PDA

View Full Version : Oklahoma Pharmacist Convicted of Murder in Self Defense Case.



F-Trooper05
06-01-2011, 08:08 PM
Not sure how I feel about this one, especially without knowing all the facts. But check out the security footage halfway down the page...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/life-sentence-oklahoma-pharmacist-sparks-debate/story?id=13719078

Mitchell, Esq.
06-01-2011, 08:34 PM
That incident was a clusterfuck from the choice of weapons to the shooter's understanding of self defense law and how to apply it.

He owned the fuckers who came into his shop.

A shooting class under his belt, a S&W 3913 DAO loaded with Winchester White Box Ho-Lo points and a half way decent understanding of when lethal force is & is not justified...he would be a hero.

Now...

It's a depressing world when shit like this happens.

JDM
06-01-2011, 08:36 PM
Wow.

After he dropped the first guy and the second one took off, it was over. He should have retreated and barricaded.

WDW
06-01-2011, 08:44 PM
This sucks for this guy, but people have to understand, once the threat is over, the shooting needs to stop, especially in todays world where it seems the BG's have more friends in the courtroom than the victim.

seabiscuit
06-01-2011, 09:24 PM
Just because he's moving on the floor doesn't make him a threat... assess the situation, take his gun, hold him at gunpoint... but don't shoot him unless he's about to point something at you.

TCinVA
06-01-2011, 09:31 PM
Unfortunately this was pretty much a textbook example of how not to behave in a lethal force situation.

Joe in PNG
06-01-2011, 09:51 PM
I've been wondering what kind of training this guy has? Or, what kind of advice has he heard?

LOKNLOD
06-01-2011, 10:12 PM
As a local I've been following this off and on since it originally happened. Mitchell hit it on the head with "clusterfuck". He made pretty much every mistake possible other than shooting himself at some point. Climbing over the guy to get a second gun and then going back to shoot him really put it over the edge. If the bad guys - particularly the dead one - had been older, scarier dudes with a long rapsheet he may have gotten off even despite the screw ups. The "shot an unarmed kid" factor is a hard one to overcome...

fuse
06-01-2011, 10:16 PM
If it was Texas he'd have been given a medal and had junior high school named after him.

Texas > Oklahoma

Mitchell, Esq.
06-02-2011, 09:38 AM
This sucks for this guy, but people have to understand, once the threat is over, the shooting needs to stop, especially in todays world where it seems the BG's have more friends in the courtroom than the victim.

No, it's that people don't realize that the courtroom has NO friends at all.

This is probably the case that the cops, prosecutor and judge were all looking at saying "Shit...I can't fucking believe we have to do this..." but when you have put your hand on a bible and swore an oath to carryout the duties of your office before G0D or whoever you believe in...

What are you to do when someone defends themselves from criminals, then walks over to a downed guy to put an extra bullet in him and killed him?

Really! What?

Shit. I'm a defense attorney sticking up for the fucking prosecutor here - this is so wrong.

What were they supposed to do?

The right thing? What the fuck is "the right thing" when after the shooting is over the guy walked over to a downed person and executed him?

Fuck me, that's not something you can do and expect have it called kosher...even if it wasn't on video.

This was a fucking screwup of everything that could have gone wrong...and did.

And it fucked him.

The court has no friends. None.

It is on you to be squared the fuck away in all respects. In that, it is no different from any other aspect of the fight.

Be ignorant of it at your peril.

VolGrad
06-02-2011, 10:15 AM
So how do you really feel Mitchell? :p

TCinVA
06-02-2011, 11:22 AM
It is on you to be squared the fuck away in all respects. In that, it is no different from any other aspect of the fight.

Be ignorant of it at your peril.

Sage advice.

WDW
06-02-2011, 11:28 AM
No, it's that people don't realize that the courtroom has NO friends at all.

This is probably the case that the cops, prosecutor and judge were all looking at saying "Shit...I can't fucking believe we have to do this..." but when you have put your hand on a bible and swore an oath to carryout the duties of your office before G0D or whoever you believe in...

What are you to do when someone defends themselves from criminals, then walks over to a downed guy to put an extra bullet in him and killed him?

Really! What?

Shit. I'm a defense attorney sticking up for the fucking prosecutor here - this is so wrong.

What were they supposed to do?

