Had to use mine Wednesday Night

Status
Not open for further replies.
He is not/did not go tothe hospital for injuries from what I read so where is the life endangerment?
Click to expand...

It an objective standard--what would an objectively reasonable person believe. You don't have to wait until you are shot or wounded to believe that your life is in imminent danger.

If you think none of these things matter in a court then I would never want you anywhere near a courtroom.
Click to expand...

Don't worry--you couldn't afford me.

As a gun owner I'm glad everything worked out ok and he is fine---as for the law I see some possible problems ahead.
Click to expand...

You don't sound glad.

I'm replying to his statement as it pertains to the law,
Click to expand...

Where did you get your legal training?

Anyway, this topic isn't about our interpretations of the law. I think Moose came here looking for support. He has mine. You ought to think about whether he has yours.
 
Bruce G

In my class I was taught that women, the elderly or the disabled have a much lower standard to meet that than a younger more able bodied male.



Exactly, and someone named Moose might have a harder time explaing having to use a firearm vs an unarmed person. Could he have handled the man without a gun. What would he have done in not CCW? I don't know how big Moose is but I haven't known many who were small---another factor for a jury. :(
 
There is not a thing wrong with seeking counseling, but I would recommend searching your own soul before automatically assuming that you need counseling. Everybody is different and the emotional needs of one don’t necessarily equate the emotional needs of another. I am not belittling counseling or those that utilize counseling, but take stock of yourself and decide if you need it.

On the issue of speaking about your self-defense situation, I would caution you to think carefully, but that is certainly not to mean that you shouldn’t talk about it, publicly or privately. You were in the right. You haven’t done anything wrong. You shouldn’t necessarily feel as if you should keep quiet about a difficult situation in which you prevailed.
 
As far as affording you, that wouldn't be a problem but based on your approach to the law you couldn't pay me enough for you to represent. As for the law I have 2 sister's that are lawyer's(Nova) but alas I being the smartest of the family went for General Contractor and retired at the ripe old age of 38-----and never had to lie and cheat in my proffession! :D
 
And... whether or not he was actually in possession of a deadly weapon is a moot point. If you walk into a gas station and rob the place with your finger pointing in your pocket as if you had a gun, it's still considered aggravated (armed) robbery. In the "self defense" defense, you have to articulate a "reasonable fear for your life". Don't think there's any question he had that, and rightfully so. Case law is full of court decisions exhonorating both civilians and peace officers who used deadly force when an apparent weapon turned out to be something innocuous, like a toy gun.

Again, I don't think Monday morning quarterbacking is appropriate here. What we have is a fellow board member that is, and will be trying to deal with, the aftermath of a shooting. There are a few here that know what I'm talking about... and a whole bunch that don't have a clue. That wasn't meant to be a slam folks, just truth. In one case, I had to ORDER an officer into counseling that was involved in a justified shooting. He was completely in the right, but it damned near destroyed his life. He had nightmares, mood swings, missed work, started drinking heavily, domestics, and even later told me he had considered suicide. He was too macho to admit it was bothering him, but later thanked me for forcing him to get help. It is now dept. SOP that counseling is mandatory if one of ours uses deadly force. Now to those of you that haven't been there, but still want to pass judgement, please... shut the f*** up. In spite of all the macho posturing and strutting, and in spite of your "training", you have no idea what you'll actually do in the face of a deadly situation, or how you'll react afterwards. And when you do strut and posture, you're just showing those who have been there that you haven't.
 
Exactly, and someone named Moose might have a harder time explaing having to use a firearm vs an unarmed person. Could he have handled the man without a gun. What would he have done in not CCW? I don't know how big Moose is but I haven't known many who were small---another factor for a jury.
Click to expand...

Now you are just being silly. You assume based his screen name on an internet message forum that Moose is a big guy? You think that will hold up in court?
 
And... whether or not he was actually in possession of a deadly weapon is a moot point. If you walk into a gas station and rob the place with your finger pointing in your pocket as if you had a gun, it's still considered aggravated (armed) robbery

Not here in Fla. They have the 10, 20 life law in effect. There is a big difference(according to law) if you have a gun or not in a robbery attempt.


