Self Defense or Murder If This Had Been Texas

[carlson1]

Edited Title: This was not in the US. This was in Israel.

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/09/09 ... ed-murder/

. . .It would have been a relatively clear-cut case of self defense if the man in the light-colored car fired while “Mr. Club” was still swinging his stick/board/pole, but that’s not when the man sitting in the driver’s seat presented his weapon and fired. He waited until the man in the light-colored short got Mr. Club’s attention, and then he fired after Mr. Club had ceased his attack and his attention was momentarily diverted elsewhere. . .

[Charles L. Cotton]

I can't tell where this took place. This article is an excellent example of the danger of proclaiming that an event was or was not lawful, without knowing and stating the law of the jurisdiction. If this event were to have been in Texas, it would have clearly been justifiable use of force. The victim was attacked with an impact weapon. The attacker swung at the driver and missed, hitting the driver's door. When the driver got back into his car and shut the door, the attacker opened the door. At that point, the legal presumption found in TPC §9.32((b) attaches. I couldn't tell if the victim fired additional shots after he got out of his car, but even if he did, it doesn't mean the presumption was rebutted. The additional shots could well have been justified, but not enough is known about the facts to offer an opinion.

The article author's analysis may or may not be correct for the undisclosed jurisdiction, but it would be flat wrong in Texas.
Chas.

Edited to add: It wasn't in the U.S. It may have been Israel or somewhere in the Middle East.

[jb2012]

I think another important detail, was did the shooter in any way provoke the man?

regardless-As soon as the guy pulled out whatever object was in his trunk, my weapon is drawn, he he is staring down my barrel.

you know what they say about being carried and being judged....

[denwego]

I just had to look up more details about this video, considering how ridiculously illogical nitpicking over "oh, his head was turned for a moment" is by rational Texan thinking.

Not even a blue state - it was Israel. And the shooter was apparently a political figure involved in some sort of "clan feud" with the club-wielder's family.

Yeesh.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/galilee-ma ... -on-video/

[carlson1]

...
Edited to add: It wasn't in the U.S. It may have been Israel or somewhere in the Middle East.

Yes sir I apologize I should have stated it was in Israel. Edited the Title. I was just wondering what folks thought if this was here in Texas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

...
Edited to add: It wasn't in the U.S. It may have been Israel or somewhere in the Middle East.

Yes sir I apologize I should have stated it was in Israel. Edited the Title. I was just wondering what folks thought if this was here in Texas.

The only reason I edited my post to show it was Israel was to point out that the author of the article seemed to point to the murder charge as evidence that his stateside analysis was correct.

Chas.

[Acronym Esq]

This article is an excellent example of the danger of proclaiming that an event was or was not lawful, without knowing and stating the law of the jurisdiction. If this event were to have been in Texas, it would have clearly been justifiable use of force. The victim was attacked with an impact weapon. The attacker swung at the driver and missed, hitting the driver's door. When the driver got back into his car and shut the door, the attacker opened the door. At that point, the legal presumption found in TPC §9.32((b) attaches. I couldn't tell if the victim fired additional shots after he got out of his car, but even if he did, it doesn't mean the presumption was rebutted. The additional shots could well have been justified, but not enough is known about the facts to offer an opinion.

I like how you question the jurisdiction and the lack of facts for the entire situation. I acknowledge that too, and unfairly drop it in TX and proceed with complete disregard of facts not presented. Eh eh.

I'd like to focus on the reasonable belief of necessary action in 9.32(a). I agree that opening the door engaged 9.32(b) creating a presumption. Isn't it rebuttable? Something happens at 0:21 that causes Mr. Club to stop his attack. He doubles over, drops the impact weapon, and lowers his head. The raw video seems to indicate a final shot taken at 0:24. At that moment, the attack has stopped, the impact weapon is on the ground, the attacker is doubled over, and the man in the light colored car has to reach over a 3rd person to take one more shot. The affirmative action of reaching over a 3rd person seems to rebut the presumption of a reasonable belief of immediately necessary action.

Many years ago, I was giving the oversimplification "Shoot to stop." Is three seconds enough time to be sure that the attack has stopped? Idunno. The prosecutor will play those three seconds over and over and over in slow motion. My first exposure to this video was through the Active Self Protection channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWTNDQzIWY. The narrator thinks that 3 seconds is enough time to determine the threat is over.

In the hopes that self-awareness will relieve me of culpability... I think that arm-chair quarterbacking a self-defense video arguing about 3 seconds is super lame. This (and the lack of context noted above) is why video is flawed to the degree of being misleading.

