Remember the pizza dude who shot the guy 15 times?

JUSTIFIED!

http://www.indystar.com/articles/5/150728-9575-009.html

"It's a clear case of self-defense," Deputy Prosecutor Barb Crawford said. "He did what the law allows him to do to protect himself."

Commentary: I will admit to being pleased...no...very pleased...with this. It is a shame that the delivery guy had to act to defend himself, but I can't and won't feel sorry for the criminal. To the delivery guy I say, "Congratulations on staying alive, congratulations on being vindicated by the prosecutors."

:toast:

I started to carry after the store was robed. Of course it was against the company policy, but 2 out of three closers started to carry after that. It was a small .38 and until one of the other guys told the manager it was a "secret". When the manager found out, we had a little conversation and I quit 2 weeks later.

these delivery people to defend themselves.

How many times have we heard stories of delivery folks being robbed at gunpoint versus the delivery people robbing customers or otherwise raising hell with firearms?

that if i shoot somebody while on work his family can sue the company.
On the other hand if I were shot, my family couldn't sue the company, because I agreed to their "no weapon" policy.
It's fair, isn't it?

:shrug:

Besides 15 shots with 10 or more hits is better than I'd expect from the police.

To me, it seems like that dentist's wife in Texas who ran over her husband, backed up, and ran over him again. A case of overkill (no pun intended).

What if the pizza guy stopped shooting after 5 or 10 shots and was killed as a result? Would that be preferable for you?

Why is it that some of you pro-gunners seem to think that a gun is the answer to everything???

:shrug:

Like when a pizza guy is being robbed at gun point and uses his own gun in self-defense.

Is that the definition in the NRA Dictionary????

Obviously the definition of self-defense the Marion County prosecutor's office is using covers shooting someone 15 times. Maybe you should take it up with them.

I don't understand this problem with 15 rounds being fired. How many rounds should he have fired? What would be acceptable for you?

IMHO.

And the only reason I mentioned the Nuts Ruining America is that they seem to like to print gun-related documents...like that gun-lust magazine for kids.

You.

Were.

Not.

There.

so his opinion should carry the heaviest weight, don't you agree???

Why else would he fire 15 times in "self-defense"????

:shrug:

:shrug:

The same mysterious force that turns ordinary people into hardened criminals.

...until you no longer feel your life is in danger.

Unless there is clear evidence that he wanted to kill the guy, I say we shouldn't second-guess him. Your judgment, or mine, might get clouded if we were attacked. The blame lies with the attacker, not the defender.

who took 6 hits from a .357 Magnum and continued to attack, eventually killing the officer. One fires until the threat is over. COLib, a bullet is not a death ray. In fact the impact of a bullet is not enough to even knock a person down, usually. There is another case in which a criminal took twelve hits from a cop's 9mm and lived, while managing to kill the cop with a .22 caliber revolver. Basically, I'm telling you that firing 15 times at a criminal can be completely reasonable. Some people can take a lot of hits and keep coming. In Louisiana, a criminal attacked two cops, killed the female cop and took 9 hits form a .357 Magnum, including a shot to the head before finally bleeding out. The police officer who shot the criminal was severely beaten by the criminal while the cop was shooting the criminal. The officer lived, but was hospitalized.

...to fire fifteen times in "self-defense".

self-defense situation, you do what you have to do. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. I'll worry about my liberal guilt later. Maybe.

Even the state prosecutor agrees it was self defense. What purpose does it now serve to question the man's motive and character? I don't think violence is the answer to everything. That is a totally unfair inplication. There do exist, however, some limited circumstances in which a regular citizen has the need to use force to protect himself. I thank my lucky stars we live in a country in which the citizen's right to do so is recognized and protected.

Even the state prosecutor agrees it was self defense.

That's right. The prosecutor exercised prosecutorial discretion and decided not to prosecute the individual for culpable homicide. The prosecutor assessed the evidence and determined that no conviction was likely to be obtained / that it would be improper to prosecute. Nobody actually knows what a judge or jury would have decided.

I have no problem at all with acts of self-defence. However, I hold by the time-honoured definition of self-defence: essentially, the use of such force as is reasonable and necessary to avoid grievous injury to one's self, or death. And only such force.

I have considerable difficulty with the idea of an assailant being shot (or otherwise assaulted) when s/he is horizontal; assuming that s/he has been disabled from continuing the assault, e.g. is not still clutching and aiming a firearm, that is simply no longer "defence".

