Originally Posted by
Skip
1) It is relevant to the RoE he instinctively uses to confront a deadly and dangerous situation when the heart is racing and the adrenalin is pumping. It also demonstrates he has a certain amount of training when it comes to firearms.
RoE on the battlefield mean nothing in a civilian shooting. The defense can argue that, of course, but I certainly wouldn't count on it being a valid defense. And the headline was indeed inflammatory in my opinion.
2) There may be no modern legal justification, but most decent folks still think it's proper protocol before ending the life of another human being. This is one lesson everyone can learn; no warning shots. You either deploy lethal force and end the threat or you don't.
Well, that's only relevant if the "decent folks" are all on the jury. I consider myself to be "decent folk" and there will be no warning shots from me in a lethal force encounter. This case will most likely illustrate it's not only a bad idea it's most likely illegal. If someone has created a situation for me that warrants a lethal response I'm not aware of any protocol, decent folks or not, that requires a warning shot because it's proper.
3) The criminal is the one who created the wreckless endangerment. Let's say the vet ending up dropping the guy without a warning shot and one of those rounds goes straight through the bad guy, through the wall, and kills a kid sleeping in an adjacent apartment.
I agree the criminal is wrong as well and I don't think anyone is arguing that he's innocent. But in your hypothetical situation the vet would most likely be looking at 1 or 2 counts of some sort of murder or manslaughter. Apparently he wasn't justified in shooting. That's the whole point of why he was arrested. Not to mention the civil liability issues he'd be looking at.
Who gets the manslaughter/murder charge?
So why does it make sense to criminalize responding to a deadly situation instead of putting the blame on the criminal where it belongs?
You still have to act according to the law even when using force to defend yourself from a criminal. The vet wasn't facing a deadly threat when he fired...at least according to the arresting officers. Again...I didn't read anywhere where the wannabe burglar won't be held responsible for whatever offense he committed. He was arrested, after all, trying to flee the scene.
4) Easier said than done. There are lots of guys struggling with this right now--you can't just turn it off.
Well, then if it isn't turned off there are consequences. I understand and I sympathize...but that doesn't change the facts.
5) Agreed, but I wouldn't consider the vet to be a dumbass--he was just ignorant of the fact that our laws no longer follow logic or basic morality. Ironically, it is the "system" that makes these encounters more deadly by removing a once commonly accepted tool; the warning shot.
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. Granted...calling him a dumbass may not have been warranted. But I disagree that what he did was logical. And I don't recall warning shots being a commonly accepted practice (especially in an apt bldg) since I've been around...and that's over 50 years...and I grew up in TX.
We had a similar situation in CoS this week when a woman fired on an invader and scared him off. She wasn't charged with anything. The dynamics of that situation aren't all that different from this one--just that LE looked at it differently.
Didn't hear about that so I can't comment.