Acronym 10/19/2016 10:04 PM

[ELB]

So now a NYPD sergeant is in trouble for shooting somebody that was trying to whack him with a bat:
http://nypost.com/2016/10/18/cops-shoot ... the-bronx/

Greg Ellefritz has an interesting essay on this and training of police officers to handle physical altercations:
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/a ... seball-bat

<back to the thread>

Not even a blue state - it was Israel.

Actually, Israel is a pretty "blue state" - just not a US state, it's a nation-state. Their proximity to hostile Arab neighbors -- and some residents -- have disabused most Israelis of the silly notions many of our State Department and universities have about middle east based terrorism and warfare, but aside from that, Israel has had a pretty left-leaning tilt for most of its existence. It was explicitly socialist until somewhere in the 1990s, maybe starting in late '80s, when it began to entertain more independent industries and free market ideas, but until then the government very closely managed how the economy worked. For all the pictures of armed school teachers and such, the Israeli government very closely controls who gets to have a gun -- gun permits are not common, take some effort to get, and most of the permits are held by people who work as security guards.

[Alf]

If there's an active shooter in a shopping mall and he hasn't fired a shot in the past ten seconds, does that mean he's no longer a threat?

[Charles L. Cotton]

This article is an excellent example of the danger of proclaiming that an event was or was not lawful, without knowing and stating the law of the jurisdiction. If this event were to have been in Texas, it would have clearly been justifiable use of force. The victim was attacked with an impact weapon. The attacker swung at the driver and missed, hitting the driver's door. When the driver got back into his car and shut the door, the attacker opened the door. At that point, the legal presumption found in TPC §9.32((b) attaches. I couldn't tell if the victim fired additional shots after he got out of his car, but even if he did, it doesn't mean the presumption was rebutted. The additional shots could well have been justified, but not enough is known about the facts to offer an opinion.

I like how you question the jurisdiction and the lack of facts for the entire situation. I acknowledge that too, and unfairly drop it in TX and proceed with complete disregard of facts not presented. Eh eh.

I'd like to focus on the reasonable belief of necessary action in 9.32(a). I agree that opening the door engaged 9.32(b) creating a presumption. Isn't it rebuttable? Something happens at 0:21 that causes Mr. Club to stop his attack. He doubles over, drops the impact weapon, and lowers his head. The raw video seems to indicate a final shot taken at 0:24. At that moment, the attack has stopped, the impact weapon is on the ground, the attacker is doubled over, and the man in the light colored car has to reach over a 3rd person to take one more shot. The affirmative action of reaching over a 3rd person seems to rebut the presumption of a reasonable belief of immediately necessary action.

Many years ago, I was giving the oversimplification "Shoot to stop." Is three seconds enough time to be sure that the attack has stopped? Idunno. The prosecutor will play those three seconds over and over and over in slow motion. My first exposure to this video was through the Active Self Protection channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWTNDQzIWY. The narrator thinks that 3 seconds is enough time to determine the threat is over.

In the hopes that self-awareness will relieve me of culpability... I think that arm-chair quarterbacking a self-defense video arguing about 3 seconds is super lame. This (and the lack of context noted above) is why video is flawed to the degree of being misleading.

Acronym 10/19/2016 10:04 PM

Yes, the presumption is rebuttable, but it takes more than a scintilla of evidence. As I noted in my post, "I couldn't tell if the victim fired additional shots after he got out of his car, but even if he did, it doesn't mean the presumption was rebutted. The additional shots could well have been justified, but not enough is known about the facts to offer an opinion.

Once a person has been attacked, especially with a deadly weapon, it's going to take a lot more than 3 seconds and "maybe" to rebut the statutory presumption. We wrote and passed SB378 (2007) to prevent unfair, unreasonable and unreliable post-incident "evaluation" of facts for weeks or months when the victim had to make a quick life-saving decision. I'm not sure I saw any additional shots fired. He pointed the gun, but I didn't see any sign of recoil or smoke. Even if addition shots were fired, they could well be justified. The attacker could have been making verbal threat while bending over. The victim could have thought he was reaching for a gun. He could have believed . . . [the list goes on}. The point is the §9.32(b) presumption would have attached and a prosecutor would have a very tall hill to climb to avoid a directed verdict by the judge and a mountain to climb to convince a jury.

Remember, a person's "reasonable belief" is what controls. As Clint Smith says, just because you shot someone doesn't mean the threat is over. It just means you had your turn.

Chas.