The right thing? What the fuck is "the right thing" when after the shooting is over the guy walked over to a downed person and executed him?

Fuck me, that's not something you can do and expect have it called kosher...even if it wasn't on video.

This was a fucking screwup of everything that could have gone wrong...and did.

And it fucked him.

The court has no friends. None.

It is on you to be squared the fuck away in all respects. In that, it is no different from any other aspect of the fight.

Be ignorant of it at your peril.
I'm not saying what he did was right. But, there is an obvious bias in this country towards people that choose to carry a weapon and defend themselves. This is evident in those states that have duty to retreat laws that prevent proper engagement of a threat. How do you explain those cases where a home is invaded, a BG is wounded but not killed, then sues the homeowner and wins, NO FRIENDS MY ASS! You get the right lawyer and you can get away with anything (OJ). Hopefully, during sentencing, the judge will take into account the circumstances. This is an obvious case of an average citizen, with no training, who was scared and had no idea that EOF existed or that were laws based upon it. You are screaming at me like I am encouraging this kind of behavior. If anything, my initial post encourages you to be in line with the law, and be squared away, knowing proper EOF. If I thought I had no friends in the courtroom, damn straight everyone of my actions would be defenseable under my states laws. It's all good though, go have a drink and chill out man. We're all on the same team here and in agreement that this guy was in the wrong and seriously lacking in EOF training.

jlw
06-02-2011, 12:30 PM
He also shouldn't have given multiple conflicting statements and lied about being a Gulf War veteran...

Mitchell, Esq.
06-02-2011, 01:54 PM
This is evident in those states that have duty to retreat laws that prevent proper engagement of a threat.


Huh?

Where in the hell did you pick that shit up?

Duty to retreat laws are so misunderstood it is comical. They allow you to engage a threat so long as you did not have a reasonable means of avoiding the threat with complete safety.

If you have a reasonable means of avoiding a threat with complete safety and you chose to engage, then you have not availed yourself of an opportunity to avoid a lethal force situation and got into it by choice, and therefore cannot claim self defense as a defense at trial.

They are an overblown fear that many people harp on, few understand and even fewer people ever have to deal with them in the aftermath.

The only time they come into play is when you see trouble brewing and instead of saying "Fuck it, I'm not getting into a gunfight" you say "Fuck this, it's ON!"

When the situation comes to you, unless you have the ability to hide behind hard cover that can't be lit on fire and have cell phone access to call men in funny pants, ugly cars and unlubricated, ill maintained pistols & AR's with the magazine inserted backwards...AKA "the PO-lice" as they say in Bridgeport, CT...

Kill people if they are an imminent, otherwise unavoidable threat of great bodily harm.

It's practical effect is NOTHING for you or I on the street.

Even in "duty to retreat" states.



How do you explain those cases where a home is invaded, a BG is wounded but not killed, then sues the homeowner and wins,

You got a case in which the intruder sued and won, in which the home owner was compliant with his state's use of force laws, we'll talk.

Till then, I call your example "Fiction"


You get the right lawyer and you can get away with anything (OJ).

It wasn't justice...but it was brilliant work...

I'm not screaming at you, but I am tired of people who bring up the same old bullshit time and time again.

The world is not what we want it to be, it is what it is. People can rail against the unjustice of it all they would like, but the court reviewing your shooting doesn't care what should be.

Just about what is.

I'm sorry, I'm about what is.

What 'is' appears to me that too many people aren't paying attention to the ROE's.

They appear to gloss over them, give them a backhanded respect, and then complain about them without understanding them.

The ROE's in most places are a hell of a lot more free than people believe.

WDW
06-02-2011, 02:17 PM
Mitch my friend, we will just have to agree to disagree. I understand what you are saying, but I can't help but feel if I had to use lethal force to defend myself, the law would prod and poke at every single angle to try and find some fault with my defense, even though at the end of the day I was an innocent citizen defending myself from some thug who started the confrontation anyways. I have seen first hand how lenient the law is towards violent, dangerous individuals. It is just set up for average, scared civilians to fail. There are 1,000 things you have to do right and foul up just 1 and you're headed up river. I know my states laws intimately and follow them to the letter even though sometimes my emotions tell me to do otherwise. I'll throw this in there about the duty to retreat. If I came home and saw someone in my home, but had not yet entered, I could turn around, and avoid the conflict and call the police. In a duty to retreat state, would this not be the lawful thing to do? In TN, I can go in and use leathal force. In one state I'm a murderer if I go in and engage and in the other I am perfectly clear. See my point on how confusing it can be?

