Interesting gun case about to be tried in Oklahoma City

[Marajade]

Its murder 2. If they go for murder 1 it won't stick.

A guilty verdict would be good for the States, especially given that tom isn't the huge minority there.

Also, as a CJS student, police are trained to shoot to disable before shoot to kill. The reasoning is that even if the shot misses the legs of the suspect, the fact that he's being shot at should help to make him surrender.

 

[Tomasello]

A guilty verdict would be good for the States, especially given that tom isn't the huge minority there.

Most people I speak to agree what he did was crime and it is. It was cold blooded, how can anyone say it wasn't. At the same time, this guy didn't wake up that morning and say to himself, "hey I think I'm going to waste a 14 year old today".

That being said if you as the dirt bag criminal decide to commit a crime then YOU deserve everything you got coming to you. Good or ill. Getting killed in a robbery attempt or fucking with the wrong person who turns out to be a gun nut is not exactly an unforeseeable event so my sympathy level is zero. As oppose to the shop keep who probably never thought he would have to kill some scumbag nor ever had any intention to until his life was put in danger by this trash.

It's wishful thinking but I hope he is acquitted. One less criminal on the street is not exactly a bad thing imo.

Also, as a CJS student, police are trained to shoot to disable before shoot to kill. The reasoning is that even if the shot misses the legs of the suspect, the fact that he's being shot at should help to make him surrender.

Well in the states you only shoot when deadly force is required, no other reason. You don't shoot people in the leg or in the air and hope they surrender. Now if you shoot and miss and the criminal surrenders obviously you don't blow him away anyway but once that shot is fired it's center mass.

I'm not 100% but I'm almost positive you must squeeze off a couple rounds too just in case the criminal might get the shot off at the officer anyway. You don't just fire one shot. Obviously they can NEVER shoot an unarmed individual under any circumstance unless the criminal is going for the cops gun or is about to fatally harm someone.

And no I'm not a police officer but these are the rules of engagement as I understand them and I have done extensive research on these types of senarios for personal reasons.

 

[Raesvelg]

Most of the officers I've spoken to agree to that much at least. You only shoot if you are in immediate danger, and if you do shoot, you shoot to kill. Several shots, center of mass, put the attacker down in a hurry.

Shooting someone in the leg is, frankly, dumb. If he's got a gun, chances are he'll shoot back, at something more vital than your knees. It may be panic fire, but that doesn't mean he won't get lucky. If he doesn't have a gun, well that's what less-than-lethal options are for, like tasers. Guns can kill, even when fired into areas of the body thought relatively "safe". Shoot someone in the leg, tear their femoral artery, and they could bleed out before medical personnel arrive on the scene.

 

[Tristam Green]

Most of the officers I've spoken to agree to that much at least. You only shoot if you are in immediate danger, and if you do shoot, you shoot to kill. Several shots, center of mass, put the attacker down in a hurry.

Shooting someone in the leg is, frankly, dumb. If he's got a gun, chances are he'll shoot back, at something more vital than your knees. It may be panic fire, but that doesn't mean he won't get lucky. If he doesn't have a gun, well that's what less-than-lethal options are for, like tasers. Guns can kill, even when fired into areas of the body thought relatively "safe". Shoot someone in the leg, tear their femoral artery, and they could bleed out before medical personnel arrive on the scene.

Not to mention that any extremity is a much harder target to pinpoint than a torso when aiming.

 

[Morcheeba]

Not to mention that any extremity is a much harder target to pinpoint than a torso when aiming.

Except in this case the shooter had enough time and proximity to unload at point blank range, so in THIS case it would have been a much better option for the shooter to pop the kid in the shin or foot keeping him where he was at until the actual cops arrived.

I know you guys were discussing whether cops are trained to shoot to kill etc, but I believe it stemmed from my saying that IF it were a cop in the same situation who made the same choice this shop keep did he/she would be finding themselves either w/o a job or in some seriously deep shit.

Keeping in mind of course that Marajade and myself, as well as others ARE in Canada and we do things a bit differently here. I don't go out of my way to look at each state law when participating in a discussion such as this, mainly, because I'm giving my opinion, which is all I need =)

If I were chosen as a member of jury they would get the same passioned opinions in such a case. I honestly don't know how much of the law any given member of jury needs to know in order to be chosen through process, but I thought it was your everyday citizen.

 

[Tristam Green]

Except in this case the shooter had enough time and proximity to unload at point blank range, so in THIS case it would have been a much better option for the shooter to pop the kid in the shin or foot keeping him where he was at until the actual cops arrived.

