Good Shoot or Bad Shoot?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dogs

On a side note, when one has a recurring problem person making threats, or if one is worried about home burglaries/invasions in general, dogs are very nice to have.

My dog's bark is much worse than his bite, but he gets their attention. He also gets mine...

I'm sure most people on forum know the deterrent value of the dog's barking alerting neighbors.

I'm not too worried about problems where I live, or my gentle herding dog would be supplemented by a not so gentle Rott or similar.
 
Fails "Reasonable Man" doctrine, and may fail all three - opportunity, ability, jeopardy. LFI July 07

May God have mercy on his soul, but looks like a bad shoot. I hope I'm wrong.
 
I think that the distance from the assailant was probably the biggest problem for the defense.

Reading the story, it sounded like prior conduct was a factor. Too me it does not seem like that single instance alone justified killing.
 
In my opinion, no matter what the history of the aggressor, he/she has to display an action that if you don't fire your gun immediately, your life WILL end.
Click to expand...

Of course, by that time, it is often too late.
 
IMHO, it was a "bad shoot". From what I read, there was no immediate lethal threat from the assailant against Mr. Saafi. Also, a double tap to center mass of the assailant as he was advancing to close distance, in my opinion, might have given Mr. Saafi more defense credibility than several shots to the victims face.
 
Obviously the jury had access to more of the facts than we do. However, the number of shots fired and where he hit the guy have nothing to do with whether it was a good shoot or not.

By the way, if it was "at distance", the guy was a darn good shot to get head shots.
 
Another thing to consider besides the distance from Saafi to Kagel is the distance from Kagel to the woman or the child.

Also, the number of shots and the shots in the face- he hit the legs, face, and arms. That sounds like someone was really fearful and inaccurate. It's likely it took seven shots to stop if they were that poorly placed.

If Kagel was on meth, that just makes it more likely that the seven shots were necessary.

There could be a whole pile of other actions that support the prosecution's argument however.
 
My quote:
In my opinion, no matter what the history of the aggressor, he/she has to display an action that if you don't fire your gun immediately, your life WILL end.
Click to expand...

Quoted by Kenpo:
Of course, by that time, it is often too late.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that you need to shoot to stop before imminent danger is at hand?

There's a fine line in time between murder and self-defense...
 
There's a fine line in time between murder and self-defense...
Click to expand...

Agreed sir, and that is essentially what I am saying. It is much easier to gainsay someones actions after the fact. It is much less clear when you are the one standing there, dealing with a known criminal, past violent offender, high on meth, who is threatening a woman and child.

I agree, by the numbers and the letter, that this probably wasn't a "good shooting" however, I don't believe that means it wasn't necessary, needed or the right thing to do. The right thing to do will, unfortunately put you on the wrong side of the law sometimes.

A "preemptive strike" will most often put you on the wrong side of the law, but it is a tactically sound way to win and save lives. Action is always faster than reaction.

There was an incident when I lived in Southern California, during an argument a man told another man "I am going to rape your wife, you can't be with her all the time, I am going to do it." Cops were called, the threat was reported, they filed for a restraining order etc. The man who made the threat raped the other mans wife, just as he said he would, and I remember in hearing about the case that the fella made the threat before carrying it out.

So, was there any eminent danger? Not by the letter. Would the husband have been justified in eliminating the threat as soon he recognized it as one? As soon and he looked in the mans eyes and knew something was wrong?

Should a man go to prison because there is one less meth head to threaten women and children?

A fine line indeed.
 
Should a man go to prison because there is one less meth head to threaten women and children?
Click to expand...
Yes, if that "meth head" was not actually posing a physical threat to his ex-wife/wife and child when he was killed, then the guy that pulled the trigger needs to spend the rest of his life in prison. There is a big difference between action to stop an immediate and real threat and acting to get rid of someone you feel is a bad person.

How many people in here have alcoholics in their family. Do you think they should be allowed to be gunned down and people should so "oh well, one less drunk in the world." I find it funny how people will decide abuse of one drug is ok but the abuse of another means you are not fit to live.
 
How many people in here have alcoholics in their family
Click to expand...

I do, as well as some very close friends. I also have/had meth/crack heads in the family. I understand the differences very well.

Do you think they should be allowed to be gunned down and people should so "oh well, one less drunk in the world."
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever mentioning drunks, but to answer your question, no. Of course, that doesn't have anything to do with what we are discussing. That is a bit of a red herring.

I find it funny how people will decide abuse of one drug is ok but the abuse of another means you are not fit to live.
Click to expand...

I don't find it funny at all, in fact, I think it is quite serious. If you will go back and re-read, you will find that I never stated in any way that someone should
just get rid of someone you feel is a bad person
Click to expand...
or that
abuse of one drug is ok but the abuse of another means you are not fit to live.
Click to expand...
For your information, your average person who gets drunk and your average person who gets spun, are worlds apart, as is what they are capable of. But again, that is not the point, and never even inferred it. You'll also note, if you re-read, that when I asked the question, I mentioned "a meth head, with a know past of aggressive behavior, who threatens women and children - that hardly fits your red herring; just one less drunk in the world.


