Story of .25acp (and our Judicial System)

At the same time, the decedent was gripping the hilt of a weapon that was embedded in the shooter. It's entirely possible he'd have locked onto the hilt, and locked his knees, standing immobile for a moment or two before dropping.

I have a friend (USAF CCT) who had to qualify shooting 10 rounds of 9mm right-handed, then 10 rounds of 9mm left-handed, for combined time under 5 seconds. He did it in a combined 4.6...

Or over 4 rounds per second, if you want to look at it that way, and all in the A-zone at 5 yards.

So it's possible to let 4 rounds fly pretty quickly, given the right motivation.
 
"True, but the post the OP cited was dated 2003, Florida Castle doctrine did not pass until 2005."

Good observation, but.....

On September 26th, 2000, a South Korean came into my store to pick up a revolver he'd paid for the preceeding week.
 
You are quite right, MLeake, about the possibility of shooting fast. Some folks are quick. Most are not that fast. Most aren't that fast and that accurate. And it may have been 5 shots, the BG not dropping "immediately" until the last one. One plus seconds of shooting is a long time when you are being stabbed. Still pretty amazing shooting after being stabbed multiple times while gripping an embedded sword with the opposite hand as the attacker tried to drive it deeper.
 
Not sure how amazing that accuracy would be, at knife range, against a guy who didn't duck.

The toughness it would take, given the wounds already inflicted, no question.

But I'd be surprised if the muzzle was more than a few inches from the target.

Edit: I'd also say that, given the wounds the shop owner had received, I would have no trouble believing he was in fear he'd lose consciousness. Even if I thought he'd continued to fire after his attacker had gone down, I'd be more likely to attribute it to a fear of losing consciousness and having that guy still there, possibly coming back around.

In other words, I'd have gone for jury nullification even in that instance.
 
Amazing story...and lessons well learned by the OP. Always, always have your weapon at hand, easily accessible.

Guys, something to think about when something like this happens is the effects of PTSD. If you are unfortunate to be caught is a like situation, you have a pretty good chance of suffering PTSD. Guys that are combat veterans will tell you that it changes your life and it takes years of counseling to understand the emotional trauma that follows after such an incident.

We all talk about our guns, our tactics, and what we will or will not do but the after affects will follow you a lifetime. Don't waste time trying to figure it out...get help asap.

As a Vietnam Veteran, I belong to three PTSD discussion groups, each with about 12 guys per group. Our stories are different but similar. It happens. It's there. It's predictable. If you think you are going to fight for your life and not have it, think again. If you are a combat veteran or a victim such as this link has provided, sent me a PM and I can explain the symptoms and where to get help.
 
" I'd also say that, given the wounds the shop owner had received, I would have no trouble believing he was in fear he'd lose consciousness. Even if I thought he'd continued to fire after his attacker had gone down, I'd be more likely to attribute it to a fear of losing consciousness and having that guy still there, possibly coming back around. "

This plays into my T & T thread " You've been shot , now what? "

I too would throw out all anti PD laws once the victim got any where near the real chance of passing out / dying. ( pretty much after the first stab but before the second one made contact ) I also would put each jury member in a real time fight for their life and see what they do. Sitting in a safe jury box spending a week sorting out what happened is way different than being in the fray.

It's a crime that the guy with the knife would have been charged with assault while the guy that shot may have been charged with murder.
Sure investigation is fine, but don't select charges then see if they can be made to stick.

I wonder what other cases the DA has been involved in? Also wonder if justice has been served with the DA being a victim.
 
I also would put each jury member in a real time fight for their life and see what they do. Sitting in a safe jury box spending a week sorting out what happened is way different than being in the fray.
Click to expand...

No, you would not. That is pretty big talk considering what you are doing is talking about committing multiple felonies.

It's a crime that the guy with the knife would have been charged with assault while the guy that shot may have been charged with murder.
Sure investigation is fine, but don't select charges then see if they can be made to stick.
Click to expand...

Well, he did commit homicide. By default, the DA considered what the options were if the conditions were going to be met and then determined what was appropriate. It is all part of due process. No doubt he considered murder, manslaughter, and not pressing any charges.