joshs
06-02-2011, 08:32 PM
I'll throw this in there about the duty to retreat. If I came home and saw someone in my home, but had not yet entered, I could turn around, and avoid the conflict and call the police. In a duty to retreat state, would this not be the lawful thing to do? In TN, I can go in and use leathal force. In one state I'm a murderer if I go in and engage and in the other I am perfectly clear. See my point on how confusing it can be?

Almost every U.S. jurisdiction has no duty to retreat inside the home, so, in your example, you would likely not have a duty to retreat anywhere. Duty to retreat originates from the common law (its been around a long time and worked reasonably well), and, as Mitchell pointed out, as long as you act reasonably, duty to retreat laws are not going to effect your legal defense.

joshs
06-02-2011, 08:39 PM
What were they supposed to do?

Hope for jury nullification.

peterb
06-02-2011, 09:23 PM
In one state I'm a murderer if I go in and engage and in the other I am perfectly clear. See my point on how confusing it can be?

It's hard to go wrong with the general rule as taught by Mas Ayoob in his LFI classes:

"You may legally use deadly force only when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."

Some states give you more leeway, but you don't have to push the edge.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-03-2011, 10:47 AM
I'll throw this in there about the duty to retreat. If I came home and saw someone in my home, but had not yet entered, I could turn around, and avoid the conflict and call the police.

In a duty to retreat state, would this not be the lawful thing to do? In TN, I can go in and use leathal force. In one state I'm a murderer if I go in and engage and in the other I am perfectly clear. See my point on how confusing it can be?

Um...

OK.

You have just come home, saw your house has been entered by and unknown, and assuming you do not have kids/spouse/the elderly in the house (whom you have a legal duty to protect) your options are to withdraw and call in heavy forces (the police...and that wasn't a fat cop joke entirely...but refering to body armor, rifles/shotguns and manpower) or engage in close quarters room clearing and CQB on your own...

Fuck going into the house.

Law aside, done a cqb class. Fun shit when it is airsoft. For real with bullets and kitchen knives?

No. Not if the prize was a hot tub full of green jello and penthouse level sluts with handcuffs, beads & sealed lab results from a certified facility waiting for me on the other end.

I don't wanna DIE.

All that changes if I have to go in and get someone I care about out of the situation. In that case, fuck it, men are biologically disposable anyway in the grand sceme of things so if you got to go, go doing your biologically designed purpose in life - fighting...but doing that shit when your property only is at stake?

Thanks, but I got a 'thing' I have to attend to. BYE...

Now, back to the law...If you have an option to avoid the fight which leaves you a means to escape the fight with complete safety - you take it.

If you can't avoid the fight with complete safety, you are weapons free.

You are not expected or required to run from the confrontation once it becomes clear that doing so would place you at a disadvantage even if the fight has not started yet; however, if you know that you can simply step away and the confrontation will NOT HAPPEN, and you do not do so...

You are wrong.

Legally and tactically.

Lon
06-03-2011, 10:59 AM
No. Not if the prize was a hot tub full of green jello and penthouse level sluts with handcuffs, beads & sealed lab results from a certified facility waiting for me on the other end.

That's one of the best quote I've seen in a long time.:cool:

Goods posts, sir.

peterb
06-03-2011, 11:13 AM
This is a case more like the original post that was covered locally. The jury concluded that the first shot was legitimate self-defense but the the second shot, after the attacker was down, was murder.
---------------------

White River Junction, Vermont - May 18, 2011

According to court documents, Kyle Bolaski shot Vinnie Tamburello in broad daylight on a ballfield in Chester and then immediately started shouting that the shooting was in self-defense, a position he maintains almost three years later.

The trial, which is now halfway into its second week, is highlighting the legal definition of self-defense.

"Self-defense requires that the defendant had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger or that he was about to be seriously injured," said Michele Martinez Campbell, a professor at the Vermont Law School.

