Good Shoot or Bad Shoot?

Status
Not open for further replies.
would you feel more threatened or feel a greater sense of danger from an angry, sober, law abiding citizen, or an angry, high, felon?
I would feel a great deal more threatened by a angry, sober, law abiding citizen that actually attacked me than I would an angry, high felon who was not physically attacking me. So far in this case, I have seen no evidence that the guy was attacking anyone. I see more indication that a "fed up ex-relative" allowed anger and history to overwhelm his better judgement and stormed out of his home and into an argument with guns blazing.
 
Thread drift

Guys, it's getting to the point that there's two separate threads ongoing in one. I can see how that would happen, given the subject matter, but let's keep this on the original topic.

Want to debate drugs? There's a long standing, ongoing thread here.
 
Bad shoot, IMO. Opportunity, jeopardy, ability must be there. Most jurisdictions DO NOT allow the use of deadly force in the case of "bare fear". And, you may meet force only with (basicly) commensurate force.

I have addressed this before on this forum, and was pretty much flamed for it.

Careful in the use of deadly force, especially EXCESSIVE use. You may verywell, in the eyes of liberal juries, end up as the agressor, as shown in this topic.
 
Well, dead IS dead. But if the threat is stopped after a double tap, and you empty a full magazine into the assailant, you have pretty much overstepped the bounds of reasonable deadly force. Especially if the ME rules the rounds after #2 caused the death.

Many think they can shoot to slide lock and then reload and shoot some more. You might wish to do some study on case law about this, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

The purpose of defensive firearm use is defensive, not offensive. Shoot to neutralize, not to kill.

Parents cannot legally beat to death their children and then use the "I was just discilplining my child" defense". Very much the same here.

This won't sit well with some, and I expect some flaming, about how they'll shoot till the victim rots, but that's OK:D
 
"all but two of the bullets into Kagel's face, side and leg"

With a spray of shots like this was two enough to stop? There's nothing magic about handgun bullets. I read of a case in our state in which a police officer needed to fire six shots COM with a .40 before a woman's drugged assailant finally let go of her.

I don't doubt for a minute that seven shots spread out across an attacker's torso, legs and face might be necessary to neutralize.
 
Not enough information to call one way or another. We have all seen short vid clips that reportedly show what happened only to find out what the rest showed later. We all also know that juries are always right i.e. O.J. Simson. Since the law is only about the law and no longer about right and wrong the jury did what it was told to do. That has very little to do with this being a god or bad shoot.
 
Was Saafi picking up his two-year old at the house of his cousin and her husband, or am I confused? It would seem that you would not leave your toddler in a household with a person you knew was a meth-using ticking timebomb.
 
jury decision

regardless of how we on this site feel about the case the simple fact is the jury, based on the information they had, judged the guy guilty.

If you ever served on a jury you know the drill. You can not speculate by bringing imaginary ideas into the decision. You have to decide based on what information is presented and not what you would like to imagine maybe could have possible happened.

If there is a lesson to be found in this case it probably is more in line with each of us finding out what is self defence in the jurisdiction where you live. There are some differences from local to local. While there may be a bit of gray at the time you need to defend your self or other times there are very certain reasons when shooting is not justifiable.


Wild I've seen a bit on this case since the original shooting. I'll just say I'm with the jury decision. I believe there are stil a couple of similar shooting in Anchorage that have yet to come to trial.
 
Nobody can really internet quarterback on this article as we weren't there to experience the 'event'.

That being said, a class instructor pointed out it's not a good idea to shoot with verbal threats and gestures. If the knife comes out, all bets are off.

A couple years ago a homeowner in MD confronted someone busting in his front door. He managed to get his gun in time. One thing that stood out, he couldn't remember how many shots were fired. Turns out he emptied his gun, 8 shots IIRC.
 
regardless of how we on this site feel about the case the simple fact is the jury, based on the information they had, judged the guy guilty.

And Alaska juries are not considered to be pro prosecution in cases such as these

WildwaitingforsentencingAlaska ™
 
This was a posting contained in the link to the news article. It sheds a little more light concerning some of the details and may change your viewpoint:


defense lacking

First, let me begin by saying that I, like most of you, wish Mr. Saafi had gotten a lighter charge yesterday.

However, unbeknownst to most that have posted comments here, the defense did not sufficiently support their claim to self-defense, which would have allowed any jury to legally let him off with lighter, if any, charges. The defense did not explore with witnesses the many facets of the situation that supported Mr. Saafi's actions.

Here are a few facts from the courtroom that did not help Mr. Saafi:

The victim had no weapon on him at the time of the crime. In fact, he was only seen by witnesses ONCE with a weapon, ever. A common, knife-on-the-belt weapon. Shame.