Bruce G.
Unfortunately, juries can be swayed by the smallest detail. If the defense raises the issue of a person being called Moose and the man is indeed of considerable stature then it only takes 1. I don't know for sure what size he is but I'm guessing large--if not no problem. Point is more needs to be heard before stating unequivicably that he did the right thing(or wrong). I'm not hindsighting the situation--he did what he did---legally is what I'm addressing. Do I as a fellow carrier feel(from what I know) that he did nothing wrong----yes. Legally, are there serious questions(from what I know) on how he handled the situation---yes.
 
MoW,

Many states allow you to use force to protect your property; I believe SC is one of them. Most places are more than accepting of a persons desire to keep their property and allow for the use of force to do so. The fact that one has insurance or anything else does not eliminate that ability. Often when the situation has occurred at night, the amount of force one is allowed to use is increased. The fact that Moose was already assaulted, robbed, and ordered to retrieve additional property for the robber certainly gives him justification to use force. The assault alone should be more than enough justification for lethal force.
 
MoW said:
Why do you think everyone is telling Moose not to say anything more
Click to expand...
I'm one of those people, and I told him to say nothing more because it's REALLY good advice to keep your mouth shut after a self-defense shooting. Other than saying you felt you were in mortal danger or something similar, it's best NOT to say anything. That's regardless of how clear cut or muddled the situation seems at first glance.

Ok, I'm going to say this, and it's going to sound bad, but I don't know any other way to say it. Your grasp of the basics of using deadly force and also your interpretation of Moose's situation are hopelessly confused. It's hard to find a place to start straightening things out. A lot of what you're saying is BASED in fact, but badly misinterpreted or misconstrued. Before continuing this discussion, I'd recommend that you carefully re-read your state's statutes on the use of deadly force, and then re-read the story of Moose's encounter.

Based on my study of deadly force statutes and general principles, univtxattorney is 100% correct and you are 100% wrong. Both in your interpretation of Moose's specific situation and in your application of deadly force statutes to this situation.

I consider this to be an important and valuable piece of information to impart to you--this isn't about trying to win a gun forum argument. As a gun owner and a permit holder, you are responsible to know and understand how deadly force statutes apply. As far as I can see, you are falling badly short in this regard. I hope you have not given others advice.

Best regards,

John
 
MoW,

If the defense raises the issue of a person being called Moose and the man is indeed of considerable stature then it only takes 1. I don't know for sure what size he is but I'm guessing large--if not no problem.
Click to expand...
This is a pure-dee asinine statement. If you’ve ever been in any sort of a fight with another adult then you should know that size doesn’t always matter and that even the bigger or stronger guy can be in a world of hurt in a fight.
 
As noted earlier, Fla. will soon have the right to not retreat(Oct). Unfortunately, until then everyone is under the current law which is MUCH more strict on using a weapon outside of your domain :( for virtually any reason but life and death. In fact our CCW instructor stated there is(currently) virtually no situation when discharging your gun outside your home without LEGAL ramifications. He so much as said to carry pepper spray instead of a pistol for such situations to avoid legal liability---stupid I agree, but true for now.
Again, I'm taking a legal approach to this matter. If Moose had given the guy the money and he ran off then he couldn't use his weapon at that point. If he was being struck as he pulled his weapon to fire then sure, but legally the way he described the situation raises questions---especially if there was no weapon found on the assailant.
 
Unfortunately size will matter to a jury when defending your actions vs an unarmed smaller person---just a fact.



JohnSK----Sorry but from what I read legally there are questions. In hindsight maybe he would handle it differently---don't know enough---but do know enough that it DOES raise questions. You didn't answer or respond to how far away the guy was? Why 3 shots and 1 missed? All valid questions that you can't answer---thus legal questions arise.
 
MoW,

I didn't address specifics other than the one comment that applied directly to a statement made to me because it's not easy to find a starting point. But I'll address the questions you asked.

If the encounter started with the assailant punching the victim from behind, I don't think there's any question of how far away they were from each other. Obviously the assailant was within arms reach at least during some point in the encounter.