According to court documents, Tamburello showed up at the field with an ax, continuing an altercation from a day earlier. Tamburello rushed the group with the ax and began striking Bolaski's truck repeatedly. Police say Bolaski then pulled a gun from the truck and shot Tamburello in the leg.

"If the facts clearly show that the victim was disabled, there is no more imminent threat and then self-defense doesn't apply," Martinez Campbell said.

But what happened after that first shooting is not clear. In fact, a witness called Wednesday seemed to contradict his own testimony as to who was pursuing after the first shot to the leg, first saying it was Tamburello.

"I saw the man with the ax still coming forward, coming still in a forward direction to the man with the gun," witness Keith Destromp said.

Then during cross examination Destromp said it was Bolaski following Tamburello.

"(The defendant) was going in a forward motion, yes sir," Destromp said.

It was then that police say Bolaski fired the fatal blow, hitting the victim in the back.

"There is nothing in the law that says just because the victim was shot in the back that means that it can't be self-defense," Martinez Campbell said. "But you know you would have to have some facts that really establish why that victim was shot in the back and yet the defendant still believed that his own life was in danger."




Verdict in Kyle Bolaski murder trial

White River Junction, Vermont - May 19, 2011

He claimed it was self-defense, but the jury found a Springfield man guilty of murder.

It took jurors just three hours to find Kyle Bolaski, 27, guilty of second-degree murder for the shooting death of Vincent Tamburello, 32, three years ago in Chester.

Bolaski claimed he had to shoot Tamburello because Tamburello was attacking him with an ax. But prosecutors argued Bolaski shot Tamburello in the back after Tamburello turned to run away.

Bolaski faces a sentence of 20-years-to-life in prison when he is sentenced

http://www.wcax.com/story/14681437/verdict-in-kyle-bolaski-murder-trial

Kyle Reese
06-03-2011, 11:47 AM
I would listen to Mitchell, Esq and JoshS. They might just know what they're talking about in the realm of the law and it's application in these matters.

jslaker
06-03-2011, 12:47 PM
But, there is an obvious bias in this country towards people that choose to carry a weapon and defend themselves.

I live in a state that has some of the strongest castle doctrine and stand your ground laws in the country for protecting those that have to shoot in self-defense; this guy could and should have been charged with murder if this shooting had happened here.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-03-2011, 01:10 PM
Earlier this year Michael de Bethencourt told me I had a year to come up with a class outline on law and self defense, or I was going to suffer a fate involving roofies and a tattoo.

(I'm not sure he realizes I'd pay extra for that...but then again...if I'm getting it for free, I may as well see how creative he really is.)

Who wants in on being the test class/lecture hamsters hooked up the machines to see if they react badly to the stimuli?

Location will be in Bridgeport, Connecticut. (My office is in the 'hood...handguns & spare mags required, rifles optional but encouraged given the area...)

I have some material worked out, but nothing to the point I'm satisfied. Subject is "The reasonable man in and unreasonable situation: Reconsiling Law and Tactics in use of force for non-law enforcement situations."

Feedback and suggestions will be manditory, but you get to be subjected to my speaking for...an hour to 90 minutes (i'm guessing), then pick my brain and tell me what you want to hear next time.

Lon
06-03-2011, 01:41 PM
I'd like to do it, but am a little far away. You should record it and email the .wav file to selected individuals for their review and comments.

JDM
06-03-2011, 02:15 PM
Earlier this year Michael de Bethencourt told me I had a year to come up with a class outline on law and self defense, or I was going to suffer a fate involving roofies and a tattoo.

(I'm not sure he realizes I'd pay extra for that...but then again...if I'm getting it for free, I may as well see how creative he really is.)

Who wants in on being the test class/lecture hamsters hooked up the machines to see if they react badly to the stimuli?

Location will be in Bridgeport, Connecticut. (My office is in the 'hood...handguns & spare mags required, rifles optional but encouraged given the area...)

I have some material worked out, but nothing to the point I'm satisfied. Subject is "The reasonable man in and unreasonable situation: Reconsiling Law and Tactics in use of force for non-law enforcement situations."

Feedback and suggestions will be manditory, but you get to be subjected to my speaking for...an hour to 90 minutes (i'm guessing), then pick my brain and tell me what you want to hear next time.

Sign me up.

