Man Arrested After Defending Himself Against Armed Teen

[MJS]

I saw this link on another forum and wanted to post it here for discussion.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11094588

Your thoughts?

 

[MJS]

IMO, after reading this, I hope that the guy doesnt land in jail. It seems as though this was more accidental, rather than an intentional shooting. Now, during the struggle, the guy could have pointed it at the kid and somehow pulled the trigger, but to me it just doesnt seem that way.

Now, the forum that I took this from, the Kajukenbo Cafe, had some interesting replies to this. One in particular comes to mind.
http://www.kajukenbocafe.com/smf/index.php?topic=4714.msg42476#msg42476

IMO, I think those are some valuable points to consider.

 

[exile]

My guess is, this is a routine step that always kicks in whenever there's violence involving a weapon, until an official narrative is approved identifying who is the assailant and who the victim. They will almost certainly toss the arrest record out once it's established that the juvenile brought the gun to the original crime scene, that there was a close-quarters struggle, and that the gun went off in the course of it. What they probably want to do is ascertain that the guy didn't get the gun away from the perp and then fire a couple of rounds at his attacker out of anger, as at least some people might be strongly tempted to do under the circumstances.

At least, I'd hope it was just a routine step with no lifespan after the initial investigation...

Added in edit: just saw the link to the Kajukenbo site that Mike posted, and yes, Mr. Powell's explanation was exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. The facts really do need to be assessed. Even if we think the attacker was a disgusting piece of vermin, it's also true that the concept of self-defense we have has certain major legal constraints built into it.

 

[MJS]

My guess is, this is a routine step that always kicks in whenever there's violence involving a weapon, until an official narrative is approved identifying who is the assailant and who the victim. They will almost certainly toss the arrest record out once it's established that the juvenile brought the gun to the original crime scene, that there was a close-quarters struggle, and that the gun went off in the course of it. What they probably want to do is ascertain that the guy didn't get the gun away from the perp and then fire a couple of rounds at his attacker out of anger, as at least some people might be strongly tempted to do under the circumstances.

At least, I'd hope it was just a routine step with no lifespan after the initial investigation...

Added in edit: just say the link to the Kajukenbo site that Mike posted, and yes, Mr. Powell's explanation was exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. The facts really do need to be assessed. Even if we think the attacker was a disgusting piece of vermin, it's also true that the concept of self-defense we have has certain major legal constraints built into it.

Oh I agree. Obviously any situation is tense, moreso if a weapon comes into play, so yes, the thought of taking it away and using it against the other person, Im sure comes to mind. Obviously as tempting as it is, its probably not the best option unless the listed things present themselves.

On the other hand, one has to wonder why important things like this are rarely, if ever, taught in a martial arts class. I mean think about it....when was the last time, in an average class, legal aspects mentioned? People teach students potentially deadly moves, yet they dont give them the full package.

 

[Tez3]

It says he was arrested on suspicion of assault which while on the face of it seems harsh but I believe is a correct procedure. The law must be seen to be done and justice must be seen to prevail. If everything happened the way the guy says he will be released with no stain on his character, if he's lying them he'll be charged.
I don't know what your law on arrest is, here arresting someone means only that you suspect them of doing something even if you actually saw them doing it. It gives the police the right to take someone to the police station to be questioned. Depending on the evidence you will then be charged with an offence or 'de arrested'. The police here do not decide whether to charge people, that power lies with the Crown Prosecution Service (representing the Queen, cases are cited as Regina v ..........). In this case a man shot another which is a crime, whether it is justified or not has to be determined by evidence
The point of investigating someone who claims self defence is that not everyone, obviously, is going to be honest. If it's investigated everytime it will act as a deterrent to someone who plans a murder and then claim self defence. it's common sense.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I saw this link on another forum and wanted to post it here for discussion.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11094588

Your thoughts?

15 year old known gang member points gun at man. Man struggles with 15 year old and gun goes off twice. "Friends" of the 15 year old take him to the hospital for surgery, while the man waited for the police and turned over the firearm.


I think the punk attacked the wrong guy, and he was unlucky while the man was lucky. He waited and did not run. A known gang member could say some random guy shot him, but would the police really believe him? Without biased witnesses, it would be hard to make a case, so I think the man had no intentions and waited for the police to make sure the firearms was in the proper hands.

Having worked years ago where I had to work with Teens and "Adults", many of the teens thought they were safe from harm as they were not 16 or 18. They had this 'feeling' that no one could touch them. That they could get away with anything. The problem is that they push someone too far and they end up getting hurt bad.

