SLC police investigating deadly shooting; CCW holder was the shooter

[NikNak]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

I lived in Hollywood for 7 years... If I had shot everybody who "Acted crazy" and "Made threats of violence" and "Reached into their bags or jackets" I would have LITERALLY killed dozens and dozens of people.

+1 ..... a crazy is a crazy is a crazy. My wife sees plenty of them in her clinic, and she is a veterinarian.

[BonoVox]

Too little information in the story. Have to see when ALL the details come out.

But if there is not knife or gun in that bag the shooter has a problem. That will be his only salvation and then just barely.

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

I lived in Hollywood for 7 years... If I had shot everybody who "Acted crazy" and "Made threats of violence" and "Reached into their bags or jackets" I would have LITERALLY killed dozens and dozens of people.

And that's just in the Paramount executive offices.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by Bombard

And that's just in the Paramount executive offices.

Actually.... They caught this guy outside of Paramount.... I knew him well.... He was a major PITA crazy homeless dude who I had to chase away from my home a bunch of times....

[Ken_In_Colo]

Originally Posted by maldos

We don't know what was said just prior to the shooting. What if he told the security guard the following just before reaching into the pack:

"I've got a 44 magnum in this here backpack. It used to be the most powerful handgun in the world and I'm going to blow a hole larger than a bread box through your chest. Do you feel lucky punk?"

Then he reached into his pack.....

I gotta say, it doesn't look good for the guard BUT

There was an altercation initiated by the homeless guy, probably escalating; guard's job to stop altercation. If homeless guy reached into his bag immediately after making a verbal threat on the guards life, then it doesn't matter what was in the bag or what came out if it.

D.R. Browning writes in The Legal Aspects Of Self Defense: "... if you reasonably believe that you are about to be attacked, you need not wait for the attack to come before you take action. Even if you are mistaken and no attack was actually forthcoming, if you honestly and reasonably believed that you were about to be attacked, you can strike the first blow without contributing fault. Remember, however, the right of self defense does not arise where the danger is potential only, or where it might arrise in the future - the danger must be imminent, though it need not be consummated."

Notice here that the author refers to you and not a reasonable person.

If a gun was in the bag, the homeless guy could have shot through the bag without ever displaying the gun.

[MuscleGirl]

Good points Ken. I think we Californians tend to look at things and see how it would play out if it were to happen here. However, the laws in each state are different, and their interpretation of those laws (and the treatment of gun owners) is also much different. Having lived most of my life in Wyoming (and spent some time in Utah) I can at least say that from what I know based upon my time there, you've got a LOT more wiggle room on the self defense angle than you'd ever have here in California.

Now, that's not to say that he won't end up with some trouble. As has been pointed out, we don't by any means have the entire story. But the fact that he wasn't booked speaks fairly loudly of the fact that there must have been enough evidence to indicate that it was a good shoot by their standards.

[BonoVox]

Originally Posted by MuscleGirl

Good points Ken. I think we Californians tend to look at things and see how it would play out if it were to happen here. However, the laws in each state are different, and their interpretation of those laws (and the treatment of gun owners) is also much different. Having lived most of my life in Wyoming (and spent some time in Utah) I can at least say that from what I know based upon my time there, you've got a LOT more wiggle room on the self defense angle than you'd ever have here in California.

Now, that's not to say that he won't end up with some trouble. As has been pointed out, we don't by any means have the entire story. But the fact that he wasn't booked speaks fairly loudly of the fact that there must have been enough evidence to indicate that it was a good shoot by their standards.

I have no idea how Utah's laws differ from California's laws. But being this is a California CCW site and to error on the safe side, I tend to apply California laws to these types of posts. Regardless, there is a lot of critical information missing from the report to make a valid judgement.

[MuscleGirl]

Originally Posted by BonoVox

I have no idea how Utah's laws differ from California's laws. But being this is a California CCW site and to error on the safe side, I tend to apply California laws to these types of posts. Regardless, there is a lot of critical information missing from the report to make a valid judgement.