It is common for people to miss in very high-stress situations--even at very close range. I've never heard of someone using a missed shot in a situation as proof that the assailant was too far away. In my opinion, that's a very poor argument--bordering on ludicrous. Furthermore, since the victim had been struck in the head, that offers another reasonable explanation for his shooting performance to be less than ideal.

Ok, again this is going to sound very bad, but I'm going to be frank. Initially I didn't address these questions or the others you posed because they were based on obviously flawed reasoning and a lack of understanding of deadly force statutes. Not because they were hard to answer. I do not believe either of these questions raise any legal questions at all. The answer to the first is so patently obvious that it needn't have been asked, and the reasoning inherent in the second is badly flawed.

I don't want to get dragged into an argument on this thread because I think it's not going to be productive to anyone. I really wish you would take my advice to carefully read through the deadly force statutes of your state and then to carefully re-read the initial post on this thread before continuing this discussion.

John
 
Gentlemen,
This thread is a great example of what occurs in a jury room. As such, it is also a great example of why one should clam up if one has to resort to force of any kind, for any reason. Advice from internet forums is often bad, advice from LEOs is frequently bad, advice from other people in jail is bad. In the Navy we had a term for it.......sea lawyers. Hell, advice from bonafide attorneys can't be counted on either. Everyone is spouting opinions. The only opinions that really matter are those of the jury, and they aren't talking. Let alone we don't even know if there will be a jury, and who they will be in this particular case.

There is one universal truth however. The best thing to do after a shooting is not to say anything about it. Even if a person is exonerated, it is best if they do not discuss it.
 
MoW,

Unfortunately size will matter to a jury when defending your actions vs an unarmed smaller person---just a fact.
Click to expand...
Ok, lets cut to the chase. My understanding of your assertion is that an otherwise justified self-defense situation, when the individual using self-defense is larger than the assailant, will change that situation to one where the victim is no longer justified. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, prove it. You are making a radical assertion, it is incumbent on you to provide the justification. Shouldn’t be too hard, if what you say is true. Right?
 
I've been keeping up in this thread and I just can't keep quiet any longer. Moose shot someone because he had to end of story.

I'm not trying to flame anyone here, forgive me if I flame, I am trying to say this in the nicest way possible.

Moose, if you are reading this, you were justified in my book. Don't listen to the armchair quarterbacks who haven't been there. Mow has all week to decide whether what you did in a few seconds under the threat of your life was justified or not. He's probably had a $35 gunshow CCW class and thinks he's a lawyer now. Moose, you did the right thing.

This is not meant as a personal attack, mow, I've taken the gunshow course and other courses on lethal force, if I listened to some of the gun show instructors, you just about can't shoot back unless you're dead already. Some LFI's are afraid to tell you that you can EVER shoot anybody, 'cause they think you may misunderstand them or take them too literally, shoot someone, and get sued for it, then, in turn, sue the instructor.

Mow, you may wish to leave this thread alone. A situation similar to this happened in my hometown to a customer at the garage I worked at. Man shot a woman from his Jeep. Yes- in Florida. It never made it past the grand jury- obviously justifiable shooting.

Moose, take the advice of the experienced men on this thread. Get a good lawyer, don't say anything to anybody unless the lawyer says to, and go for the counseling. God bless you.
 
You didn't answer or respond to how far away the guy was? Why 3 shots and 1 missed? All valid questions that you can't answer---thus legal questions arise.
Click to expand...

First, only Moose knows the answers, and I hope he follows everyones advise and keeps the rest of the details to himself for his own protection.

But for the sake of argument I can offer up my guesses. In all muggings I know personally know about (I admit, not many), the mugger usually stays within arms reach or at most a few steps away. Certainly close enough to be considered a threat. I often hear that 7 yards is considered a range at which an unarmed attacker becomes a greater threat. I don't know the details and am not prepared to argue them at this time. But unless the perp was standing across the parking lot shouting commands while clearly unarmed, I don't think distance will be an issue.

I think the one missed shot is also moot. The 2 out of 3 at a live target in a stressfull situation is fine shooting. I've seen police videos where cops and badguys both emptied hi-cap mags at each other over the hood of a patrol car and evey round missed.