I hope the man is found to be innocent and it was only self defense.

 

[jks9199]

That's about how I read it. They've got a kid who was shot. They've got the guy who admits that his actions got the kid shot. (Yeah, I know; the kid's actions against the guy started the whole ball of wax.) He's arrested for assault or malicious wounding or what have you. Somewhere between arraignment and the pretrial hearing, the prosecutor will likely assess the circumstances, and assuming they are as reported, the charges will be dropped.

Remember, self defense is a defense of justification against a charge of assault or worse. It's saying that "yes, I did this... but I had a really good reason!" It's possible that the police could have gathered the information at the scene, and presented it later to the prosecutor to determine if any charges should be issued, and against whom -- but in that jurisdiction, they may not have had that option for a felony. Or the police may have had their hands tied because the guy who defended himself may not have sufficient proof of residence, or some other reason that they had questions whether he'd be able to be found if further investigation led to his arrest.

 

[Rich Parsons]

That's about how I read it. They've got a kid who was shot. They've got the guy who admits that his actions got the kid shot. (Yeah, I know; the kid's actions against the guy started the whole ball of wax.) He's arrested for assault or malicious wounding or what have you. Somewhere between arraignment and the pretrial hearing, the prosecutor will likely assess the circumstances, and assuming they are as reported, the charges will be dropped.

Remember, self defense is a defense of justification against a charge of assault or worse. It's saying that "yes, I did this... but I had a really good reason!" It's possible that the police could have gathered the information at the scene, and presented it later to the prosecutor to determine if any charges should be issued, and against whom -- but in that jurisdiction, they may not have had that option for a felony. Or the police may have had their hands tied because the guy who defended himself may not have sufficient proof of residence, or some other reason that they had questions whether he'd be able to be found if further investigation led to his arrest.

There was a gun shooting in Detroit right in front of a police station. Three guys were trying to car jack a car. The guy had his kid in the car. He told the kid to get out and to run while he handed the keys to the bad guys. He shot the first one and before he could point at the second one they were running. Before he could put the firearm away and begin search for his child a plain clothed police man pulled his weapon and pointed it at the shooter and told him to drop it. His weapon still out he turned and said, Identify yourself. The police officer displayed a badge and the man drop his firearm. The police arrested him. Not for the request for ID. The officer had seen the shooting. He understood he shot a man with a gun pointed at him. The legal response to the article was that the police were required to arrest the man. If he was arrested and it was determined that this was a self defense shooting then he would be let go. If he was not arrested the family of the shot person could bring a case in court against him for the shooting. But if arrested and released they could not.

 

[MJS]

15 year old known gang member points gun at man. Man struggles with 15 year old and gun goes off twice. "Friends" of the 15 year old take him to the hospital for surgery, while the man waited for the police and turned over the firearm.


I think the punk attacked the wrong guy, and he was unlucky while the man was lucky. He waited and did not run. A known gang member could say some random guy shot him, but would the police really believe him? Without biased witnesses, it would be hard to make a case, so I think the man had no intentions and waited for the police to make sure the firearms was in the proper hands.

Having worked years ago where I had to work with Teens and "Adults", many of the teens thought they were safe from harm as they were not 16 or 18. They had this 'feeling' that no one could touch them. That they could get away with anything. The problem is that they push someone too far and they end up getting hurt bad.

I hope the man is found to be innocent and it was only self defense.

Hey Rich,

I'm with you 100% on this. Of course, as another poster in that thread said, I'm sure we'll see this punks court appointed lawyer dress him up like an innocent little schoolboy, who had such a rough life. *rolls eyes*

 

[jks9199]

It says he was arrested on suspicion of assault which while on the face of it seems harsh but I believe is a correct procedure. The law must be seen to be done and justice must be seen to prevail. If everything happened the way the guy says he will be released with no stain on his character, if he's lying them he'll be charged.
I don't know what your law on arrest is, here arresting someone means only that you suspect them of doing something even if you actually saw them doing it. It gives the police the right to take someone to the police station to be questioned. Depending on the evidence you will then be charged with an offence or 'de arrested'. The police here do not decide whether to charge people, that power lies with the Crown Prosecution Service (representing the Queen, cases are cited as Regina v ..........). In this case a man shot another which is a crime, whether it is justified or not has to be determined by evidence
The point of investigating someone who claims self defence is that not everyone, obviously, is going to be honest. If it's investigated everytime it will act as a deterrent to someone who plans a murder and then claim self defence. it's common sense.