Funny how you want to put a jury in the battle for their live because you don't think they can reach a decision effectively from the safety of their jury box, but you aren't willing to consider the situation for the DA and the decisions that had to be made before all the information was in. This could have been very much like the Jerome Ersland case where there might have been an initial act of self defense, but then what followed was outright murder. The DA considered the charges and ruled them out. There is nothing criminal about that at all. David would have been considered for assault as well had he not committed homicide. The dead guy didn't commit homicide and so he wasn't considered for it.
 
Shooting 5 rounds quickly from a 25 auto is very easy. I sometimes carry a Beretta 21a 25acp. It holds 10rds, and it can be emptied very very quickly, and with good accuracy, even at 10ft.
I have often considered that were I forced to use it for self defense, I would aim for the eye...seems like it worked.
 
DNS, I think he meant he'd want to put the jurors in a simulation of a life-or-death fight. I'd want my defense experts to stage such a scenario, if possible, to show them how fast such an event goes down. I have read of cases where that has been allowed, and where it has made a difference.

As far as the DA, yes, he had to consider the facts. IMO, that review shouldn't have taken all that long. An almost through-and-through wound of the shoulder, plus multiple abdominal wounds, plus defensive injuries to the hands... and witness accounts of the decedent skulking in the bushes prior to the attack... Sorry, but IMO it was a no-brainer.

Not only that, but the decedent should have been a strong candidate for attempted murder, and unless Florida law has changed since I took classes on it in high school and college (I lived in Florida in those years), aggravated assault consummated with battery, and assault with a deadly weapon.

It's possible the DA just gave the short-hand version to the victim, but "assault" by itself would have been severe under-charging.
 
MLeake has got the right idea.

I still feel there is a huge difference as to what a " reasonable person " would do if they are in a safe location Vs being in the fray.

As for the DA, the sword guy ( if he survived ) was going to get a walk for the stabbing, while the pawn guy was going to get murder 1 ( as in premeditated ). The trail of blood across the store and stab wounds hardly indicate the pawn guy was the aggressor. Given 4 of the shots were into the sword guys eye and one of the 5 in his hand, you can hardly say the pawn guy was the aggressor and the sword guy was defending him self since 4 out of the 5 puts him down and out.

Say the pawn guy did shoot sword guy in the hand out in the main store, why was there ( apparently ) no blood from sword guy out on the main store?

For that matter, how would the DA explain the sword stab through the door? If the sword guy truly was the victim, why would he continue to go after a aggressor that has removed himself from the fight?


This is from post 5

http://armslocker.com/gun-rights/25966-sword-vs-handgun-real-life-mess.html

" And yes, the damn DA 'did' think about charging me with something. Liberal bastard. Anyway, about four months after the fact, while I was sitting on pins and needles wondering whether I should hire counsel, I finally received the 'big' letter in the mail. Found out later, that the DA simply could not make up his mind about what to do with me. The perp was 'was' going to be charged with aggravated assault. No "with deadly weapon", just aggravated assault. No charges were filed for obvious reasons. Then I got to see "my" paper. The idiot had considered a 1st degree murder charge for me, but found I acted in a proper manner. What a guy! I'd still like to know what was going through the idiot's mind even considering a charge of pre meditated murder, when the jerk brought HIS sword into MY store. Oh well, I'm trying to use logic and the criminal justice system in one thought.

As an aside, this bright , outstanding pillar of legal virtue, was recently appointed a judgship by Jeb Bush down in Lake County. I REALLY hope our paths never cross again. His name is Willard Pope. Used to be a deputy for Marion County Sheriff's Office, and lost one of his eyes during a SWAT action of some type. Used the money from a settlement to go to law school, and became a liberal in the process. I had him years ago for an instructor in Radar Certification, and found out then , what an egotistical, self aggrandizing jerk he was. "
 
As far as the DA, yes, he had to consider the facts. IMO, that review shouldn't have taken all that long. An almost through-and-through wound of the shoulder, plus multiple abdominal wounds, plus defensive injuries to the hands... and witness accounts of the decedent skulking in the bushes prior to the attack... Sorry, but IMO it was a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

Took too long? Probably so. No brainer? Easy call AFTER the fact and the guy is complaining about it, but definitely not criminal as claimed. Criminal aggressors often have defensive wounds. All defensive wounds mean is that they were trying to stop incoming violence during an altercation. The ninja had a defensive GSW to his hand as well. Just because there are defensive wounds does not explain why the altercation took place or who started it.