WDW
06-03-2011, 03:45 PM
Everyone keeps quoting me like I think this guy should get off. I don't. I think he should
serve time or serious probation for manslaughter. I am trying to differentiate between action and intent.

I seriously believe this guy thought he was in the right, a stark contrast from a "true murderer".

He obviously had no training and freeked out. I am just saying
that there is no leniency for being ignorant of the law and that you better have your
shit together if you are carrying a weapon.

What I have been trying to say, and I guess I'm a shitty conveyor of thought, is that if you wrongfully engage a BG, even though he's a BG, and he probably deserves it and society would benefit from it, you now will be tried and the favor will swing to him as the "victim" even though he initiated the confrontation and probably would have killed you if he could.

jslaker
06-03-2011, 04:09 PM
you now will be tried and the favor will swing to him as the "victim"

Quite frankly, anybody that gets shot at PBR while bleeding and out of the fight is a victim. Being victimized does not give you legal nor moral carte blanche to deal with the perpetrators as you see fit, and that's what myself and others are taking issue with.

That has absolutely nothing to do with people who use a firearm in self-defense being treated unfairly or not getting leniency from the legal system and everything to do with functioning in civil society.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-03-2011, 04:29 PM
He obviously had no training and freeked out. I am just saying that there is no leniency for being ignorant of the law and that you better have your shit together if you are carrying a weapon.

Carrying a gun without training is like handing a teenager the keys to a Dodge Magnum truck and telling them to figure out how to drive, and learn the rules of the road on their own.

It's negligent, and when the kid makes a wrong turn and runs someone down because he didn't know what he was doing, then it's wrong - just like someone carrying a gun without training.

You are right, their isn't any leniency. Maybe their should be, but their isn't.




What I have been trying to say, and I guess I'm a shitty conveyor of thought, is that if you wrongfully engage a BG, even though he's a BG, and he probably deserves it and society would benefit from it, you now will be tried and the favor will swing to him as the "victim" even though he initiated the confrontation and probably would have killed you if he could.

You have to really screw up to 'wrongfully' engage a bad guy.

Like...shooting a guy as you walk over his down but not dead body...

On video.

The standard for use of force is a subjective/objective test:

Subjective - based on what you knew at the time, what you saw, heard, evaluated from training you have had and all reasonable inferences based on the situation as made by your observations and training, did you feel you were in grave danger?

A trained person has the advantage, because his ability to interpret data is faster due to him knowing what to look for and what to disgard, and can do it in realtime in the situation, so any inferences he makes based on his training can be taken into account...and if made within the framework of his training, be counted toward his assessment of danger.

If you can subjectively say you believe you were in danger, the question goes to the objective assessment: was your belief reasonable for you to have?

Not correct.

REASONABLE.

The law doesn't demand perfection. It demands reasonability.

I know, you are going to say that "reasonable" means what the judge says, and if the judge hates guns and self defense, you are fucked...regardless, it works pretty well, actually, if your beliefs of danger are founded on training, the facts of the situation and good judgement.

People seem to be so conserned about the consequences of a wrongful engagement - but they don't want to know how to do a proper, lawful one in which you can react sooner, faster and more agressively because your decission tree is cleaner and shorter.

No, a wrongful engagement isn't going to be looked at with any favor - so do them well and proper.

A lot of people think they know the laws of lethal force for their given state...but if you are so conserned about stuff like the laws of retreat and the like, I'm sorry...you don't.

This is not a complex area of law, but a lot of myths, distortions and general BS has people's head's spinning out of frustraition.

Some of the stuff you have to let go of, because it's going to make you hesitate, and hesitation kills.

John Ralston
06-03-2011, 04:38 PM
Carrying a gun without training is like handing a teenager the keys to a Dodge Magnum truck and telling them to figure out how to drive, and learn the rules of the road on their own.

It's negligent, and when the kid makes a wrong turn and runs someone down because he didn't know what he was doing, then it's wrong - just like someone carrying a gun without training.

This would be the only statement you have made that I would have to disagree with.

Some can't afford the $$ to take training classes. I have only taken a few myself. I am certainly no expert either, but the right to keep and bear arms doesn't require that you take any. The right to defend yourself has no pre-reqs.

It's kind of like saying you can have a fair trial, so long as you have attended law school. ;)

jslaker
06-03-2011, 04:42 PM
This would be the only statement you have made that I would have to disagree with.