In this particular case:

The angle of the bullet wounds, according to the autopsy, indicate the deliveryman might have fired some shots after his assailant fell to the ground. The evidence doesn't prove that conclusively, Crawford said.

Well, forensic science often doesn't prove things conclusively. It's entirely possible that the reason that no firm conclusion could be reached in this case was that the person was simply so shot up that it was impossible to determine the sequence or angle of individual shots, or which shots were or would have been fatal. I note that the autopsy did not prove conclusively that he was NOT shot after falling to the ground.

It's entirely possible that the person who did the shooting simply covered his tracks by making a determination of the specific cause of death, or of the assailant's condition when the later shots were fired, impossible. It's also possible, although surely unlikely, that the assailant was not disabled until the last of the shots were fired. And it's entirely possible that demanding, in hindsight, that the person who shot him have stopped shooting at point "x" would simply be to demand a super-human response on his part, i.e. to ignore the whole question of what is "reasonable" for a person about to be shot to do.

The "adrenaline" effect alluded to in this thread, and the simple fact that very few people in the world have the training, experience and judgment, and perhaps clairvoyance, to use a firearm within the proper bounds of "self-defence", make it difficult to assess anyone's claim that what looks objectively excessive was in fact reasonable.

Particularly when the assailant is aiming a firearm at the person who then must act in self-defence, it may be beyond the realm of human wisdom and skill to assess what the self-defender did accurately and fairly. That's why the self-defence justification must only be proved "on a balance of probabilities" -- that it is more likely than not that what s/he did was justified by his/her reasonable fear, and that what s/he did was reasonable in the circumstances.

This prosecutor evidently thought that what the individual did was justified by his fear, and was reasonable in the circumstances. Prosecutors may also decide not to prosecute, regardless of how firmly they might believe that what someone did was unjustified, simply because they believe that they do not have the evidence needed to persuade a judge or jury that it was more likely than not unjustified. All sorts of people are not prosecuted for crimes that they obviously committed when there is insufficient evidence.

It may be, in this case, that the assailant would not have died if the self-defender had not continued to shoot him after he fell. It may be that he was dead, or inevitably dying, when he hit the floor. I don't see any point in having an opinion on a subject that a pathologist couldn't figure out. (Note that this is not a response specifically to anything Liberal Classic said.)

The fact remains that an act is only in self-defence to the extent that there was no reasonable alternative to it, and no more force was used than was necessary to avoid grievous bodily harm or death, and the death of the assailant was not intended. Giving an assailant his/her just desserts simply has no role in self-defence, and certainly no one's opinion about what anyone else deserved has any bearing on whether an act was in self-defence. (Note that I am not responding specifically to anything Liberal Classic said here.)


I thank my lucky stars we live in a country in which the citizen's right to do so is recognized and protected.

And for our purposes, the question still remains of how to balance this particular element of the individual's right to life -- access to means to defend one's self -- against the public interest in the safety of everyone else: whether non-violation of the individual's right to life demands that every individual have unlimited access at every moment and in every place and every situation to every available means of defending him/herself against every conceivable danger, regardless of the known potential, when that is the case, for harm to others ... including assailants killed, sometimes intentionally, in an unreasonable and unnecessary act of "self-defence".

I always wonder where the voices are crying for the "right" to install an alligator-equipped moat, or perhaps land mines, around their homes, these obviously being about the most "effective" means of ensuring that no one sneaks into one's house and kills one in one's sleep ...

It didn't go to trial. My apologies.

Every case of self defense is different.

I read an account of this event where the perpetrator was still alive and attacking after the last shot was fired.

Remember, in any case of self defense (cops included), you shoot to stop. If thats one bullet, so be it. If its 20, then it took 20.

Im sorry I don't have a link, but it should be googleable.

for people who are thrust into life/death struggles to lose count of how many times they fired their weapon. This is due to certain physiological responses to stress. I read an account of a State Policeman who emptied 3 magazines in a shooting incident. When interviewed immediately after the incident, he was sure that he only fired no more than 4 times when, in fact, he reloaded twice and shot more than 40 times.

Auditory exclusin, pshchotachia and stress induced myopia (tunnelvision) are just some of the body's responses to extreme stress. Stress will also effect your memory of the events immediately before and during the fight. It's quite common for people not to see or hear their weapon discharging.

