Interesting Self Defense Shooting - Eagleton

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=707151

This is an interesting story of a self-defense shooting that was prosecuted and went to jury (as told by one of the jury members). The shooter was acquitted based on self-defense (he shot a man who attacked him with a knife after an earlier scuffle). The story should go a long ways to remind us of how even what appears to be an obvious "good shoot" can still land you in a legal nightmare.

The man who was shot died in front of his teenage son who witnessed the whole thing. The whole confrontation started because the two men were trying to go through the sane gate and Eagleton said "Watch where you are going" which apparently caused the other man to physically attack him. An important lesson on how minor courtesies not only make for a more pleasant society; but a safer one as well.
 
Unfortunately, this type of investigation seems to be the rule in some jurisdictions rather than the exception.

fortunately, the defendant had a good jury.
 
The defendant was fortunate he got a sympathetic jury, because there are several troubling issues.

First off, the lawyer he hired was incompetent. Second, the aggressor was running away and the defendant shot at him. This could have turned out very badly.
 
One of the human characteristics that has changed over the decades, is the notion of simple courtesy. In years gone by, when two fellow neighbors accidently bumped into each other, there was an "excuse me" or "pardon me" offered by one or both men.

Today, people often feel they have been so disrespected, by even the slightest of behaviors, that it is worth, fighting, killing, dying or spending the rest of ones life in prison for. The posted shooting incident appears to be a legitimate case of self-defense, but it probably could have been avoided.
 
Common courtesy has fallen by the wayside. When was the last time you stepped out of an elevator and some one wasn't trying to push his way past you as you stepped out. The plane lands and everyone's jumping out into the Isle to get off first. It's all "me first". Kindergarteners are more respectful than most adults. If someone is offended, or feels disrespected, he probably was.

Someone trying to push past you to get out a door warrants a "watch where you're going". A "watch where you're going" does not warrant a stabbing. A stabbing does warrant lethal force to protect yourself.

That said, if you look at situations like this and decide that you should let people walk all over you to avoid the risk of angering some idiot and losing a few years of your life defending yourself in court, I totally understand. This is what the world is coming to.
 
I would agree that there is a distinct lack of common courtesy in our society these days. One of the things I've found myself repeating, especially in front of my impressionable child is the theory that: "when I put on my gun this morning, I gave up the right to be rude." Not that I was ever rude to begin with, but at the point where the gun goes in the holster, I think we (CCers) all need to remember that we really, really need to mind our manners.
 
I must agree that "common courtesy" is very uncommon these days. I'm not sure what has happened but I find it very sad.
In my book there is no justification for shooting at an attacker who is running away. JMHO
 
Don't be so sure that things were so much better in the good old days. Nostalgia, Disney, and old timey TV shows have a way of making the past look a lot more wonderful than it really was. Just because you didn't hear about things as much in the past is likely more a product of geography or technology than of society.

It isn't like people didn't hurt one another over trivial matters in the past, such as the color of another's skin, their sex, age, size, class, wealth, or religion. There was a LOT of disrespecting of African Americans in many parts of the country, more so than even today, but especially in the South. Persecuted groups like JMB's Mormons ended up in Utah because of a lack of first amendment courtesy.

That two folks got into a fight that escalated into a homicide really isn't any sort of exceptional instance in our day and age or in the past.
 
Someone trying to push past you to get out a door warrants a "watch where you're going". A "watch where you're going" does not warrant a stabbing. A stabbing does warrant lethal force to protect yourself.

Agreed...
 
... And an, "Excuse me! I didn't see you coming in," might have averted the entire play.

Common courtesy, isn't. Common sense, isn't.
 
[QUOTE+"wayneinFL"]That said, if you look at situations like this and decide that you should let people walk all over you to avoid the risk of angering some idiot and losing a few years of your life defending yourself in court, I totally understand. This is what the world is coming to.[/QUOTE]

I have had to do this on more than one occasion. At first it was humiliating, but later I learned its actually humiliating for the offending person. This is part of conflict resolution and a very important part of owning or carrying a gun.
 
In my book there is no justification for shooting at an attacker who is running away. JMHO
Click to expand...

With a single sight picture, my splits are around 0.22 - which effectively means that once I have made the decision to shoot, I can shoot faster than my brain can process new information. By the time I have recognized someone with a knife is turning and running away, I can easily fire an additional 2-3 shots. To an eyewitness (or ubiquitous surveillance camera), it may look very bad. Throw in some adrenaline, bad lighting, etc. and it is easy to understand how it can happen.

Heck, we discussed a shooting in Tactics and Training where a trained SWAT officer off-duty stopped a McDonald's robbery by shooting the guy ten times. He was effectively dead with the first hit; but by the time the body responded to the loss of blood and the cop noticed him stopping, he'd fired 9 more times.
 
So all police departments don't have a CSI-Miami team to dissect every discarded cigarette butt and crumpled 7-11 receipt within 100 yards of the crime scene?

Amazing that such a seemingly botched investigation would prompt a DA to take the case to trial, especially given the knife aspect. Another good reason to be civil to everybody ... and keep your gun loaded.
 
They had an earlier scuffle, where they physically ran into each other.

More importantly, the guy was later attacked with a knife.

Shooting at the guy while he's running away is a No-Go, agreed.

I get that we all need to be more polite to one another. I find people here in Austin, pretty unfriendly. Get outside of town just a few miles and they're way nicer.

The whole confrontation started because the two men were trying to go through the sane gate and Eagleton said "Watch where you are going" which apparently caused the other man to physically attack him.
Click to expand...

No, the guy decided he was insulted or whatever the case and pulled a knife and threatened/attacked. He did this due to whatever mental/emotional/ego issues he had, not due to the run in.
 
Tom Servo said:
First off, the lawyer he hired was incompetent.
Click to expand...
Tom, I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. The first vote of the jury was unanimously "not guilty." He brought out inconsistencies in the the girlfriend's story, he was able to get the jury past the fact the defendant fired after the other guy turned to leave, that he chased the girlfriend (even though he may not have shot her), and apparently pointed out the obvious shortcomings of the police investigation. Am I missing something?
 
Shooting at the guy while he's running away is a No-Go, agreed.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why various folks here are hung up on this "running away" business. Nobody knows whether he was running away or simply trying to optimize his position. However, there are numerous cases in Texas where folks have been shot while "running away" or shot in the back that have been perfectly justified. There wasn't any proof that the third shot hit him and so even if there was a problem with the shot, the problem would not be murder.

ALSO, from the original THR thread concerning the third shot...
The whole incident took place so fast that they didn't think he was intentionally doing anything beyond 'shooting to stop the threat'. That was one of the major premises of the case was that third shot.
Click to expand...

Just because a person is moving away from you does not mean that they are no longer a threat. Failing to recognize this is a failing of folks during some SD scenarios.
 
I guess this has an element of risk, but I frequently say "you're welcome" to people for whom I hold open a door when they brush past me without even a nod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top