Generally, in the US, "arrest" means taken into police custody based on either a warrant or probable cause (facts & circumstances that would lead a reasonable uninvolved person to believe that the accused more likely than not committed the offense in question) supporting a specific offense. In many states, there are restrictions on when an officer may arrest a person without a warrant, due to the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, and similar elements of state constitutions. In some cases, the accused is released at the scene on a promise to appear on a summons or similar document. It gets complicated, because each state's laws are unique. For example, in Virginia, I can only arrest on specific misdemeanors not committed in my presence, or any felony. On top of that general restriction, I am required to release on summons anyone charged with a misdemeanor (with a few restrictions), unless specific criteria are met. If it's not a jailable offense, I have very limited reasons to make a custodial arrest. (Essentially, they've got to be a threat to themselves or other, or I need reason to believe that they are likely to disregard the summons.) For jailable misdemeanors (with a couple of exceptions), I still must overcome the presumption in the code that they will be released at the scene on their written promise to appear. Even if I do make a custodial arrest -- often the magistrate will simply issue a summons and release them on their own recognizance for certain misdemeanors. (If you really want the specifics, Tez, I'll PM you about them.) Felonies MUST be arrested and taken before a magistrate. The magistrate then has the option of setting bond, or holding them until arraignment. (Warrants obtained prior to the arrest may or may not give the option of releasing a misdemeanant on their promise to appear.) And that's just VA law -- every other state does it a little differently.

 

[exile]

People teach students potentially deadly moves, yet they dont give them the full package.

Yes, and that is potentially a very explosive issue for the MA scene.

The problem is that if you teach real, effective combat techs to your students, you are teaching a range of things which could have disastrous effects for someone on the receiving end of them, even if justified. Most people, though, do not realize that defending themselves has legal impacts for them as well as the attacker. 'I was innocent—I was just trying to protect myself', is the basic premise, and yes, my own feeling is, the first law of life is to protect your own life—no plausible ethical philosophy denies us the right to do that—but there is still the problem of establishing to society (via the legal process, but that's basically what you're doing) that you were in the right in defending yourself as you did. A damaged windpipe, a neck twist, even a hard shot to the chest, can be permanently disabling, or even lethal. If you train people to do these things, and don't tell them the legal diciness of such actions, you're doing them a major disservice.

But then, how many MA instructors are really up on SD law, apart from instructors who are also LEOs (or attorneys themselves)? Ya can't teach what ya don't know...

 

[MJS]

Yes, and that is potentially a very explosive issue for the MA scene.

The problem is that if you teach real, effective combat techs to your students, you are teaching a range of things which could have disastrous effects for someone on the receiving end of them, even if justified. Most people, though, do not realize that defending themselves has legal impacts for them as well as the attacker. 'I was innocent—I was just trying to protect myself', is the basic premise, and yes, my own feeling is, the first law of life is to protect your own life—no plausible ethical philosophy denies us the right to do that—but there is still the problem of establishing to society (via the legal process, but that's basically what you're doing) that you were in the right in defending yourself as you did. A damaged windpipe, a neck twist, even a hard shot to the chest, can be permanently disabling, or even lethal. If you train people to do these things, and don't tell them the legal diciness of such actions, you're doing them a major disservice.

But then, how many MA instructors are really up on SD law, apart from instructors who are also LEOs (or attorneys themselves)? Ya can't teach what ya don't know...

See, this is why I'm not a fan of teaching 4yr olds, or even a kid who is not yet old enough to really understand the seriousness of what we're teaching, as well as adults who're there for nothing more than to have something to do after work. Of course, you and I both know that is a fantasy and not the reality. Those schools that say they have 300 students would have probably 10, if that, if they taught only to a select group, but thats another thread.

Now, I'll use Kenpo because that is the art I train in. If we look at any Kenpo tech. we'll see breaks, shots to the eyes, neck, groin..you name it. A simple lapel grab tech., has an elbow break/dislocation/hyperextension, and a hit to the throat. All for a simple grab. Now, I've always said that we need to adapt to whats presented to us at the time, as well as possibly modifying our tech. So, for that lapel grab, omit the arm shot, but strike down instead to bring them closer, and do a backfist or palm to the face, instead of the hit to the neck.

So, in the end, we have a good portion of the teachers out there, myself included, that have a limited understanding, at best, of the legal system, teaching. Good thing I like to show other alternatives to the techs in the system.