Back to the point; what makes a "good shoot"? As I stated previously, the law is written, and it would appear, that by the letter, this was not a good shoot. However, it is not that simple, and for those that have delt with truly violent individuals, and have experienced first hand what people on certain drugs can and will do (even those you love, who somewhere inside love you) you probably realize it is not so simple. Threat assessment, action/reaction in a violent situation, when others (women/ children) may be hurt, is much easier to pick apart after the fact. The law is ancillary to many, protecting there loved ones is first. That changes the nature of the equation.
 
Kenpo

Addiction is addiction...plain and simple. Just because one drug has more severe immediate effects is a moot point. Alcohol has just as severe an effect on the body and mind, it just works differently and can be more easily controlled. Once you cross the line from casual drinker to alcoholic your "disease" makes you no different than someone sticking a needle in their arm.

To pretend that meth has caused more violent behavior or spousal abuse than alcohol would be a really bad position to try and defend.

And if we as gun owners start executing people based on what they "might do" instead of what they are "doing" or if we even start to condone such actions by others then I fear we would then not deserve the freedom to own a gun.
 
Kenpo,

I think we're in the same church, but in different pews.

To set my tone with you, I'm not angry nor trying to be combative in you response. I'm trying to convey in detail of what I think over a lousy computer and am wanting a discussion, not argument (not that I think you're trying to argue).

Just because he has the history of agressive behavior and "says" he's going to act, doesn't necessarily condone killing him. Again, I wasn't there and every situation is different. However, I must see an action that imposes the imminent threat to one's life before I pull the trigger.
 
Beyond the good/not shoot argument, I'm amazed at some respnses regarding the victim being shot in the face v. torso, and # shots fired.

Assuming Saafi thought that deadly force was required, the immediate neutralization of the threat is required. Modern training incorporates head shots b/c it is the fastest way to neutralize a threat. Kagel being shot in the face should be of no surprise. From a training point of view, it should be expected.

Another thought. Judging from what I've seen when people shoot in a high stress environment, rounds do not tend to go where you want them. Some people shoot higher than point of aim during stress-induced strings of fire.

# of shots fired: Woe to the self defense crowd that gets swept into this defense minded argument. Number of shots, again, is not the issue. The issue is when the target of deadly force, in the eyes of the shooter, no longer presents a threat. That may be 1 shot, or after a reload.
 
Addiction is addiction...plain and simple. Just because one drug has more severe immediate effects is a moot point. Alcohol has just as severe an effect on the body and mind, it just works differently and can be more easily controlled. once you cross the line from casual drinker to alcoholic your "disease" makes you no different than someone sticking a needle in there arm.

To pretend that meth has caused more violent behavior or spousal abuse than alcohol would be a really bad position to try and defend.
Click to expand...

Again sir, you are trying to argue with me about something I never said, that has little to nothing to do with the question.

Addiction is addiction...plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Alcohol has just as severe an effect on the body and mind, it just works differently and can be more easily controlled.
Click to expand...

Which is why it often requires more resolute and immediate action when it does need to be controlled. And while I agree that alcohol does have a powerful effect on the mind and body - it does not equal the effects of meth on either.

once you cross the line from casual drinker to alcoholic your "disease" makes you no different than someone sticking a needle in there arm.
Click to expand...

One is legal one is not, that does make you different. One is highly invasive, one is not, that makes the threshold different, as well. Again, non of this matters. The point is whether or not the shooting was justified or not, is not so simple as some would like to proclaim as they pick it apart.
 
Kenpo,

I think we're in the same church, but in different pews.

To set my tone with you, I'm not angry nor trying to be combative in you response. I'm trying to convey in detail of what I think over a lousy computer and am wanting a discussion, not argument (not that I think you're trying to argue).

Just because he has the history of agressive behavior and "says" he's going to act, doesn't necessarily condone killing him. Again, I wasn't there and every situation is different. However, I must see an action that imposes the imminent threat to one's life before I pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

Tuttle, I'll see you in church, sir! :)
 
Again sir, you are trying to argue with me about something I never said, that has little to nothing to do with the question.
Click to expand...
You clearly said "one less meth head threatening women and children."

I would interpret this as using the descriptive term "meth head" as a means to devalue this person as an individual and really do not see how it is relevant to the situation. If he was not posing an immediate threat I do not see how his addiction history means anything.
 
I used the phrase "meth head threatening women and children" as it is an accurate description of the fellow we are talking about, and in short, summarizes who he was at that point in his life, and in part, why he was shot.

I am not devaluing him as a human being - as I said, there has been drug abuse within my family and my circle of friends - I have seen both change, and death regarding it. It is not a statement as to their worth or legitimacy as a human being, but it is a statement as to who they are at that time, and what they are capable of.

I... really do not see how it is relevant to the situation. If he was not posing an immediate threat I do not see how his addiction history means anything.
Click to expand...

Sir, this makes absolutely no sense to me. I am not arguing that all who have drug problems are terrible people, or that all sober, law abiding citizens should be trusted. Not at all. But honestly, would you feel more threatened or feel a greater sense of danger from an angry, sober, law abiding citizen, or an angry, high, felon? Does his addiction history give you greater or lesser confidence in him as child care giver? It does mean something.

Nevertheless, It was not my intention for the thread to be pulled of the original question. If you want to continue discussing it, we could start a "do some drugs make a person more dangerous than other drugs, and when assessing someones likelihood of violence or potential as a threat should their drug addiction be considered?" thread.... and hash it out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top