The victim was in a loud argument with his wife when Mr. Saafi left his residence at a full run. The victim was not standing within arms reach of his wife when Mr. Saafi ran off of his property and pulled the loaded gun on the victim and his friend. By doing so, he unfortunately became the aggressor, and not even on his own property.

Mr. Saafi did not mention self-defense to any of the APD staff at the time of the incident. He said that he was protecting his family. Absolutely a good cause, but the defense did not prove that his family was under any immediate threat at the time of the shooting. The defense could not prove that even the wife was under any threat at the time, as she was also under the influence of meth and had just come from spending a night with the victim, who had not abused her during that time.

The defense failed to provide witnesses that did a good job demonstrating that the family had lived in fear. Again, the fear was probably there, but why didn't the defense ask the right questions so that it was clear in the trial?

The defense often played the emotional and cultural cards, rather than refuting and explaining the incriminating evidence. Again, such a shame.

A cell phone was found lying immediately next to where the hollow point clip had been taken when Mr. Saafi had loaded the gun. If only he had called 911 before running out of the house pointing a loaded weapon at weaponless meth addicts, the law could have looked at it differently.

The Alaskan/Outside split of the jury was about half and half, as was the male/female, gun-owners/non gun-owners, and younger/older splits.

The defense did not provide anyone in that courtroom with enough evidence to let him off this time, but hopefully this will be the wake-up call that they need so that they will do better should they appeal. The same judge will be sentencing Mr. Saafi, and one can only hope that he will be able to apply all of the facts that he knows but that were not presented in trial. With everything taken into account, hopefully Mr. Saafi can get out of prison soon; he doesn't belong there.
 
Mr. Saafi got 10 years today after the decedants father emotionally told the judge that he forgave him. I'll post the story as soon as it's posted.

He could have gotten 99 years.

Interesting

WildwhatdayisitAlaska TM
 
Here is the story:

At murderer's sentencing, grieving fathers find unlikely bond
A story of addiction, death and forgiveness

By JULIA O'MALLEY
jomalley@adn.com

(07/12/08 02:06:03)

In a downtown courtroom Friday, Rob Kagel didn't know what to feel as he looked for the first time on Osaiasi Saafi, the man who'd shot and killed his son.

What is the father of a murder victim supposed to feel?

Saafi, 30, hung his head in his chair at the defense table, a lawyer at his side, his own father and a minister behind him. He looked like a warrior, stoic and sad.

A jury had convicted him of murder. He faced the prospect of spending most of his life in prison.

Kagel knew prosecutor John Skidmore was asking for 25 years. That sounded right to him. Saafi needed to take responsibility for his son's death, Kagel explained. He needed to feel bad for what he'd done.

Still, as Kagel looked at the young man in the orange prison clothes, he felt something inside him shift.

A special education teacher from Arizona, Kagel thought of his dead son, Josh -- a smart, compassionate boy who kept losing his fight with addiction after his mother's suicide, he said.

What would Josh have wanted, Kagel asked himself.

Josh came to Alaska in his late teens, looking for a new life after a string of drug-related run-ins with the law in Arizona. For a half-dozen years, Kagel and his other children rode the bipolar cycles of Josh's drug addiction, tracking his recovery or relapse over long-distance calls from Alaska.

Sometimes Josh seemed well: He married. Held jobs. Had a son.

Sometimes he wasn't well: Minor brushes with Alaska law. Meth. The horrible brittle quality in his voice when he called high after months of being straight.

A month before he died, Josh hit bottom. He called Kagel and said his addiction was costing him his wife and son. He was determined to kick his habit. A turning point, father and son agreed.

But it wasn't.

On Aug. 28, 2005, high again, Josh fought with his wife on an Airport Heights Drive. Saafi was a cousin to Josh's wife; he felt responsible for protecting her. He intervened. Josh jumped Saafi, threatened to kill him.

Saafi went in the house and got a gun. He unloaded seven bullets into Josh, pumping shots long after Josh's body hit the ground.

Josh died in his wife's arms. He was 25 years old.

Saafi had no history of violence, no criminal record. He'd never even gotten a speeding ticket. He called the police himself.

At his trial for first-degree, meaning intentional, murder, Saafi's lawyer argued it was really self defense. The jury found him guilty of second-degree murder.

Back in Arizona, Kagel only knew what he read about his son's death -- news stories online and anonymous reader comments on adn.com declaring the shooting of his son justified. Josh deserved to die, they said. He was an addict. A meth-head. Saafi "should have emptied the clip."

Such viciousness from strangers made Kagel think the world was a broken place.

Addiction was only part of Josh, he said. He was also tender-hearted, a goofball brother who called his sister at 3 a.m., a charmer who got smiles out of police officers.

The family wondered what Josh's killer felt. Was he sorry? Kagel's daughter, Shayna, visited Saafi in jail. He couldn't look at her. Couldn't speak.

In the courtroom Friday, it was time for Kagel to talk. Saafi should get a serious sentence, he told the judge, long enough to teach him the value of human life.

