A scenario based on reality...

R

rmcginley

New member
Sorry for the length of this post but I'm curious: Re: the text below would the officer who was shot with the pellet gun be justified in returning the fire? Clearly he showed remarkable restraint.

My curiosity is peeked because of another situation that happened here recently. LEOs stopped a van containing several juveniles who were suspected of shooting at pedestrians with pellet guns at night. Personally I believe they were gang members training to improve their drive by shooting skills. But suppose this van had not been stopped and they continued their delinquent behavior in residential neighborhoods. Would a legally armed civilian being attacked by these same juveniles be justified in returning the fire? I realize this scenario is highly situational because I haven't set the background. But assume for discussion purposes the armed civilian would not be risking any innocent bystanders if he decided to defend himself. If you knew the juveniles were armed with pellet guns would that affect the decision to return the fire?


NEW: Injured man charged with shooting deputy
Web Posted: 07/07/2005 12:12 PM CDT

Mary Moreno
Express-News Staff Writer

A man accused of shooting a Bexar County sheriff’s deputy in the neck with a pellet gun was charged this morning with two counts of attempted capital murder.

Joseph Barron, 18, was charged by proxy because he’s still at Brooke Army Medical Center recovering from gunshot wounds he sustained when two deputies returned fire after they say he lunged at them with a knife.

The injured deputy, whose name was not immediately released, was treated at BAMC and released, said Deputy Chief Ruben Garcia.

The shooting occurred at about 2 a.m. in the 7900 block of Union Shoals in Northeast Bexar County, Garcia said.

Deputies were called out to a home for a disturbance and arrived to find Barron trying to get into a car. When deputies approached him, he showed them he had a gun and a knife tucked in his belt, according to officials.

Barron walked away from officers as they instructed him to drop his weapons, Garcia said. The man told the deputies to “go ahead and shoot me, go ahead and kill me,” Garcia said.

The gunman's mother told deputies that the weapon her son was holding was a pellet gun, but Garcia said deputies couldn’t be sure that’s all it was because “to look at it, it doesn’t look like a pellet gun.”

At some point, the man turned and fired the pellet gun, striking one deputy in the neck. Still the deputies didn’t fire their weapons.

“In my opinion, they showed a lot of restraint,” Garcia said.

Deputies say it wasn’t until the gunman lunged at them with the knife in hand that they shot him. Several bullets struck him in the lower portion of his body, and his injuries don’t appear to be life-threatening, Garcia said.

The officers might be put on a administrative duty, as is routine, but Garcia said it doesn’t appear they violated any policy.
 
If you tell the prosecutor that you thought the gun was real, or that you thought the pellet gun could kill you or cause great bodily harm, and the prosecutor believes that you reasonably believed that, then yes, you'd be justified in shooting him for the pellet gun. So, basically, don't shoot anyone who has a pellet gun until you check with the prosecutor first....

Yet another reason why cops don't like second guessers....They're not the ones who have to pull the trigger......or not....without the benefit of asking the prosecutor first...
 
My first thought is NOT what kind of weapon a perp is armed with. Armed resistance with a threat of imminent harm or death entitles the perp to a free ticket punch. I have seen people killed with a can of dog food. A improvised weapon is still deadly. A pellet pistol is capable of great physical harm or blinding and fatal wounds. I would have given a command and squezzed the trigger. Repeat as needed.
 
I see a couple of scenarios for this...

1. You're walking towards a shop when a car cruises by slowly and some bandana-wearing guy reaches his hand out and you hear several muffled *Piff* sounds in a row. Something strikes you in the chest making you flinch and the car takes off at a high rate of travel.
Summation: No Justification - Shooters are fleeing the scene.

2. Similar to the above but the car approaches from behind. You hear a noise over the Hip-Hop music that sounds like a high-pitched bee passing your head. Suddenly something painfully strikes you in the kidney region, stinging quite a lot. As you look around you see the Bandana wearing male at the window holding what appears to be a gun and hear another soprano bee whiz past your head.
Summation: Move for most available cover & return fire, situation permitting (bystanders, traffic, etc.)

