Arvada Shooting Mess

[ST911]

The topic of "anchor shots", "security rounds", etc comes up in active killer training pretty predictably. The typical scenario presented to single or paired responders is that one killer has been shot or surrendered but another is still verified active. The discussions are interesting.

[Borderland]

I know what I would do, but it isn't relevant. The real question is what you would actually do. Attorneys standing by to take your call.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I recall a case that I discussed with an attorney. Guy goes to the house of someone. Long story but he fires two shots into someone in reasonable self-defense. Dude falls off the porch. The first guy shoots him again. He is charged with premeditated murder as there was a long enough pause between shots and the first two were seen as stopping the threat.

His conviction was appealed and I don't know how it came out. Just a few seconds of pause did it for the charges.

[HCM]

I recall a case that I discussed with an attorney. Guy goes to the house of someone. Long story but he fires two shots into someone in reasonable self-defense. Dude falls off the porch. The first guy shoots him again. He is charged with premeditated murder as there was a long enough pause between shots and the first two were seen as stopping the threat.

His conviction was appealed and I don't know how it came out. Just a few seconds of pause did it for the charges.

Context matters - your example is not contextually relevant to an active shooter situation.

[HCM]

Please don't share those thoughts with anyone impressionable, unless you are willing to stand behind them in court, as in 'yes, I did instruct/tell Mr. Jones that ensuring subjects were no longer a threat by firing additional rounds into them was a viable tactic in exigent circumstances such as active shooter situations.'

As the person delivering force, you need to be able to articulate what gave you the REASONABLE BELIEF that, in the case we are speaking of, a subject making no new overt moves to use force was enough of a threat to shoot again. Relying on 'Sam told me to do it,' isn't going to be a winning defense, you, as the deliverer of force, are responsible.

As the force deliverer, you also need to understand that the other side will have expert witnesses to testify that you belief was not valid.

That is the way of the world in force litigation.

I'm not aware of any cases that indicate that delivering additional force, whether it be baton strikes, TASER activation's, or firearms usage, is justified on the basis of 'just in case.'

WMD / explosives such as an individual wearing an explosive suicide vest would be the most clear cut example. Thankfully those have been rare in the CONUS (so far.).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Context matters - your example is not contextually relevant to an active shooter situation.

No, it was in the context of a downed opponent. If a single active shooter is downed, out of the fight and you then fire another shot to 'anchor' said person - that was part of this discussion. The motivation of the shooter, be it the interpersonal issues in the case I mentioned or a single school shooter isn't relevant to the issue of the extra shot.

Thus, Professor X (without telepathic powers) at a campus carry school, sees active shooter Y. Professor X shoots Y. Y seems to be 'out of it'. Y is not still holding the gun. Of course, he might reach for it. So Professor X shoots him again to anchor him. Might that later and paused lethal shot be used against him? If there was no evidence of the downed shooter becoming an active threat again.

[DDTSGM]

WMD / explosives such as an individual wearing an explosive suicide vest would be the most clear cut example. Thankfully those have been rare in the CONUS (so far.).

IMO, would be an exception that would have the best chance of being defended successfully. I think most folks (I hope) discuss this in active shooter training.

[Borderland]

No, it was in the context of a downed opponent. If a single active shooter is downed, out of the fight and you then fire another shot to 'anchor' said person - that was part of this discussion. The motivation of the shooter, be it the interpersonal issues in the case I mentioned or a single school shooter isn't relevant to the issue of the extra shot.

Thus, Professor X (without telepathic powers) at a campus carry school, sees active shooter Y. Professor X shoots Y. Y seems to be 'out of it'. Y is not still holding the gun. Of course, he might reach for it. So Professor X shoots him again to anchor him. Might that later and paused lethal shot be used against him? If there was no evidence of the downed shooter becoming an active threat again.

Highly suspect. Given the fact that most people are anti-gun and likely to end up on a jury I think I could make a case that it was unnecessary to shoot someone who didn't have a firearm in their hand at the time and was on the ground. That's more or less how the police handle it I believe. Could be wrong because I'm not a cop.

[HCM]

No, it was in the context of a downed opponent. If a single active shooter is downed, out of the fight and you then fire another shot to 'anchor' said person - that was part of this discussion. The motivation of the shooter, be it the interpersonal issues in the case I mentioned or a single school shooter isn't relevant to the issue of the extra shot.

Thus, Professor X (without telepathic powers) at a campus carry school, sees active shooter Y. Professor X shoots Y. Y seems to be 'out of it'. Y is not still holding the gun. Of course, he might reach for it. So Professor X shoots him again to anchor him. Might that later and paused lethal shot be used against him? If there was no evidence of the downed shooter becoming an active threat again.

That fact that involves a downed opponent is not the relevant factor. None of the relevant exigencies are present - therefore it’s irrelevant in the active shooter context.

[Baldanders]

That makes too much sense for the Internet gun fighter.

Sadly, yes.

This article covered many issues I thought of as a CCW license holder working at public schools in NC. Excellent and direct.