Self Defense Gone Wrong

thought for a few

I saw wayneinFL reply to another thread mentioning manslaughter in the case of the accidental shooting in church shooting incident. Since I replied there and asked the question, I wanted to reply here as well and ask a similar question.

Since in the church shooting it is more a case of a pure accident, but in the self defense gone wrong case it is more of a mistaken intent as you will, which should carry more punishment, or should they be similar?

Mods, take note, I do feel this is a very valid question in both cases.

Edited to add:

I do not feel either case really had any evil intent, but the actions warrent a level of punishment.
 
Last edited:
Well, Fishing_Cabin, since you're citing to another post, it would be helpful to provide a link. I suspect most members aren't inclined to go searching.
 
Fishing Cabin, with all due respect, that's a horrible analogy.

Moises Zambrana, or the guy who was looking at the Ruger 9mm, (not clear who was actually handling it when it fired) was grossly negligent in handling a gun, with a chambered round, in a public and populated area.

OTOH, the shooter in this thread had just been attacked by a gang, and was being man-handled by a person whom he had some legitimate reason to suspect might not be a cop.

Those are grossly different.

Zambrana and friend were criminally negligent, at the least. I wouldn't want the DA to go for maximum charges or penalties, but an assault or (hopefully it won't come to this) negligent homicide charge would be appropriate.

In the case in this thread, assuming the officer used the force described, and if all else is as reported, I'd find Not Guilty as a juror. The standard is what a reasonable person, with the same knowledge as the defendant, would do in the same situation. I could easily see myself thinking "fake cop," and fighting for my life in that same situation, based on the combination of the gang setup, the non-police car, the tattoos, and the rough handling.

Apples and oranges between that and Zambrana.
 
Mleake,

I disagree about this incident. It would have been one thing if, while shooting at the armed persons that were trying to rob him and threatened his life, if he had missed and hit an innocent person directly behind the robbers. That would be understandable though very tragic.

Fleeing the scene on foot, in fear, and asking for police to be contacted, but when an officer arrives in uniform, believes the officer is real at first, and then changes his mind upon seeing the tattoos and shoots said officer not once, but 3 times. It sounds like other witnesses, that understandably should have been shook up and in fear from witnessing the officer being shot, stepped forward to help, believing the officer was in fact real.

While this and the other case of the girl shot in church are apples and oranges in what happened, I think both people who fired their firearms should be charged and have a level of guilt placed upon them. That is my feelings on this. Both made bad choices, and should face some penalties.

Apart from a pure self defense shooting, or a miss while actually defending oneself as I mentioned above, I have always been taught, from childhood, throughout my adult life, and even in my training, that each shot I fire I am responsible for, both civil and criminally speaking. The only reason that I place a pure self defense separately, is that it is an affirmative defense to the shooting, and even then there may be charges or a civil trial.

I guess from others views, my feelings may be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Fishing Cabin, the officer didn't arrive after police were called, and that's the problem with your take on this.

The guy ran into a diner, and asked the waitress to call the police. As he was asking her to do this, the off-duty cop came up behind him and ordered him to the ground. It was not in response to his call; there were no sirens; there had been no acknowledgement.

IE, it happened very fast.

(Edit, in the interests of sounding less combative, no offense intended to Fishing Cabin)

Since the officer did not actually arrive as a result of the shooter's call, and since the timeline was much faster than you seemed to think it had been, how does that affect your thoughts on the incident?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I realize this is an old thread, but wanted to post an update on this case.

The Tire store manager Atibi Thomas went to trial in March 2013 and the jury deadlocked on the charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault. It was reported that they came close to convicting him on the later charge. He was acquitted on a third charge of beating the Police Officer with a gun due to lack of evidence. The District Attorney has announced that he plans to retry this case.

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/breaking-news/hung-jury-in-fulton-trial-of-man-who-shot-an-atlan/nWxrg/
 
Last edited:
However, his innocence is in doubt since apparently his only factor for deciding the officer was another criminal was the tattoos... that's not a reasonable assumption.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I find it a bit harsh that some of the other posters relate tattoos to bad guys. They are much more common than they used to be. While I do agree that visible tattoos can still be seen a unprofessional, a lot of military and police, including me, have tattoos. If tattoos and a civilian car are this guys only reason for thinking the cop was another bad guy, he's going to have a tough time in court, and I foresee a change in policy in the near future for the inked cops department.
 
Officer Roach should be commended for his actions; intervening in an off-duty capacity to prevent injury to other citizens in the area......
Click to expand...

Perhaps so....perhaps not. I didn't seen any indication that other citizens were in danger of being injured. A victim was running away from an attempted robbery with a gun in his hand, apparently after having shot at the alleged robber(s).

In CCW class, you are told that attempting to intervene in something you have no information about (ie., walking up to two people fighting, etc.) is not a great idea. This is exactly what the LEO did. Not saying he shouldn't have....but just like the advice given in class, the LEO had not idea what was happening. He assumed the guy escaping from the attempted robbery was the bad guy (because he had a gun?), it would seem. No doubt about it, it was a bad day for everyone involved....and that was the worst part about it.
 
Perhaps so....perhaps not. I didn't seen any indication that other citizens were in danger of being injured. A victim was running away from an attempted robbery with a gun in his hand, apparently after having shot at the alleged robber(s).
Click to expand...

Right, he stopped the wrong guy. He may have done it for the right reasons, but then again, he may have been shot for the right reasons, or maybe not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top