3. You are not the target but the pedestrian 15 feet ahead of you is their target. As the car moves past you the male reaches out with what appears to be an auto-pistol (maybe even held "gangsta style") as they approach the target.
Summation: Yell "Get down now!" three times as you draw your weapon and prepare to fire. If their target ducks down and you don't see or hear a shot, hold your fire.
 
They told us in the police academy "Sometimes you just gotta take an ass kicking." I would bet that the CCW carriers who would disagree with this have never been on trial for Second Degree Murder after shooting someone who had an "improvised weapon". The "tried by twelve/carried by six" cliche will no doubt arise, but again....bet they were never looking at doing 20 to life themselves.....
 
I would say that I thought it was a .22. Plenty of people die from 22 wounds.
Click to expand...

So you've already made your mind up that you'd shoot the guy and are now coming up with your story?

Doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. What matters is what the prosecutor believes, what he's being pressured to do, and, God forbid, what the judge believes/is being pressured to do, and what the jury believes, should it get to that point.

The prosecutor might say "The mother told you it was a pellet gun.....the other cops didn't fire, you heard it go off when he fired it.....how could you not reasonably know it was a pellet gun and not a .22?" Not saying this is right or wrong...
 
Many pellet guns are intentionally made to look almost exactly like common firearms. I've seen pellet guns that look almost exactly like the Beretta 92, Walther PPK, and even a 1911. It can be very hard to tell the difference except on close examination.

So I'd say the cops would certainly have been justified in shooting this guy.
 
So I'd say the cops would certainly have been justified in shooting this guy.
Click to expand...

Were they justified in shooting the guy because his gun looked real, or were they justified in shooting him because they thought he had a real gun? Did the guy have a fake gun that looked real and that the cops thought was fake? Did he have a pellet gun that looked like a real gun that the cops thought was a pellet gun? Their actions seem to indicate they thought the gun was fake, or at least not deadly, since they didn't shoot him until he attacked with a knife. Seems to me they handled it perfectly.
 
RUTLAND, Vt. -- A 19-year-old Rutland man has been charged with a hate crime for allegedly firing a BB gun and striking two Asian members of a high school track team running through the city.

Daniel Streeter pleaded innocent Friday in Vermont District Court to two counts of attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in connection with the April 25 incident. He was released on conditions that he not contact the alleged victims..... link
Click to expand...
REDWOOD CITY — A student attending night classes at Sequoia High School could face up to six years in prison after he fired a BB gun on campus Tuesday, hitting one student in the neck and narrowly missing others.

Suliasi Talisi, 18, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, special counts of bringing a weapon to a school campus and assault on a school employee.............. link
Click to expand...

It seems that even in a liberal place like San Francisco, this is considered assault with a deadly weapon.

In my own town, a city worker who was cutting limbs was shot with a BB gun by a local son of a lawyer. The 17 year old kid is now serving time.

BB & pellet guns are not fake guns. They are not toys. A quick Google search will yield more accounts. I believe there is ample precedent for a justified shooting.
 
Their actions seem to indicate they thought the gun was fake, or at least not deadly, since they didn't shoot him until he attacked with a knife.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call a pellet gun a fake gun. Some of them can be quite powerful. I have a pellet gun that can launch an 18 grain .22 caliber pellet at well over 1000 FPS. A hit in the neck with one of these is no laughing matter.
 
If someone ever points a gun at me in a threatening manner, I will not take the time to ascertain whether the gun in question is real, a pellet gun, or airsoft. I would not expect it from a police officer, either.

Pointing guns (or reasonable facsimiles thereof) at people can get you shot, and there's probably no better way to teach that lesson than to have a few miscreants draw the short end of the stick.
 