Some can't afford the $$ to take training classes. I have only taken a few myself. I am certainly no expert either, but the right to keep and bear arms doesn't require that you take any. The right to defend yourself has no pre-reqs.

It's kind of like saying you can have a fair trial, so long as you have attended law school. ;)

I'd agree that I don't advocate mandatory formal training for the reasons you've listed.

That said, we live in an age where anybody can pull up the relevant code sections for their locality in mere moments, and, as Mitchell said, this isn't a particularly complicated area of law. I can't see any excuse for someone choosing to arm themselves without similarly choosing to inform themselves.

WDW
06-03-2011, 04:59 PM
Yet again, what I say is being picked apart and taken out of context.

I am trying to explain what this guy did and why he did it. I don't agree with, nor would I do anything he did.

I am just saying it is unfortunate that someone who up until now was a law abiding citizen, is now a felon because some POS tried to rob him and he reacted completely wrong out of fear and instinct and must now deal with the consequences.

I guess I am just trying to explain the complexity of the microsecond that differentiates a murderer from a law abiding citizen who defended themselves and how it might be easy to get caught up in the moment and take it too far.

I have drawn my weapon once as a civilian, I did not fire it. I did not feel it was necessary. The situation met the criteria for lethal force, but I did not feel it was necessary to kill this kid who was under the influence of illegal drugs. It was a show of force that ended an escalating situation I did everything right according to state trooper that responded, thankfully, and was cleared on the spot by LE. I was asked for my information and told I might need to appear in court. I never did. That was 3 years ago.

TCinVA
06-03-2011, 09:31 PM
I guess I am just trying to explain the complexity of the microsecond that differentiates a murderer from a law abiding citizen who defended themselves and how it might be easy to get caught up in the moment and take it too far.


It wasn't a microsecond...it was going to get another gun, approaching the unconscious, unarmed accomplice, and emptying the second gun into him. Lethal force is justified by an exigency...one that in this instance had passed.

He went beyond defending himself into playing judge, jury, and executioner. He did it on video tape. The old saying about stupid games and stupid prizes comes to mind.

WDW
06-03-2011, 11:10 PM
It wasn't a microsecond...it was going to get another gun, approaching the unconscious, unarmed accomplice, and emptying the second gun into him. Lethal force is justified by an exigency...one that in this instance had passed.

He went beyond defending himself into playing judge, jury, and executioner. He did it on video tape. The old saying about stupid games and stupid prizes comes to mind.

I wasn't referring to this case or a specific action with the "microsecond comment". I was referring to the time it takes someone to decide, after they have defended themselves within the parameter of the law, whether or not they cross that line and take things into their own hands, which that guy did, and it is unfortunate. Live and learn for us though.

Drew
06-04-2011, 01:22 AM
Mitch is the man.

For the record, I-
1) don't want to go to jail.
2) believe discretion is the better part of valor.
3) was freaked out when I read that Masad Ayoob book about self-defense shooting.

And consequently, I think you should be thinking, saying and doing a few things in a justified self defense shooting.

1) Aloud. "FUUUUUUUUUCK!!!"
2) In your head. "Shoot him to the ground. Shoot him to the ground. Shoot him to the ground."
3) Pants: making dookie.

Not exactly scientific criteria. But thats the level of "oh, shit" that would need to ping to start working the draw stroke. And he's good to the point on the video where he WALKS RIGHT PAST THE GUY TO GET THE OTHER GUN. What? Was? That?

As an aside, we were taught back in hooah high that if you walk past a downed threat and then come back and shoot him (like assaulting across the kill zone of an ambush) - its a crime. In combat.

This is also why I find long-range pistol shooting for "practical" self-defense training somewhat dubious. Low percentage shot = high percent chance my British Knights can get me the f out of dodge. But that, as Conan's Asian chronicler in voice-over says, is another story. And a tale of high adventure.

Bottom line: Bone-head play, doc (or whatever the handle for a Pharmacist is). I was with you until you got the second gun and victory-lapped the bad guy. But you will have plenty of time to marinate on that...

Drew

Mitchell, Esq.
06-05-2011, 11:57 AM
I wasn't referring to this case or a specific action with the "microsecond comment". I was referring to the time it takes someone to decide, after they have defended themselves within the parameter of the law, whether or not they cross that line and take things into their own hands, which that guy did, and it is unfortunate. Live and learn for us though.