"My wish for you is that you not throw your life away out of a stubborn refusal to accept responsibility for your actions," he said to Saafi.

Then it was Saafi's turn. He accepted the decision of the jury, he said quietly. He prayed every day for the family to forgive him. He was sorry for the heartache his actions had caused.

From his seat in the gallery, Kagel believed Saafi was sincere, believed he would be burdened for life by what he'd done.

Suddenly, locking Saafi up for most of his life seemed a waste. Then two young men would be destroyed, Kagel explained later. He knew Josh wouldn't have wanted it.

Judge Michael Wolverton called a recess. When court reconvened, Kagel asked if he could make one last statement.

He'd changed his mind, he told the judge. Please give Saafi the minimum sentence, he said.

"We do forgive you," Kagel said to Saafi. "For reasons we don't understand, we love you; we do."

Saafi nodded. Behind him, his father Henry Saafi wept.

Wolverton listened. He wasn't used to hearing victims speak so eloquently on behalf of a defendant, he said. It rarely happens.

He would take Kagel's wishes to heart and adjust his sentence to the minimum -- 10 years in prison, Wolverton said.

Saafi clearly acted in a fever of adrenaline and fear, protecting his family, the judge said. It's unlikely he'd ever do something like it again. Just to be safe, he added 20 years of suspended time that can be imposed if Saafi strays.

Wolverton wished Saafi luck. Uniformed guards led him out of the courtroom through a metal door.

Kagel and Saafi's father stood and looked at each other. Strangers before that day, they embraced -- father of the murdered and father of the murderer, their faces wet with tears.

"It's the single greatest thing I've ever done in my entire life," Kagel said.

WildbadshootAlaska TM
 
There's no way we can second guess the jury based on a short newspaper article. It was a two week trial. The jury heard and saw a lot we will never know anything about. And of course, the jury could also be wrong. There's just know way to assess this with such limited information.

However, this sort of thing should remind us that whether or not it's a "good shot" might not always be so obvious.
 
I might sound insensitive, but my biggest problem with that article is the line...
Josh -- a smart, compassionate boy who kept losing his fight with addiction after his mother's suicide

I get so sick and tired of addicts and a-holes being portrayed as victims. Apparently they are all upstanding citizens and the most angelic of people when not under the influence too.

I do not drink or do drugs. I do not remember ever having to "battle" to not stick a needle in my arm or a crack pipe to my lips. I simply remember making the choice to not be a loser.
 
At the end of the day, it's just another tragedy ... one man dead, another's life ruined by, perhaps, a moment of flawed judgment ... We still don't have the crucial facts -- distance, was the knife drawn or not? -- but it sounds like justice was done, both in the conviction and the less-than-maximum sentence ... and it has to give you pause ... when you arm yourself, you assume a huge responsibility ... I believe I'm prepared to make the right decision under stress -- I've taken half a dozen classes, practice often, visualize situations where I might be forced to present my gun and use it -- but when the adrenaline is flowing and people are screaming, any of us might make a mistake ...
 
I might sound insensitive, but my biggest problem with that article is the line...

Quote:
Josh -- a smart, compassionate boy who kept losing his fight with addiction after his mother's suicide

I get so sick and tired of addicts and a-holes being portrayed as victims. Apparently they are all upstanding citizens and the most angelic of people when not under the influence too.
I fail to see that is portraying the boy as a victim. It is more of a morality note about how easy it is to fall under the influence of drugs and the affect they can have on even the best of people.
I simply remember making the choice to not be a loser.
Many who drink or do drugs have not chosen to be a loser. In fact, many that drink or do drugs are considered very powerful and influential people in our society. I think you paint with way too broad a brush.
 
Many who drink or do drugs have not chosen to be a loser. In fact, many that drink or do drugs are considered very powerful and influential people in our society. I think you paint with way too broad a brush.
My remarks where about this specific individual and those like him. I stick by what I said. You can go ahead an defend the lowlifes if you choose to do s, but do not expect me to enable your actions.
 
I think the article does tend to further victimize the guy who was shot by talking about his mother, his battles with addiction and so forth. There's plenty of humanity in the story by talking about the guy's daughter visiting the shooter in jail and the guy's father forgiving him and helping him get leniency.

Not to mention the overall big picture of a seemingly good meaning citizen who seems to have either gotten really angry or really freaked out with a handgun and the impact it has had on his life.

God forbid I'm the victim of a crime I hope my personal struggles and things I've overcome in life are used to add years to the aggressor's sentence. But that's what newspapers are for, I don't think that stuff was taken into account for sentencing.

Thanks WildAlaska for following up on this story, I was wondering how this was going to turn out. I wonder if the defendant ever got any expert testimony or could appeal with help from some SD experts like Mas Ayoob or the Personal Defense Network?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top