Incident in VA over the weekend. Gun owner killed "attacker"

Cool_Hand; I've noticed the same thing. There was recently a fight in my neck of the woods outside a gym; apparently the attacker got into a shouting match with the victim at a bar the night before, and then ambushed him coming out of the gym the next day. I am close friends with one of the paramedics who was first on scene; the beating was so brutal that the victim, after being stabilized, was given general anesthesia and intubated prior to being taken to shock trauma, which was thankfully only minutes away. Fractured ribs, shattered hand, fractured clavicle, fluid in his chest cavity, massive blood loss, and his face was demolished including a fractured eye socket/orbital rim. I understand that men will always thump their chest and fight, but I just don't understand where the anger or hate to brutally pummel somebody like that comes from.

That said, I frequent bars (mostly because I enjoy listening to live music, and play in a blues band), but stay on the edges and avoid the more crowded locations when possible. I actually think going into those situations can really help you hone your situational awareness skills, and using normal, non-threatening movement to maintain space around your person to avoid conflict. Avoiding excessive consumption and drinking a water between beers/cocktails helps as well.
 
Last edited:
I understand that men will always thump their chest and fight, but I just don't understand where the anger or hate to brutally pummel somebody like that comes from.
Click to expand...

I think in previous times the "extreme anger" types came to a "bad end" at a younger age and were weeded out.
 
peetzakilla: I can't speak to the justification of the actual shooting, but I think it should be pretty obvious to everyone that the shooter made a number of poor decisions that, had they been different, could have avoided the whole situation.

Number one, fighting over insults is stupid. Man up and walk away.


He who is armed has a GREATER responsibility to avoid conflict than he who is not armed.
Click to expand...

Sad situation all around. This is the smartest thing anyone has posted yet.
 
1)this attacker(later victim) was forced to leave said establishment due to his behavior and/or possible threatening manner(at least the 1st part)

2)the new law helps so if you think different you are wrong

3)he was given verbal and visual commands and their were plenty of witnesses which all helps the guy who pulled trigger

4)autopsy will show at least alcohol + maybe drugs but this is speculation and I admit that(bottom line that will help trigger puller but outcome willnot hurt him

5)its pretty obvious or a defense lawyer can show the dead man didn't want to chitchat; by the way, his past records will help the triggerpuller

6)triggerpuller was only defense for his significant other

7)this is virginia both maryland, nj, or hawaii(sorry I am human+tangents happen//been up all night---once again the state does more to help than hurt his chances

8)he had two knives. would it have helped if the knives were out as he came to him? yes, but the possession will help the triggerpuller and I disagree with anyone who thinks different

9)take plea if you must, but not to a felony

10)deadman was waiting in parking lot which is premeditation(not like legal sense premeditation murder but this wasn't a chance encounter so this helps the triggerpuller

11)its always complicated but basically one can reasonably argue he had no choice was weapon was drawn

12)personally, I have no problem wounding someone in same situation AND I KNOW WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY ABOUT CENTER MASS. one should shoot to kill but there are circumstances where you aren't a robot; you choose your route. that being said, what he dead was fine in my book and same would've been done(as in shot location) if the scenario included me

setbacks: record of triggerpuller possible hurts him but if its good backround this will help
 
Any way you slice it, several lives are affected and one is dead.

The fallout from this incident will be long lasting and expensive.

Geetarman:(
 
8)he had two knives. would it have helped if the knives were out as he came to him? yes, but the possession will help the triggerpuller and I disagree with anyone who thinks different.
Click to expand...

It only helps triggerpuller if triggerpuller knew he had the knives prior to pulling the trigger.

5)its pretty obvious or a defense lawyer can show the dead man didn't want to chitchat; by the way, his past records will help the triggerpuller
Click to expand...

Again, unless the triggerpuller knew about this man's past criminal record (if any), then most of that can be excluded under federal rules of evidence - though a savvy lawyer may still be able to get some of it admitted.
 
therealdeal:
No one should shoot with the intent to kill except soldier in battle and police SWAT or HRT units. If you shoot with the intent to kill you just went from defender to possible murderer. You shoot with the intent of stopping the attack. If the attacker dies then that is an act of God. Intent can go along way to being free or being behind bars. I heard of a case back in the 50s or 60s where an FBI agent was on the stand. He was asked did he intend to kill a suspect. His reply was "Yes". He was asked why? He responded "That was how he was trained at the academy". He went to jail. This is why police are no longer taught to kill just to stop the action that caused him/her to shoot.
 
please note I had no time to proofread my initial post so you got my roughdraft I barely had time to press submit on(referring to spelling&other points).

bartholomew, good points. however, I disagree with the 2nd part+also about the knives: it can't hurt that the deadman had knives(I do agree with you though). the 2nd part definately makes a difference: example only- the massachusetts case of the professor shooting faculty where she worked in alabama. maybe a bad example since that was premeditated murder BUT your past always is a factor. If the deadman had the same type of incident 3yrs ago where he attacked someone in a restaurant parkinglot, I gurantee you this will help the defense just as if triggerpuller has shot someone at gunpoint before in his past. Yes, the judge does decide if and what evidence is allowed. I mean its always complicated, but what was he to do? remember, its easy to play monday mrng quarterback.

python, I respectfully disagree. I am more sensitive to the wounding argument than most(which I stated earlier). example:

when an inmate is escaping a federal prison and you have to make a decision to shoot this man(whether in the back or even from the front if you are a mobile patrol on the outside of the fence). It can actually hurt you on stand to say you shot to wound. I know people who have been coached to say they aimed center mass. That is what you're supposed to do. You aren't supposed to shoot in the leg or aim for the leg. You are supposed to shoot center mass to eliminate the threat.

That one case you mentioned doesn't change that in my mind. A trained police officer doesn't need to be surround by his buddies in a HostageRecoveryTeam or SWAT to use deadly force. If he pulls his weapon, he is ready to kill if needed(sorry, the more political terminology is eliminate the threat or something of that sort).
 
Nate45 said:
In my way of thinking the drunken man laying in wait and then advancing in the face of a firearm; is more than enough to lead me to believe he was intent on doing harm. Were I in that situation, or any in which I told someone to stop advancing or I would shoot, then if they did not I would shoot.
Click to expand...
Ditto.

The fact that the first guy waited an hour outside the restaurant to continue the encounter is a hugely strong argument that he did not just want to shake hands and wish the second guy a pleasant evening. How a DA or grand jury views it will be interesting but I would consider it a good shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top