The officers were justified in shooting. Like it has been posted, a pellet gun is treated the same as a real gun. I think kids have even gotten killed for having water guns that look very real. I don't know if you guys remenber the Entertech guns. They look very realistic and not like those crazy colored Super Soakers. It would be tragic for an officer to kill a kid because he was pointing a fake gun but even more tragic is an officer was killed because he failed to react, assuming it was a fake gun. Shoot the mofo! :mad:
 
FrankDrebin

Sorry to sound like Rambo. But either of my .22LR guns with subsonic ammo sound just like airguns from a distance (15 feet or so, I wasn't the one shooting) If someone is shooting at me it would be resonable to assume that one is using a (real) gun. Subsonic 22 ammo is quite common and (smarter) criminals will use it (if they can get it) for the obvious reason that it is just as lethal and much quieter.
 
I never said you shouldn't shoot someone when you feel your life is in danger, but you shouldn't shoot someone "because they have what looks like a real gun" if you don't think your life is in danger. The cops obviously didn't feel their lives were in danger until the guy lunged at them with a knife. Who are you/we to second guess them for NOT shooting? Many of you are saying that you are justified in shooting when someone has a gun that looks real. No you're not. You're justified in shooting when you feel your/others life is in danger. The two aren't mutually inclusive.

As far as you who are implying the officers were justified in shooting. Do you know what the gun looked like? Do you know what the officers were thinking? Unless you've read the officers' statements, or at LEAST saw a video, you can't possibly know if they were justified in shooting or not (before the knife came into play).

Did it occur to anyone that the officer(s) at the scene MIGHT have been able to tell it was not a real gun, or didn't believe their lives were in danger from the pellet gun? I'd love to see YOU in a court like the ones around here telling a jury that you knew it was a pellet gun, but shot the guy anyway because he could have hit an artery and killed you. The last cop they prosecuted for second degree murder around here shot some crackhead who he had reason to beleive was about to hit him in the head with a steel rake. He was found not guilty, but not until after the prosecutor went after him.

My point being, that some cops might consider it a better risk to not shoot a guy brandising what they know is a pellet gun rather than risk 20 to life for second degree murder.
 
Many of you are saying that you are justified in shooting when someone has a gun that looks real. No you're not. You're justified in shooting when you feel your/others life is in danger. The two aren't mutually inclusive.
Click to expand...
Good point Frank....... I think a lot of us, myself included, are extrapolating away from the original story.
 
Frank is right: Lets put the weapon(s) involved aside for a second. If you feel that your life is NOT in danger whether the person is holding an RPG7, or a water pistol - you should not open fire.

But at the same time - pellet guns and fake guns are the worst type of weapon to be carrying. People get shot for showing them off all the time. Especially during robberies and Halloween. If a BG is stupid enough to attempt to threaten a CC holder with one of those or shoot at a CC holder with a gun - pellet or firearm - the first thing on the CC's mind is how do I survive this situation - not is that a replica / pellet gun.....Especially if you feel pain in your chest - your first response would probably be to return fire.

The defining legal point in most states typically is: If a third party obeserver were to asses the situation - would that person feel that your life is in danger? If yes - then you are justified.

I believe the cops were justified. And took appropriate response.
 
The beat goes on...

Gentlemen,

I posted the original story for several reasons. First, those of us civilians (retired military) with CHLs can learn a lot from this discussion because the scenario was real. Second, I salute the LEOs involved in this incident because I don't think I would have had the discipline not to return the fire in that same situation. Had they done that the outcome might have been different and the newpapers would now be quoting all the "second guessers". Heros - to - goats in one decision step.

The extrapolation to my proposed scenario also has its roots in reality because of the number of gang related incidents that occur in this city. I've concluded that being prepared to defend your home has one set of probabilities. But those probabilities are increased when I venture out on the streets for my normal early morning exercise routine. The van that LE stopped recently was indeed making target practice out of pedestrians.

It was not my intention to start a "food fight" but I must admit I did get a lot of valuable insights to think about.

Thanks to all,

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top