RE: Time - People need to be able to process the situation through mental filers in reali-time continiously as the situation flows.

Your mind should opperate like a well functioning Combat Information Center with one guy in the center recieving constant updated from Tactial (Seeing the situation and running your weapon systems), Radar/Sonar (processing input) and Inteligence (Evaluating what he gets from Radar/Sonar & Tactical, then giving you a recomendation on threat assessment as it occurs) as well as the Engine Room (Scotty Says "I CANNA HOLD HER TOGTHER!! GET US OUTA HERE" )and Damage Control ("Minor hit on port upper limb. Hull breach is nominal, we're gonna need a bandaid...injecting adrenaline now and dumping lunch into pants!!") stations updating you on your status.

You can't act on a tactical ONLY perspective or you get fucked.

The better you are at shooting and fighting, the more mental processing space you have available to process if you should be shooting of fighting.

A guy doing the FAST in 6.0 can spend a lot less mental energy deciding HOW to shoot and pour mental energy into if he should at any given time.

His tactical section is a well run machine that doesn't need constant input from the OIC incharge of CIC. He does what is necessary when it is necessary, and the OIC incharge of the CIC can spend more of his time with Radar/Sonar and Intel.

Ersland...

Intel officer was out to lunch. Literally, he wasn't in CIC, and his assistant didn't have sufficient experience to make a call one way or the other.
Radar/Sonar station was manned by a 3rd level assistant who didn't know what to do.
Tactical? Shit...it was the trunk monkey working that station.

So he fucked up.

People are so desperate to justify his actions they can't say "This was a goatfuck of biblical proportions. This is how you DON'T do it. EVER"

Take morality out of it.

Look at it with a cold eye.

Self defense is a justification for doing something society tells us we aught not to do regularly - kill motherfuckers like it's free...because in a legit case of SD, it IS.

This was not that situation.

However you want to look at the morality of it, it was not that situation.

TGS
06-06-2011, 11:49 AM
As an aside, we were taught back in hooah high that if you walk past a downed threat and then come back and shoot him (like assaulting across the kill zone of an ambush) - its a crime. In combat.



A great man came up with the following, "Don't kill nothin' that don't need killin'."

MDS
06-06-2011, 02:57 PM
sealed lab results from a certified facility

See? This is why I love lawyers, in spite of what everyone else thinks. They don't forget the important stuff.


1) Aloud. "FUUUUUUUUUCK!!!"
2) In your head. "Shoot him to the ground. Shoot him to the ground. Shoot him to the ground."
3) Pants: making dookie.

Agreed. I'm pretty inexperienced with using deadly force to defend myself. But I was pretty proud of myself the other night, when a surprise noise made me turn and a motion behind some trash cans pushed me in to red alert. My brain went into something very like Mitchell's Combat Information Center:


Your mind should opperate like a well functioning Combat Information Center with one guy in the center recieving constant updated from Tactial (Seeing the situation and running your weapon systems), Radar/Sonar (processing input) and Inteligence (Evaluating what he gets from Radar/Sonar & Tactical, then giving you a recomendation on threat assessment as it occurs) as well as the Engine Room (Scotty Says "I CANNA HOLD HER TOGTHER!! GET US OUTA HERE" )and Damage Control ("Minor hit on port upper limb. Hull breach is nominal, we're gonna need a bandaid...injecting adrenaline now and dumping lunch into pants!!") stations updating you on your status.

I was looking for more movement or other clues as to what was out there; at the same time I was thinking about what escape and/or cover was available around me; at the same time (and I didn't notice this until after I realized it was my dog) my hand went to my gun. Being as inexperienced as I am, I can't imagine that it's unreasonably difficult for the average dude to get into that kind of mindset.

The the OP: like any good tragedy, this story has a flawed hero. He's a hero for standing up to scumbags; his flaw is whatever made him think it was OK to execute the "downed threat," whether he was ignorant of the law or just too out of control with adrenaline to think clearly. And like any good tragic hero, we hate to see him suffer the just consequences of his flaws...

Also, in keeping with the theme of Mitchell's Combat Information Center, I propose to change #1 above to:

1) Aloud. "KHAAAAAANNNNN!!!"