I agree, way to much information is missing to make judgements. That's why I based my assessment on the fact that he wasn't booked rather than any of the other details. As far as applying CA law, I do it to. However, lucky for this guard, CA law won't be applied to him. I think we can pretty much all agree that had this shooting happened in CA, and given the information we have, he would have been booked.

[BonoVox]

Originally Posted by MuscleGirl

I agree, way to much information is missing to make judgements. That's why I based my assessment on the fact that he wasn't booked rather than any of the other details. As far as applying CA law, I do it to. However, lucky for this guard, CA law won't be applied to him. I think we can pretty much all agree that had this shooting happened in CA, and given the information we have, he would have been booked.

If you are involved in a shooting in California, you will be booked regardless of circumstances.

[FiringLion]

Originally Posted by Ken_In_Colo

... Notice here that the author refers to you and not a reasonable person.

I suspect we all agree this article doesn't in itself describe a "right to self defense up to and including deadly force" situation, but if the relevant officials see it that way, perhaps there's further mitigation not here described - thus my curiosity.

The problem is consequential: even if the BG is dead to our rights, the judicial process hinges on others' assessments and evaluations.

I'll do what's right based on my best ken of the situation (sorry, couldn't resist ), but responsibility for (hypothetically) ending life is my responsibility to digest. Mooching room and board from a society that claims that responsibility from me is just plain wrong.

Be sure before you pull the trigger.

[NSP]

Originally Posted by alexf9496

The flaw in this line of thinking begins with "if." Of course "if" the vagrant had pulled out a knife or gun, there would be no question it was self defense.

Did he pull out a weapon? No one seems to know and yes, the security guard has not been booked, so there might be a presumption of self defense, based on what they found in the backpack.

The question this raises is another interesting "if" question. What if you were in the same situation and were faced with the same circumstances up to the point where he reaches into the backpack.

Would you open fire without seeing the weapon? What if this vagrant was mentally deficient and was reaching in to pull out a potato? Legalities aside, could you live with yourself if you shot this man under those circumstances?

Of course it all depends on the situation, if I was on the street and a crazy guy walked up and asked me if I like potatoes and reached into his bag I wouldn't do anything but expect to see a potatoe. However if he was making verbal asaults, was in close proximity, telling me he was going to kill me, using threatening body language, then suddenly starts reaching into his bag or jacket. I don't think I'd wait to see a potatoe. But we'll never know unless the situation actually arises.

[Ken_In_Colo]

Originally Posted by FiringLion

I suspect we all agree this article doesn't in itself describe a "right to self defense up to and including deadly force" situation, but if the relevant officials see it that way, perhaps there's further mitigation not here described - thus my curiosity.

The problem is consequential: even if the BG is dead to our rights, the judicial process hinges on others' assessments and evaluations.

I'll do what's right based on my best ken of the situation (sorry, couldn't resist ), but responsibility for (hypothetically) ending life is my responsibility to digest. Mooching room and board from a society that claims that responsibility from me is just plain wrong.

Be sure before you pull the trigger.

Of course we ken hardly anything about this. I still think the guard may be in deep do-do. My post was based on the supposition that he made a verbal threat on the guard's life (similar to what the poster I quoted said) and then he reaches into his bag.

The full article (which I quoted only a paragraph of) covered Fault, the use of Force including the use of Deadly Force, excessive use of force, retreating, reingaging or renewing the attack, reasonable force, disparity of force. It was a handout in the Utah CCW course I attended.

But we don't know the whole story...

[Dan M.]

Originally Posted by NSP

However if he was making verbal asaults, was in close proximity, telling me he was going to kill me, using threatening body language, then suddenly starts reaching into his bag or jacket. I don't think I'd wait to see a potatoe.

Weeth thees potato, I could keel you in a t'ousand wayss.

[NSP]

Originally Posted by Dan M.

Weeth thees potato, I could keel you in a t'ousand wayss.

[FiringLion]

Originally Posted by Ken_In_Colo

It was a handout in the Utah CCW course I attended.

Do I understand this as:
the July 6 2008 article quoted the handout?
or
I took a Utah CCW course where the July 6 2008 article was a handout?

In either case I agree:

Originally Posted by Ken_In_Colo

But we don't know the whole story...