.

We naturally tend to judge events and people based on outcomes, taking a dimmer view when poor judgement and or deficient skills actually result in someone getting hurt. Unfortunately, many people are often overly concerned about confronting and offending someone who exhibits poor judgement, inadequate skills or dangerous habits. Consider how you respond to a fellow shooter (or even a fellow officer) who keeps sweeping people with his or her firearm. I'd like to think most of us would calla spade a spade and insist on resolving the shortcoming before someone does get hurt.

Personally, if I knew about it, I'd still be pointing out the guy's lack of judgment had he shot the dog rather than the victim, or missed both the victim and the dog. Managing to avoid an actual harm still doesn't make it a good practice or a demonstration of good judgment.

----

Consideration of intent will come into play in terms of the criminal charge (if any). In this case the intent is negligent intent, and that generally goes with involuntary manslaughter. It may also come into play in the sentencing phase (if convicted) where the court, assuming the judge has any latitude under any sentencing guidelines, may consider what this unfortunate individual was actually trying to accomplish. That would be also be based in large part on a pre-sentence investigation completed by a court service officer, who'll look at the guy in depth and make a sentencing recommendation accordingly.

It may also come into play short of a trial if the prosecutor decides to offer him a plea bargain for some lesser offense, in exchange for perhaps, giving up his concealed carry permit and firearms in order to prevent a repeat performance. Justice probably wont be served by put a 64 year old man of questionable judgement in jail. That however can also be a very politically driven decision, as if the prosecutor is elected, he or she may not want to be seen as being weak on crime and/or may want to set an example to prevent other idiots from making similar poor judgement calls.

 

[Protected One]

The family of the victim has already gone on record as saying they will not press charges because he was trying to help their loved one.
Apparently, he fired SEVERAL shots, one of which is thought to have hit the dog...which they have not located yet.

 

[TomkinsSP]

South Dakota: I don't see how we are in disagreement. I said I belive in the right to defend oneself and innocent others with deadly force anywhere one happens to be so long as one is there legally. I said it was an awesome responsibility. Just as I have the right to procede on a green light, but I do not if I see that another car is not going to stop.

(Mostly I support this right because it legally precludes idiotic blame the victim questions. Criminals choose the settings of thier crimes, innocent citizens should not be called to answer for the criminal's choices.)

I do draw a distinction between pretending you are a Guardian Angel (I think he got himself killed, didn't he) and being a LTC civilian going to the store, for a jog, whatever. Smart people don't go looking for trouble, or run into burning buildings unless it is thier job and they have lots of training on how to do it safely.

 

[ContinentalOp]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being armed and ready.

However it's a real stretch to find that shooting the victim of a dog attack in an attempt to defend that victim from the dog was a prudent thing to do. If you don't have clear shot, and very high degree of confidence in taking that shot, the prudent and responsible thing to do is not take the shot. The prudent thing to do is to wait for a clear opening and then stop the attack and/or wade in and close to point blank range with the dog.

One of the few, and perhaps only, exceptions would be if the damage being done to the victim was so severe and so imminently life threatening that the victim is likely to be dead if any delay was incurred.

This incident is just one of a number of reasons where "defense of others" can go south on you in an instant.

Re-read my post. I never said it was prudent to shoot the victim. I find it difficult to see how my post could be interpreted so as to make you think I did. I wasn't referring to this specific event; I was speaking in generalities. I was responding to CalmerThanYou when he said this person shouldn't have been armed. As you yourself said, it would in fact be prudent to be "armed and ready" in a situation like this.

 

[ContinentalOp]

No question the shooter should not have been armed. An armed citizen "on patrol" without proper training is an accident waiting to happen.

Why? He wasn't "on patrol" when this incident took place. It states, in the very first paragraph:

Michael Williams, 61, says he was spraying for bugs outside his house on the 9500 block of Goodwin Street on Monday evening when he heard his neighbor call for help.

While I agree that a non-LE/security individual shouldn't be conducting such patrols, it's irrelevant in this case because he wasn't doing that. He was on his own property, taking care of it.

 

[CalmerThanYou]

Just to be clear...I said he should not have drawn his firearm. Which I stick to given the provided account.