You've said in several post that there are serious questions. I disagree. I don't see where any of the points you raised are of any concern. The police are most likely satisified with what happened, and the odds of a drug addict finding a lawyer to file a civil suit are pretty slim. Slim, but not zero, hence the need for Moose to keep silent.

And please, do us a favor and don't say anymore about what the law is in Florida. It's a fine state, but not the one we are talking about.
 
If the defense raises the issue of a person being called Moose and the man is indeed of considerable stature then it only takes 1.
Click to expand...

You had better call your sisters and get better advice. It, in fact, does not only take 1 to convict. It takes 1 to hang. It takes 12 to convict (sometimes 6 in certain jurisdictions with six person juries). In the event that he had someone like you on the jury, who was determined to get him, you, acting alone, could not convict him. The worst you could do is hang the jury. At that point, I am confident that the prosecutor would elect not to retry the case.

I think the one missed shot is also moot. The 2 out of 3 at a live target in a stressfull situation is fine shooting.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to hit one out of ten. But then again, I shoot like a lawyer. :D
Seriously, under the circumstances, 2 out of 3 is awesome.

Hell, advice from bonafide attorneys can't be counted on either.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. Really. If you are going to get an attorney (in ANY matter, from a DWI to murder) spend the extra and get a good one. Ask around. Do research. This is NOT something you want to skimp on. Just like a lot of [insert your profession here] out there, there are a lot of attorneys who haven't a clue what they are doing. Point is, in all professions, there are good, bad, and ugly. If your life or financial well-being is on the line, get the best you can afford.

Mow has all week to decide whether what you did in a few seconds under the threat of your life was justified or not.
Click to expand...

The SMARTEST statement on this thread, IMHO.

I listened to some of the gun show instructors, you just about can't shoot back unless you're dead already.
Click to expand...

Here is the deal, boys and girls. What happens in the justice system is RARELY about the law. I am sure that all of you know this. If you, as a lawyer, have let THIS case get to court, you have already lost.

Let me break it down for you, as I see it. You have a guy who is a veteran criminal. He goes to mug Moose, a guy who is minding his own business. A guy who has taken the time to learn the gun laws of his state and has proven himself responsible by obtaining a license to carry. The bad guy hits Moose from behind, without provocation. Moose, obviously scared for his life, shoots the bad guy. Which case do you want to try as a prosecutor? State v. Bad Guy or State v. Moose? Do you think the prosecutor is going to pour over the facts with a fine-toothed comb looking for a way to charge Moose? Do you think a grand jury is going to follow the LAW? How about the petit jury at trial? Prosecutors know this. They don't like to waste their time with cases that are losers. They don't like to waste resources prosecuting them. Juries don't like to convict guys like Moose for giving bad guys what they deserve.

That said, LEARN the law of your state... Why? Because if all else fails, you have to argue the law. If you can't persuade the prosecutors that you should not be charged, you have to persuade them that the merits are on your side. If you, god forbid, get convicted, you have to persuade an appellate court that you acted within the letter of the law, though it may have turned out to be the wrong decision, ultimately.

From what I have read and from what Moose himself said, it sounds like he has everything going for him legally. Let me state this as clearly as I can. From the information he has given, I believe that he acted within the letter of the law. Given that he acted within the law and given what I said above, I would be surprised if he has any negative legal repercussions from this.

As so many of you have recommended, he needs to take this time to determine his mental state. What he really needs from this forum is the support that so many of us have given him. It's over... He's alive... He defended himself in a situation that most of us can only imagine in our nightmares.
 
As so many of you have recommended, he needs to take this time to determine his mental state. What he really needs from this forum is the support that so many of us have given him. It's over... He's alive... He defended himself in a situation that most of us can only imagine in our nightmares.
Click to expand...

Hear hear.....+1
 
Forget the counseling. It was possibly either your life or his and in this case no one lost their life. That's all you have to think about it and then let go. Couseling isn't going to do anything but make you keep reliving it in your mind until the reliving makes it a real problem in your mind. You are alive and unhurt. Forget about it and go on....you don't need to be bleeding your heart out to some stranger over something that was pure self-defense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top