Mitchell, Esq.
06-06-2011, 04:37 PM
See? This is why I love lawyers, in spite of what everyone else thinks. They don't forget the important stuff.



One does not risk death for a fate far worse...

LittleLebowski
06-06-2011, 08:44 PM
I hav met some lawyers while shooting that I would lay it on the line for. One is now currently representing me against the guy who shot me.

jslaker
06-06-2011, 10:35 PM
I hav met some lawyers while shooting that I would lay it on the line for. One is now currently representing me against the guy who shot me.

Lawyers are aome of the funniest motherfuckers I've ever met.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-07-2011, 06:48 AM
That's because lawyers never tell jokes.

We just tell true stories that are funny to everyone who wasn't involved.

Mitchell, Esq.
07-01-2011, 02:26 PM
Earlier this year Michael de Bethencourt told me I had a year to come up with a class outline on law and self defense, or I was going to suffer a fate involving roofies and a tattoo.

(I'm not sure he realizes I'd pay extra for that...but then again...if I'm getting it for free, I may as well see how creative he really is.)

Who wants in on being the test class/lecture hamsters hooked up the machines to see if they react badly to the stimuli?

Location will be in Bridgeport, Connecticut. (My office is in the 'hood...handguns & spare mags required, rifles optional but encouraged given the area...)

I have some material worked out, but nothing to the point I'm satisfied. Subject is "The reasonable man in and unreasonable situation: Reconsiling Law and Tactics in use of force for non-law enforcement situations."

Feedback and suggestions will be manditory, but you get to be subjected to my speaking for...an hour to 90 minutes (i'm guessing), then pick my brain and tell me what you want to hear next time.


I'm never going to move on this till I give myself a deadline.

August 14th. My office conference room. Noon (unless people ask for another time by consensus...) till you people decide you are tired of listening to me/someone tries to make off with the cars in the parking lot and we end up having "an incident".

PM for address.

I'm still working on my subject matter, so if you are looking for a title, right now, the one I've got that fits it best is "How the hell can people make a use of force decission which fits within use of force laws, when they may not know/understand what those laws are, how they apply, or what the standards for review of your actions are...so lets look at the environment we are operating in so people can chose the right tactics & stuff."

Yeah...it's kinda long, but it's a legal class so did you actually expect something short?

JDM
07-03-2011, 12:07 PM
I'm never going to move on this till I give myself a deadline.

August 14th. My office conference room. Noon (unless people ask for another time by consensus...) till you people decide you are tired of listening to me/someone tries to make off with the cars in the parking lot and we end up having "an incident".

PM for address.

I'm still working on my subject matter, so if you are looking for a title, right now, the one I've got that fits it best is "How the hell can people make a use of force decission which fits within use of force laws, when they may not know/understand what those laws are, how they apply, or what the standards for review of your actions are...so lets look at the environment we are operating in so people can chose the right tactics & stuff."

Yeah...it's kinda long, but it's a legal class so did you actually expect something short?

Why does everything good have to be so damn far away!

Joe in PNG
07-03-2011, 03:00 PM
Why does everything good have to be so damn far away!

You're telling me!

section8usmc
08-03-2011, 12:55 AM
I understand that people, especially pharmacists are scared of gang activity, and with so many being knocked over in the past few years, it makes the fear heightened. Then throw in knowing how desperate people are getting with the economy and the list goes on. That said, why not pull out a street sweeper and cut him in half while you're at it. How about you throw a grenade at him, or shoot him with an AT-4 anti tank shoulder fired missile ? Overkill is overkill. This is absurd. Most people, even if they don't have much to live for, aren't going to want to stick around after the first round goes off. Even someone all jacked up on drugs, the human body can only sustain so much damage. Now, this guy has to watch his back every single moment of the day, for the rest of his miserable life, and for what ? Unless he was a PJ, he likely had little training with weapons. People panic. That's why training is so important. The first post was spot on. Barricade. BTW, don't pharmacies have a security gate ? Can't find the video, but seems you would drop the gate and take cover. Not like the cops are going to take a casual midnight stroll to an armed robbery in progress, no matter where it is. People of all walks are apparently on edge more than I thought seeing so much of this stuff in the news. Look up Ixonia Wisconsin shooting. Of course, that's just crazy.