Washington State Student's Shooting Baffles Friends

Glenn's point is well taken. At least lock your car doors - it is a simple, quick form of insurance.

And, DC is right ... the other witnesses had the blessing of perspective. The driver of this car may have been taken by surprise, from the sound of things.

This kind of incident doesn't help CCW, and may be used to hurt us. But, I would concur that the driver could easily have been in fear for his life considering all of the circumstances. If we can believe the report, even one of the witnesses (who later concluded the kid was harmless) stated that "there was something a little scary about the way Sanderson was behaving". To me, that says it all.

Regards from AZ
 
The points about locking their doors or just driving away in order to avoid the incident are interesting and similar incicidents have been brought up in other cases. The bottom line seems to be, "Why did the bad guy have to get shot?" I do agree that it is common sense to lock your doors and maybe to try to drive away, but the "what could you have done to avoid the attack" reasoning is after the fact. Once the attack starts, whether or not you remembered to lock your doors is ancient history. There is always something else that could have been done to avoid an incident all down to the couple should have just stayed home, but then their rights are the ones being infringed upon.

The driver was attacked, apparently feared for his life or that of his passenger and simply took action to immediately render the situation back to a neutral status. My personal feeling is that once the attacker opened the door and grabbed the driver, the attacker had voluntarily given up his rights to be protected from his victim during the time the incident was occurring.
 
Just a couple more comments to clarify my own comments about the door locks and such.

First, do I think this was a good shoot? Given the facts at hand, I have no question it was.

Second, do I think the shooter had any choice once things got going? No. Regardless of whether the door was locked, unlocked, or not even there, when someone lays hands on you from outside the vehicle, you are at a disadvantage, and under reasonable fear for your life. The shooter reacted in the only way which would leave him unharmed, and I have no problem with that.

Finally, do I think it could have been avoided? Yes, if thought had been given ahead of time.

I think this is the point that several folks have brought up. I don't think this is criticism of the shooter, but is rather simply reinforcement of the importance of a defensive mindset. Personally I like to examine, discuss, and learn from events such as this, which distance and perspective allows us to do before being possibly involved in that split second decision to shoot or not. It's just training of a different sort to me, or rather just one additional part of training for self defense.

Perhaps a new thread should be opened on this...defensive mindset while driving :)
 
This thread has been giving me a slow burn over the past day. Here's what I think:

1. The shoot may or may have not been good.
The investigation will determine that.
If the driver opened the door, then it
was bad.

2. People who carry guns have some responsibility to understand the force continuum and act accordingly. Training
to avoid shooting might have been used successfully here. So even though you don't
get convicted, that doesn't mean you did a good thing.

3. Posters who display such negative affect to the guy who got shot such as "retard" or evolutionary failure - need to go back to some basic moral and/or religious teachings.
Killing is not to be applauded - even if it was necessary.

4. If the kid just got stoned and was acting whacky - it is a tragedy that he died. Maybe he brought it on himself but maybe those who chortle about his death never have been drunk or stoned and a little outrageous/ Is that really a death you seem to enjoy?

Let's just kill everyone who fails the drunk test when they are stopped by an officer.
Let's get those retards off the street.

I'm a little digusted here.

To repeat the point for those who want to just to a raving flame.

The shoot might be defensible.

People should understand how to use force
and other methods to avoid killing.

There is no joy in killing anyone.

Even if this shoot is good, the shooter
has changed his life in a significant factor
that he might have avoided.
 
I go back to the intent of this article.

As we all know, there isn't a lot of pro-gun in the media.

A righteous car-jacking defense is not "suitable" news.

People often use the utilitarian argument for gun rights "we need to defend ourselves". Anti say "you're not capable and will just shoot yourself, or an innocent person mistakenly".

Yes, after it seems the driver may not have been in that much danger - I'm reminded of something I read in an Ayoob book - that even a righteous shoot will far from make you a hero.

But the driver had many signs that he WAS in a lot of danger.