These responses are built into us as human beings. As such, they CANNOT be eliminated and will manifest themselves, to one degree or another, in everyone. Extensive training, however, can increase one's effectiveness in fighting through the dificulties and can make the difference between winning and losing.

If you want links I can dig them up for you but you can google them as well as I can.

...it seems like the threat should have been over after the first couple of hits. But then I wasn't there.

were a border patrol discovered a couple crossing the border.
That was during the communism, so they had to apprehend them or be send to jail.
For some reason one of the soldiers taught that the husband will attack them and opened fire. With a real AK-47. On full auto. When he emptied the magazine, he proceeded to reload with the spare ones and empty them into the body on the ground. All 4 of them.
Afterward he didn't remember anything after the first shot.
The adrenalin can screw your perceptions really bad.

When he emptied the magazine, he proceeded to reload with the spare ones and empty them into the body on the ground. All 4 of them.
Afterward he didn't remember anything after the first shot.
The adrenalin can screw your perceptions really bad.

And I take it that this is intended as an argument for allowing people to wander the streets with firearms?

I'll accept that point.

...was there anything left to identify?

Thats what they always used to tell us anyways.

obviously weren't people whose job it was to interpret the criminal law.

...were Marine corps Sergent's and their job was to help their Marines survive combat. I always think of my own survival rather than criminal law in most life threatening situations.

They were Marine corps Sergent's and their job was to help their Marines survive combat.

And that has precisely nothing to do with self-defence as defined by the criminal law, and assaults/homicides that are justified in non-combat situations, which is kind of what we're talking about here.

So when in doubt empty the magazine just isn't the best advice, as I was saying.

who are practically wetting themselves over the prospect of shooting someone and getting away with it.

yeh.. those are the people I want carrying a concealed weapon. The guy was so well trained, that he emptied the fucking magazine. I'm sure nobody in the neighborhood was in any danger from this fool's stray rounds. :eyes:

Right, indiscriminately fired into an armed robber.

and not lodged in someone's exterior wall of their home.

that tells me there were some misses. More from the article:

The angle of the bullet wounds, according to the autopsy, indicate the deliveryman might have fired some shots after his assailant fell to the ground. The evidence doesn't prove that conclusively, Crawford said.

So it appears that he probably capped the guy as he was on the ground, despite his denials. I'll take the word of forensic evidence, thanks.

I'm not some rabid anti-gun nut, but I do believe that 15 shots is excessive. It pisses me off when people fire off guns like that in residential zones, whether it's the police or the pizza delivery guy.

"Crawford said the medical evidence cannot determine how many times Brown-Dancler was hit."


So it appears that he probably capped the guy as he was on the ground, despite his denials. I'll take the word of forensic evidence, thanks.

Probably?

"The angle of the bullet wounds, according to the autopsy, indicate the deliveryman might have fired some shots after his assailant fell to the ground. The evidence doesn't prove that conclusively, Crawford said."

Since you'll take the word of forensic evidence then I guess you'll concede that the evidence doesn't prove that conclusively.

At the end of the day he's alive, the assailant isn't, and there were no reports of innocent bystanders being injured, so you're wrong.

If I'm ever unfortunate enough to be in a similar situation I'll keep shooting until the assailant stops, no matter how many rounds it takes.

Any asshole with a gun in his hand who isn't committing a crime is elevated to sainthood.

the guy being robbed or the one doing the robbing?

11. The Same Old Pro-Gun Story

Any asshole with a gun in his hand who isn't committing a crime is elevated to sainthood.

So in this case it would be the pizza delivery guy. Who fired 15 times in "self-defense"....

The sarcastic use of quotation marks. Pretty sad.

...is the way some pro-gunners are so quick to come to the defense of any asshole who they perceive as a "fellow gun owner".

I don't understand why you've put self-defense in quotes. Are you implying that the delivery guy wasn't defending himself?

That sounds like someone playing Charles Bronson's role in "Death Wish".

Charles Bronson's character in Death Wish was a fine marksman as I recall and killed many of the people he killed with one shot.

So if the pizza guy had fired only 5 times and that wasn't enough to stop the guy robbing him and he ended up killed as a result that would somehow be better than firing 15 times? The article says between 10 and 15 of his shots hit the target, they weren't able to determine the exact number. What does it matter how many times he fired? If the shooting was justified then it was justified.

bap bap bap.