What the charges might have been for the ninja or irrelevant. Our legal system does not work on the basis of how one person should be charged based on how another was charged for a different act. If y'all read many of the threads here and elsewhere on charges filed against folks, they often start at the lower end and are stepped up with additional information as it comes available.

As for the DA, the sword guy ( if he survived ) was going to get a walk for the stabbing, while the pawn guy was going to get murder 1 ( as in premeditated ).
Click to expand...

As in premeditated? That is part of what can be construed in Murder in the first degree in Florida. It is a possible charge in a homicide as will all comes down to circumstances. What were the circumstances of the homicide?
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

Y'all seem to be forgetting that the DA had to piece together information from a singular witness from the actual fight, one who had a very strong vested interest in how the story was told, and from the forensic evidence, to determine if indeed David was the victim in this fight, or the aggressor who lost the upper hand for a while to a ninja-wannabe with a sword. If he was the aggressor, then depending on how the situation occurred, Murder 1 would be appropriate.

I don't know why y'all are getting your knickers in a wad about the DA going through the paces and arriving at the correct decision in the course of due process. Complaining about a travesty that didn't occur is just plain stupid.
 
Thing is, DNS, there wasn't only a single witness.

There was at least one witness who saw the attacker behaving oddly, and lurking in the brush.

As far as indirect evidence, the shop owner had called the police to report the odd behavior of the attacker, although he had used the non-emergency number because, to that point, the guy had just been acting strange, and had not re-entered the shop.

And then there's the matter of the firearms check (I think that's with FDLE in Florida, but am not sure.) Should have been a record that the guy had been placed on a hold, earlier that same day, which would have corroborated the story.

Aside from that, under what reasonable theory would you claim the shop owner had attacked a customer? And under what reasonable theory would you claim the decedent had brought a "ninja sword" into the shop?

"Well, the decedent may have wanted to sell the sword, and the shop owner hated Koreans..."

I'd also be surprised if the decedent didn't have a history of erratic and possibly violent behavior...

So, yes, four months is ridiculous, even if there was only one surviving, direct witness. I'm pretty sure in my part of Georgia, the decision to withhold charges would have taken days, maybe a week or two, but not months.
 
This story is pretty amazing. Sounds like this David guy had really fallen on some bad luck at the end of his journey.

As far as shooting the ninja four times in the eye... Even when a strong wind blows some dust in one's face, it's instinctive to blink and bow one's head. A .25 caliber slug is a pretty big piece of dust not to move at all. David was under a lot of stress and losing consciousness. Maybe he thought all four bullets went into the eye while in fact only the first one did and the rest went somewhere else. Who knows? There's no autopsy report to prove David's recollection.

From the tactics' prospective, once David smelled something wrong (and he obviously did), he should have placed the Glock on his person, with a round in the chamber. The guy owned a pawn shop, a pretty dangerous occupation in my book. I'm surprised he didn't take necessary precautions before the attack began. He prevailed in the end, but it could have easily gone the ninja's way.
 
I think some points he made, are good lessons for everyone. I've experienced some of the same things personally.

1. Don't think you'll know it's coming, before it does. You ' may' have only 1-2 seconds, if that.

2. You have to react quick, and fight hard. Most likely you will have NO time to get a gun out of a purse, or somewhere else.

3. Fight and don't quit fighting. Your life depends upon it.

4. Some times the best way, is the simplest. A gun put up to the head of a BG and pulling the trigger, works.

5. In the best of circumstances, DA's can try to find some way to charge you with something, just because.

6. Use anything at your disposal to win.

He covered them all quite well, and even though he is gone, the lessons are right there for everyone to learn from. Don't let them go to waste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top