No he didn't, he shot him in the head, when he was more than likely aiming for his heart. Hell, the kid's kneecaps were probably completely out of the shopkeep's line of sight during the first shot.

 

[Skaw]

No he didn't, he shot him in the head, when he was more than likely aiming for his heart. Hell, the kid's kneecaps were probably completely out of the shopkeep's line of sight during the first shot.

She's talking about the shots fired after the kid was downed.

 

[Tristam Green]

She's talking about the shots fired after the kid was downed.

Forgive me, I was under the impression that the vast majority of people in this thread did agree that the after-shots were completely unnecessary, so it was likewise unnecessary to argue whether or not he should have aimed for his body, legs, arms, head, left toe, or any other dangling participle.

 

[Morcheeba]

Forgive me, I was under the impression that the vast majority of people in this thread did agree that the after-shots were completely unnecessary, so it was likewise unnecessary to argue whether or not he should have aimed for his body, legs, arms, head, left toe, or any other dangling participle.

Except that MY point this entire discussion was the secondary shots SHOULD have been in the legs to incapacitate the robber if any secondary shots were to take place, which they did. My point as well as those who agreed with me is what prompted the 'kill shot' discussion to begin with.

I never stated his initial shot should have been to incapacitate the robber.

And if it is unnecessary to further discuss that secondary shots should have been in the lower body than it is equally unnecessary to discuss whether cops or miliary personnel are trained to 'shoot to kill'. The kill shots were the secondary shots.

Thread over?

 

[Raesvelg]

Not quite.

The argument made on the part of Ersland is that the kid on the ground was moving around, and had apparently regained consciousness. From the video that I saw (there may be better or uncropped angles, I don't know how much of the video we were permitted to see), there's no way to refute that statement, because the kid is out of camera from the moment he goes down.

So it drops us back into the question of immediate danger. If the kid made the wrong move down on the floor, put a hand into a pocket or something.... then yes, the shopkeep has at least a thread of justification for putting him down.

 

[Cletus]

Protip: If your ski mask is a couple of sizes too small, put it on before you enter the store to rob it.

Now, the kid got what he deserved, it's unfortunate that the store clerk has to go through the mess that he does because of these two kids stupid decision. This kid was destined to be a street casualty, it just happened sooner for him than for others. The kid was 14 years old and already robbing convenience stores, what's the likelyhood that he's going to be a stand up citizen in the future? If you want to blame somebody here, then blame the schools for not reinforcing the morals his parents should have instilled. Or blame the parents for not teaching this kid that pointing a gun at somebody and taking his money is wrong.

Edit: The relevance to guilty or not guilty is that if you find one person out of 12 who believes like I do, then the shopkeeper beats a murder charge.

 

[Morcheeba]

Not quite.

The argument made on the part of Ersland is that the kid on the ground was moving around, and had apparently regained consciousness. From the video that I saw (there may be better or uncropped angles, I don't know how much of the video we were permitted to see), there's no way to refute that statement, because the kid is out of camera from the moment he goes down.

So it drops us back into the question of immediate danger. If the kid made the wrong move down on the floor, put a hand into a pocket or something.... then yes, the shopkeep has at least a thread of justification for putting him down.

Body language accounts for quite a bit, and the shop keepers body language is very obvious as we can see him the whole time.

He didn't HAVE to walk back to stand over top the boy to begin with, and judging by his body language he purposly went to stand over top of him and without hesitation OR reaction for that matter (had the boy done something to further provoke him) shot him 5 more times in the stomach killing him. It looks fairly cut and dry from that angle without having seen what the kid may have done from the floor.

E-
and that's also why I stated earlier had that man been OH-SO-SKURED for his life he wouldn't have put himself back in danger by standing over top the kid, he could have easily stayed behind his counter with his gun drawn shouting warnings to the punk, if necessary THEN he could have shot him in an extremity to halt an escape.

That's why I think the self-defense plea is a bullshit plea that should instead be a conviction.

 

[Raesvelg]

Body language accounts for quite a bit, and the shop keepers body language is very obvious as we can see him the whole time.

Yes and no. The fact that the shopkeep doesn't appear to panic doesn't necessarily mean that the kid wasn't doing anything threatening.

Panic responses are weird things, as I think I mentioned once a while back. Some people can seem completely rational, very logical, and have absolutely no idea what they're doing.

For myself, of course, I suspect the decision he made was "the kid's not dead, he's waking up or moving around, best to make sure so I don't have to worry about him until the cops get here", and that his actions probably crossed the line over self-defense.