 

[Tez3]

Generally, in the US, "arrest" means taken into police custody based on either a warrant or probable cause (facts & circumstances that would lead a reasonable uninvolved person to believe that the accused more likely than not committed the offense in question) supporting a specific offense. In many states, there are restrictions on when an officer may arrest a person without a warrant, due to the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, and similar elements of state constitutions. In some cases, the accused is released at the scene on a promise to appear on a summons or similar document. It gets complicated, because each state's laws are unique. For example, in Virginia, I can only arrest on specific misdemeanors not committed in my presence, or any felony. On top of that general restriction, I am required to release on summons anyone charged with a misdemeanor (with a few restrictions), unless specific criteria are met. If it's not a jailable offense, I have very limited reasons to make a custodial arrest. (Essentially, they've got to be a threat to themselves or other, or I need reason to believe that they are likely to disregard the summons.) For jailable misdemeanors (with a couple of exceptions), I still must overcome the presumption in the code that they will be released at the scene on their written promise to appear. Even if I do make a custodial arrest -- often the magistrate will simply issue a summons and release them on their own recognizance for certain misdemeanors. (If you really want the specifics, Tez, I'll PM you about them.) Felonies MUST be arrested and taken before a magistrate. The magistrate then has the option of setting bond, or holding them until arraignment. (Warrants obtained prior to the arrest may or may not give the option of releasing a misdemeanant on their promise to appear.) And that's just VA law -- every other state does it a little differently.

It must make training to be a lawyer a complicated business lol!
Here a police officer can arrest and take into custody with or without a warrent. A person arrested cannot be kept in custody for longer than 24 hours without being charged though it can be extended by a senior officer to 36 and 96 hours by a magistrate (the terrorism laws are different and you can hold them for 7 days)
If there's no enough evidence or the police want to question you again you'll be released on police bail with or without conditions (this doesn't cost anything). If they think you are a flight risk or will intimidate witnesses etc you'll be remanded in custody in prison, time spent there is taken off your sentence if found guilty.
I want to point out that every genuine case in the UK of someone who has claimed they fought back in self defence has been upheld as such and no one has been charged. Most people think you will be charged here if you defend yourself, you will probably be arrested as the man in the OPs post was but once it's investigated there are no charges. People bring up one case in particular where a man shot a kid who broke into his house but he was charged and found guilty because it was premeditated, he wasn't attacked or in fear of his life and he used far more than reasonable force.

 

[Deaf Smith]

If the ex-paratroopers story checks out, and I think it will, the charges will be dropped. Keep in mind he was arrested for "suspicion of assault", not assault, nor agravated assault (using a deadly weapon), or attemtped murder.

This is a case of poor victim selection. I'm sure the little punk thought he was a big man with the gun and could scare anyone into submission. Bad move that one.

Oh, one thing. It said he gave a statement to police and they that arrested him. I hope he gave a brief statement that he was the good guy, the 15 year old punk was the bad guy, showed them the evidence (the gun), and then asked for a lawyer. I hope that is what he did and not blab out a statement that could be taken ten ways and twisted into some kind of admission of guilt.

Deaf

 

[MA-Caver]

If the ex-paratroopers story checks out, and I think it will, the charges will be dropped. Keep in mind he was arrested for "suspicion of assault", not assault, nor agravated assault (using a deadly weapon), or attemtped murder.

This is a case of poor victim selection. I'm sure the little punk thought he was a big man with the gun and could scare anyone into submission. Bad move that one.

Oh, one thing. It said he gave a statement to police and they that arrested him. I hope he gave a brief statement that he was the good guy, the 15 year old punk was the bad guy, showed them the evidence (the gun), and then asked for a lawyer. I hope that is what he did and not blab out a statement that could be taken ten ways and twisted into some kind of admission of guilt.

Deaf

Well it's why (on another thread) we talked about the pros and cons of talking to the police or NOT talking to the police.
Here in this circumstance it was self-defense, and the guy waited around instead of taking off (which would've looked guilty as hell)... like he knew the trouble that he would be getting into because of this un-solicited confrontation. I think talking with the police will work out in his favor.
I liked how the papers painted the kid as a "gang associate" and not "gang member" as to minimize how bad a boy he is/was. Chances are the kid has priors so it'll show up in the course of the investigation and thus the "self-defense" will be more plausible.
Hope that it turns out alright for him... I've had guns pulled on me and it's no fun and down right scary to be frank about it. Fortunately no major incidents from any of them. But I'd hated to be embroiled in all that legal crap afterwards if there had been.