You are obviously not well versed in what a bullet can and can not do, and are not well versed in self-defense shootings. Please, educate yourself on the issue. As I said earlier, but still after you posted, you never know how many it will take. Additionally, if the pizza dude was using FMJ rounds, it could have taken even MORE shots.

...to "educate myself" on this issue. I see no reason to fire 15 shots in "self-defense". One or two, maybe. More than that, then rage has taken over and the pizza guy was trying to kill the other guy.

Someone successfully uses a gun in self-defense against an armed asshole who is committing a crime, and the good guy is declared an asshole.

:shrug:

Would you prefer a different outcome, say the pizza delivery guy got robbed or shot dead, and the bad guy got away? I wouldn't.

If the delivery guy got shot to death or robbed they could stick it in guns in the news to show how bad guns are.

...for the asshole pizza guy to fire 15 times.

Neither did I.

The authorities have called the shooting justified. I have no reason not to trust their judgement.

Having a shitty, dangerous job then being forced to make a difficult decision to shoot someone. Now his ears are burning because of people like you questioning his actions even after they've been declared lawful. And he's been fired from his lousy job.

Poor bastard.

I used to deliver flowers. Not once did I ever feel the need to have a gun with me.

How many people in poor crime-infested neighborhoods order flowers at 1:00 AM?

...I'm guessing you weren't held up at gun point like our pizza guy here was. Right?

...he could have probably stopped shooting prior to using 15 rounds, I don't see a reason to call the pizza guy an asshole.

...anyone who kills another person is an asshole. Especially if he uses a gun to do it.

So, from your point of view, even killing in defense of your own life is indefencable? Do you refuse to recognize that there are some people who actually want to slay others? And do you refuse to recognize any sort of moral difference between them and anyone who might be forced to kill in order to save his/her own life?

arguing that fifteen rounds fired is excessive when you think even one round fired is excessive?

to demonize a gun or its owner.

...some pro-gunners never miss a chance to demonize those of us who favor reasonable gun control.

.

...that you just called John Kerry an asshole. Don't you?

edited to add a link:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0421041kerry1.html

"John Kerry was "unofficially credited" with killing 20 enemy fighters during his five months in Vietnam, according to military records just released by the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign."

Delivering a pizza is something else entirely.

...and now you regret having said it?

Do you regret that????

Where!?!

You implied, nay, directly said that ANYONE who uses a gun to kill another person is an asshole. I merely pointed out who you were painting with that broad brush.

...you're sinking down to the level of the KKKonservatives who can't make an argument without mentioning Chappaquiddock.

What are you babbling about?

If you want to edit your message that said ANYONE that uses a gun to kill another person is an asshole that will be fine with me, other wise live with the broad brush that is in your hand.

We now know that you are philosophically opposed to self-defense. Now we know why you rail against the tools of self-defense so much.

inexcusable. Show some fucking restraint. That's why they need more stringent regs for CCW.

...he would have turned the guy into Swiss cheese, right????

Considering the uzi fires the same cartridge as the pizza guys pistol and most of the Uzis in civilian hands are semi-automatic, I would think the results would be the same, more of less. The Uzi is less concealable, of course which may have worked against the pizza guy.

AK-47.

..someone calls the pizza guy a Nazi.

What if the pizza guy had a nuke?!

:nuke:

Would that make you feel better?

in fact, I'm getting a big rubbery one thinking about it. Now suppose one or two of those bullets penetrated some kids bedroom, and killed him. Would that make you feel better? Would it?

I cannot help but think that if the pizza guy had fired 10 rounds and hit the assailant with 8; or if he'd fired 7 rounds and hit with 5, that this very same conversation would be taking place with the lower numbers and just as much hyperbolic outrage.

The correct number of rounds to fire in a defensive situation is as many as it takes to disable the assailant, or until you run out of ammo, whichever comes first.

Ask any self-defense instructor.

first and last time I respond to a gun thread.

And weren't someones just a few days ago claiming not to know what someone else was talking about when s/he suggested that normal people find the climate down here unpleasant?

first and last time I respond to a gun thread

spoken in response to one of the finest examples of disingenuous demagoguery sincere, honest effort to engage another person in discussion, presuming good will on both sides, that one could possibly imagine, eh?

by four police officers who *thought* he was shooting at them.

Grand jury said they were justified because the police, like a CCW holder, shoot to STOP, not KILL.