But the prosecution is going to have to be very careful with jury selection if they want to get a conviction, and they're probably going to have to settle for Murder 2 or a lesser charge.

 

[Excalibur]

Protip: If your ski mask is a couple of sizes too small, put it on before you enter the store to rob it.

lol, nice one.

Ok so I've finally figured out what exactly I think about this whole mess, cause I've been kinda torn. I don't think the old man should have killed him after he was down, but I don't think he should get punished for it. If you ask me, when you go in to rob a store you better be prepared for whatever you get. Even if that means 1 in the head and 5 in the gut. I probably wouldn't have killed the kid, but I can totally see where the old man is coming from in doing so. To me it's more a question of ethics.

 

[Halifirien]

This kid was destined to be a street casualty, it just happened sooner for him than for others. The kid was 14 years old and already robbing convenience stores, what's the likelyhood that he's going to be a stand up citizen in the future?

One could also make the argument that trying to rob a store and having the owner immediately start shooting could be enough to say "Okay, maybe a life of crime isn't for me," and that we'll never know because the store owner took it upon himself to execute him after the danger was over.

 

[Marajade]

For clarification, him shooting the kid the first time to me is perfectly acceptable given the situation, and if that had resulted in the kids death, then this argument wouldn't be taken place. Yeah it would've been unfortunate, but within the law it was fine.

The issue is him comming back and emptying the rest of the gun into the kid on the ground. That goes beyond any sense of self-defence, to cold blooded killing.

 

[Firestreak]

It's murder. I don't really feel much sympathy for the kid though, or any anger towards the guy. It's just, matter-of-factly, murder. I think he was angry and he wanted that guy dead and it's not very often you get to shoot people. But yet, I wouldn't feel in danger with that guy living in my community. The only threat he poses to is armed criminals, which makes he ultimately a positive force, even if his actions are, picked apart, negative.

Just think if he didn't finish the guy off. Now that guy is nursed back to health in an expensive hospital, given an expensive trial and then put into an expensive jail. I feel kinda "meh" about it. I'm not saying I'd have shot him myself or I'd say he should get the death penalty for armed robbery. I'm just pointing out that I don't particularly care he's dead. Society is better off and he brought it on himself.

This "gun nut" justified his own damn gun purchases. He protected himself and his place of business. Getting shot during a robbery also is a deterrant that actually works unlike prison for the most part.

I know what he did was against the law but I think it's a bad law. It's bad because while there's a 95% this guy knew he was not in danger when he shot the robber... there's a 5% chance he wasn't sure. To me, if he THINKS he's still in danger, he can do ANYTHING to the robber to protect himself. End of story, that's basic common sense. If there's even 1% that he thinks he's still in danger, I'm all for letting him walk scott free. And there is.

Now there can be 100% he knows he wasn't in danger, at which point... no you can't kill him. You can't tie him up and execute him with his hands tied behind his head. You can't throw him in a padded room and gas him... it's not like that... I mean... he can be down, his eyes closed and you can see him as a danger.

People pretend to be down. People suddenly wake up. People pretend to be unconscious or dead. People who are even fatally wounded don't usually die instantly. That's why you're trained to shoot to kill generally. If you're shooting already, you want the person dead. 2 in the chest, 1 in the head. This philosophy is adapted because of drawn out fire fights where good guys were needlessly killed because of bullet riddled guys.

Fact is, you shoot me, I fall down. You don't know anything. You don't know if I'm alive. You don't know if I'm playing possum. You don't know if I've armed to the teeth down there and waiting to pounce you. Guy needed him dead to feel safe.

 

[Raesvelg]

Ironically, in one of those conversations with some police officer acquaintances, their advice on what to do if someone breaks in or threatens you when you're carrying a firearm yourself was to empty the clip into the attacker. Make sure he's dead, and if all else fails, you can just say you panicked. Emptying the clip makes it more believable.

Was startlingly cold-blooded. I approved.

 

[Tomasello]

Ironically, in one of those conversations with some police officer acquaintances, their advice on what to do if someone breaks in or threatens you when you're carrying a firearm yourself was to empty the clip into the attacker. Make sure he's dead, and if all else fails, you can just say you panicked. Emptying the clip makes it more believable.

Why does that sound so familiar???

What he SHOULD of done was discharged the entire magazine at once on the dirt bag THEN he would of been all set.

Oh yeah, silly me. That was me making another excellent point.

 

[Marajade]

Oh yeah, silly me. That was me making another excellent point.

Erm, you're realizing that the cop ment that its the best way to get away with it, and not in any way the correct thing to do? Seriously, shooting people isn't the answer by any means.