 

[exile]

See, this is why I'm not a fan of teaching 4yr olds, or even a kid who is not yet old enough to really understand the seriousness of what we're teaching, as well as adults who're there for nothing more than to have something to do after work. Of course, you and I both know that is a fantasy and not the reality.

Ain't it the truth...

Those schools that say they have 300 students would have probably 10, if that, if they taught only to a select group, but thats another thread.

I'd actually be interested in seeing that thread get going...

Now, I'll use Kenpo because that is the art I train in. If we look at any Kenpo tech. we'll see breaks, shots to the eyes, neck, groin..you name it. A simple lapel grab tech., has an elbow break/dislocation/hyperextension, and a hit to the throat. All for a simple grab. Now, I've always said that we need to adapt to whats presented to us at the time, as well as possibly modifying our tech. So, for that lapel grab, omit the arm shot, but strike down instead to bring them closer, and do a backfist or palm to the face, instead of the hit to the neck.

Yes, neck shots are loaded with potential for grief... literally. There are all kinds of ways an attack between the jaw and the base of the neck can be catastrophic. A hard palm-heel strike to the lower face is going to give them more pain than they ever thought possible, but it's unlikely to involve the city coroner.

So, in the end, we have a good portion of the teachers out there, myself included, that have a limited understanding, at best, of the legal system, teaching. Good thing I like to show other alternatives to the techs in the system.

The problem in part is the discrepancy between the way people think of the MAs, and hand-to-hand combat in general, vs. the reality. We're not in the 19th c. Okinawan villages, or the hardscrabble streets of immediate post-Occupation Korea. People get their information to a remarkable degree from movies and television, and how many times is a fistfight on TV followed by a lawsuit?

One of the best services the MA orgs could provide their members would be seminars in different parts of the country a couple times a year on self-defense law and the crucial bits you need to know about it if you expect to use your training for self protection. Everyone says, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six, but what if you wind up being judged by twelve for something much less than a life-and-death confrontation? That little saying isn't going to sound quite so convincing under those circumstances....

 

[Archangel M]

Perhaps the arrest was policy there, but here (if the entire story is as it appears on its face) I would have let the DA proffer charges if he so desired.

 

[jks9199]

Perhaps the arrest was policy there, but here (if the entire story is as it appears on its face) I would have let the DA proffer charges if he so desired.

I agree; I probably wouldn't have arrested the guy given the circumstances as reported, either. I'd definitely have wanted to run it by the prosecutor, at a minimum.

But, the paratrooper had only been in the area for only 8 months, looking for work. I suspect that there's at least a possibility that he's not there legally. That'd create a problem for me; am I going to be able to locate him should the prosecutor's office decide to place charges when the investigation is complete?

It's also very possible that it's routine to charge someone; I know that in some states even cops in obviously clean shootings are sent before the grand jury, for example.

 

[SamT]

Skipping most of the posts, sounds like procedure. And I don't blame him for shooting the teen. As my instructor (former bodyguard and currently an armored car guard, also a certified firearms instructor) once told me: "When someone has a gun, you have no idea if they're going to use it or not. The safest route is the one that eliminates the threat the fastest. In my case, if someone pulls a gun, I'll shoot them with it." I've seen the moves he's talking about with that too, very scary.

I bet the case will be thrown out and the guy will walk free.

 

[MJS]

I'd actually be interested in seeing that thread get going...

Here ya go.

Yes, neck shots are loaded with potential for grief... literally. There are all kinds of ways an attack between the jaw and the base of the neck can be catastrophic. A hard palm-heel strike to the lower face is going to give them more pain than they ever thought possible, but it's unlikely to involve the city coroner.

This is where the knowledge of pressure points would be handy. I'm no expert, but I'd imagine theres quite a few in that area of the neck and jaw.

The problem in part is the discrepancy between the way people think of the MAs, and hand-to-hand combat in general, vs. the reality. We're not in the 19th c. Okinawan villages, or the hardscrabble streets of immediate post-Occupation Korea. People get their information to a remarkable degree from movies and television, and how many times is a fistfight on TV followed by a lawsuit?

One of the best services the MA orgs could provide their members would be seminars in different parts of the country a couple times a year on self-defense law and the crucial bits you need to know about it if you expect to use your training for self protection. Everyone says, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six, but what if you wind up being judged by twelve for something much less than a life-and-death confrontation? That little saying isn't going to sound quite so convincing under those circumstances....

Agree