You shoot until you are no longer in danger, be it 1 shot or 30. Maybe the perp dies, or maybe they just fall down or run off.

How it Feels to Get Shot (Chicago sun-Times)

*snip*

""People don't even get knocked backward when they get shot, but you see this in the movies all the time," says Fackler, a retired military surgeon in Florida who had testified about ballistics in dozens of court cases. "Unless the guy gets hit in the head or the spine, the most common reaction to getting shot is no reaction at all."


*snip/more*

The first person shot in the Diallo incident was a cop. He was shot by THE COP BEHIND HIM who stumbled following the other guys through the door. His finger was on the trigger and Loss of Balance Response, Sympathetic Squeeze Response or some combination of the two caused him to negligently discharge a round into the officer in front of him. The rest of these "highly trained professionals" heard the shot and ASSUMED the suspect was shooting at them even though he was facing the other way. They opened up.

These inter-limb responses are more of those physiological responses that I alluded to above.

JUDGEMENT is your best tool for staying out of a gunfight. Once the fight starts, you'll be too busy trying to stay alive to calmly develop a plan.

Those who are saying that "15 rounds is outrageous" do not understand or appreciate what goes on in a gunfight. Handguns are notoriously underpowered as self-defense tools. Don't believe me? Hang out at the emergency room of any big-city hospital on a Friday or Saturday night. Chances are that you'll see several people brought in with handgun wounds. Many of them will have scars from previous bullet wounds. An accute observer might notice that very, very few people will every come into an emergency room with a wound from a rifle or shotgun. This is because they usually get picked up by the coroner.

... These inter-limb responses are more of those physiological responses that I alluded to above.

JUDGEMENT is your best tool for staying out of a gunfight. Once the fight starts, you'll be too busy trying to stay alive to calmly develop a plan. ...

... these are all arguments for allowing anybody with the price of a permit to wander around with a firearm, have I got it right?

You're trying to connect two different things.

SELF-DEFENSE is the reason for not putting people away for carrying a weapon. These other things, inter-limb response, physiologic responses to extreme stress, etc. - They just are.

If you don't want to get shot 15 times then don't go around doing things that make people have to shoot you. If someone was justified in shooting you once they were probably justified in shooting you 15 times.

I don't see you complaining about the police carrying guns. I might be a little bit more willing to understand your side if you'd at least be consistent. The average cop has only slightly more instruction than the average armed citizen. They are, at times, more comfortable handling the guns but are usually no better informed on safe handling procedures and are often the most UNSAFE people I've ever had the displeasure of standing next to at the range. But I digress.

You can't train these things away. They are simply a consequence of being human. At best, training will help you better maintain a measure of competency inspite of all the epinephrine corsing through your veins. So the police are just as suseptible to these problems as the rest of us. They're just as prone to missing, accidental discharge, etc. as anyone else. The primary difference, however, is that the police go around LOOKING for some sort of trouble to get into - trouble that would require drawing their weapon.

I know lots of folks who carry concealed every day and almost all of them have expressed their fervent desire NOT to have to shoot anyone. The only exception is one fellow who's an Airmarshal and he just seems a bit... gung-ho. (You know, one of those federal law enforcement types who are here to save us from the scary people. <gag!> )

I train along side their instructors. Some of them are downright UNSAFE - Casually pointing guns around (at the rest of us) without any regard for muzzle disipline. Their fingers are inside the trigger guards all the time.

I see the end products all the time at the range and they stink.

I see the news stories on the TV every time some cop accidentally shoots someone. (Twice in the last few months in Houston.)

So you're a retired sheriff and ex-judge. Big fat hairy deal. You're obviously one of those who believe that cops are the only people with the super-human capacity for intelligence and judgement required to go armed. I invite you to climb down off your high-horse and take a look around at the real world. Your fears are unjustified and demonstrably irrational. Roughly 220,000 CHLs in Texas and I'm still waiting to see the rivers of blood in the streets that were predicted by they nay-sayers.

Instead of puking out your hatred of law enforcement. You know you make my argument for mental evaluations for Concealed Carry easy.

Not sure what more can be said after 15 bangs in a row. Good thing it wasn't 20 - the freep-detector might have gone off and then we would've had to clean that up.

fifteen round? unfriggin' believable.

Disgraceful what the triggerhappy amongst us beat their meat to.