If the driver were carjacked/killed, there would not have been a big article where they talk to his friends and wonder why he had to die.

Even though the shoot was quite likely righteous, this article was written to appeal emotionally to the average soccer-mom due to having an expired attacker with an otherwise (apparently) clean record of behavior.

It was an anti-self-defense article.


Battler.
 
Glenn, your point is well-taken. I agree, no joy or blood dancing is right after a shooting.

I'd just like to point out that I don't believe the comments about a "retard" or evolution would have been made if there hadn't been so many people in both articles claiming that the fact that this guy was high was some sort of excuse for his behavior. No one was suggesting that we should kill everyone who gets high; we're saying that if someone gets high and does something dangerous like attacking someone, then he faces the consequences regardless of how high he is.

Put another way, I think you'd agree with me that the mentally ill are to be held in even less responsibility for their actions than intoxicated people. Does that mean that if an obviously mentally ill man tries to yank you out of your car, you shouldn't defend yourself?

I know that's not what you are saying, Glenn, but that's essentially what these witnesses said.
 
Hale, the first CHL holder in Texas to be arrested in a shooting, later found no-billed for any wrong doing expressed sentiments that he wished none of the incident had ever happened. Even if you are justified in the use of deadly force and you did it for the right reasons, as in Hale's case, doesn't mean things will end happily ever after. Hale's life was forever changed, but he still had a life to be changed.
 
I understand the point of the dopey witnesses, Don. Everyone has a right to defend themselves.

If a mentally ill person attacks you, the decision point is still based on the fear of grievous bodily harm.

But as others have pointed out, there is no joy in killing someone.

A secondary but important point is that there are more skills than just gun skills.

Hindsight is great for saying that this was a good or bad shoot. However, I wonder how many of the blast 'em dead crowd have seriously studied the issue and the skills.
 
I couldn't say. I haven't taken training in such things, but I do practice enough awareness to be considered "paranoid" by some acquaintances.

Like you said, no joy in killing someone.
 
Whether or not the driver opened the door is the question, I s'pose. Even if he did, it may have been an ingrained reaction. I mean, if someone jumps onto your hood and starts prancing, your first reaction may be to lean out and scream at the person to get off and when you do, the prancer may decide you're more fun to stomp on. Doesn't mean it's the right reaction, just that it might be the first. Something to think about from a training standpoint. Try to imagine yourself in such a situation. What do you do? Sit in the car and wait? Drive off, possibly killing the moron on your hood and then being charged with vehicular manslaughter?
 
Glenn is right. My training emphasizes there is no such thing as a "good" shoot. Even if you are 100% legally justified, you'll face enormous emotional and civil legal consequences. Even if you lawyer and shrink your way out of everything, the cost will likely bankrupt you. :-(


------------------
Gary L. Griffiths
Chief Instructor
Advanced Force Tactics, Inc.
 
As usual DC is right. I would add that most life or death encounters are won or lost in fractions of seconds. My mentality is focused on survival and I dont forsee the luxury of being able to do the obligatory background interview before I react to the situation.
It is interesting that all of the do-gooders have failed to even consider the shooter's perspective at the time. Was he in a situation where he reasonably considered that he could be seriously harmed or killed?


------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
question;
Why should we have to keep our doors locked our windows rolled up,bars on our house windows,alarm systems,be afraid to go out at night.I'm in jail and I have to watch everthing I do because of people like this.
When are we going to take back our own lives and place the blame where it belongs?I don't feel sorry for this person at all.He made a choice and the results of that choice are on his head,no one elses.
 
I think I remember something like "bare fear alone" does not justify the use of deadly force. It's gotta be the "immediate and inescapable threat of death or great bodily injury". But I can overlook the legal (and civil!!) liabilities this guy has incurred upon himself. It serves as a good reminder to all those walking about armed and clueless. What worries me is that the hoplophobes working to disarm us all have just scored yet another nice, juicey, "heart rendering GUN TRAGEDY" story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top