Standing Your Ground
Apparently my most recent article for Pajamas Media didn't sit right for some people. The article, A Man's Wal-mart is His Castle? was written about a shooting that took place in a Billings, MT store after a argument escalated into gunplay.
More than one reader in the comments thought that my article was misleading and inflammatory, and they are welcome to their options. I'm sorry if you felt that way, because I didn't consciously mean to be provocative. The reason the article come about is because Montana recently passed House Bill 228, which was the state's version of the "castle doctrine," also known as a "stand your ground" law. Many states have a variant of the law, but what makes Montana's law interesting is that the language of the bill has what appears to be a very low threshold to the use of lethal force.What constitutes a threat of bodily injury in the eyes of Montana's courts? That is a very broad term, and much lesser threshold than is common elsewhere. Any number of found objects and makeshift weapons can be used to threaten bodily injury. Does this mean that a man cheating on his wife can then shoot her if she throws a plate at him when she finds out? Apparently so. Even a thrown punch or slap may be enough provocation to justify deadly force under this law, which seems to be the allegation in the Schmidt/Lira incident. Quite a few people in the comments of that post seem to think that a thrown punch is enough to justify a bullet in return. The way I was trained, I find that excessive, and both illegal and ethically immoral in most instances. I took my concealed carry course while other were preparing to watch the Steelers play the Cardinals in Super Bowl XLIII, and we were taught as many military and law enforcement officers are taught about the escalation of force or use of force continuum as it applies to us as concealed carry permit holders in North Carolina:
Section 1. No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.
Craig Schmidt shot Danny Lira in the face after Lira punched Schmidt, and Schmidt fell to the ground. That was enough justification for some, it seems. They make anecdotal arguments citing the relatively few number of people who have been killed with a punch, and also cite Lira's 260-pound weight (and roughly 100 pound weight difference) as justification for the much lighter Schmidt to shoot him. If Lira was 260+ pounds of ripped muscle like UFC Heavyweight Champion Brock Lesnar or some sort of other imposing figure I may buy that argument, but Schmidt was three inches taller than the 5"9" 260-pound doughball that he shot. Lira is certainly heavy, but heavy does not automatically mean that person have an advantage. Going back to the guidelines I have learned to operate under, this is how I might judge the defensibility of the Schmidt/Lira shooting. Ability: the attacker or attackers must have the ability to kill or cripple.
There are four rigid criteria that must be satisfied to justify shooting another person in self defense in North Carolina, but I imagine the law here isn't too much different in the 30 or so other states where concealed carry is allowed. In plain English, we can't start a confrontation, must try to diffuse or escape the situation if we can, and can only pull a weapon when some tries to kill or sexually assault someone else or ourselves, and once we fire, we can only shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. That last detail was printed on the bottom of every page of the course syllabus, in bold text: Do not shoot to kill. Shoot to stop the lethal threat. In practicality, there are three rules to follow in deciding whether or not deadly force is justified. explained as A.O.J. Ability: the attacker or attackers must have the ability to kill or cripple.
Opportunity: the attacker must immediately be capable of employing that power.
Jeopardy: the attacker is acting in such a manner that a prudent person would conclude that the act was mean to kill or cripple. You’ve got to decide if a threat meets all three criteria, and oh, and by the way… in "real world" scenarios, the CCH holder usually has just seconds to make that determination. Legal self defense is not for the stupid. At this point of the class, I was beginning to think that think it would be far more practical to apply for a "concealed lawyer" permit, if I could only find one small enough to shove in a holster.
Unknown, but doubtful. Opportunity: the attacker must immediately be capable of employing that power.
Lira obviously had the ability to throw a punch, but it is dubious to claim he has the power or ability to kill or cripple. Jeopardy: the attacker is acting in such a manner that a prudent person would conclude that the act was mean to kill or cripple.
Absolutely not. In no iterations of the story told by either man did Lira press his attack, and if Lira's version of events is closer to the truth than Schmidt's, the Lira was the one attacked when Schmidt hit him first, meaning his punch was a defensive reaction. Additionally, if Lira's claim that Schmidt slammed into him with his shoulder can be verified, that would indicate that Schmidt was acting as a agent provocateur, attempting to escalate an argument in an attempt to justify an attempt at murder. Admittedly, this is all speculation at this point, and many of the key details of this case as yet unknown to the public. Perhaps Schmidt will be found justified. Perhaps Lira will be proven the victim. Either way, HB 228 remains a seriously flawed attempt at providing the citizens of Montana a variation of the castle doctrine, and one that needs to quickly be revised.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:50 PM
Comments
1
A good share of what you've described as law certainly flies in the face of every bit of training I endured over close to 28 years. I fully understand the differences in law between states, but the majority of criminal law as it pertains to the use of deadly force has more or less remained the same, especially with regard to escalation and the "escape" clause. What you've described is a "whole new ballgame".
I must be getting terribly old because I was taught to NEVER shoot unless it's to kill (or neutralize, as we were most often taught...different words; same meaning). The same goes for so-called warning shots. You just didn't fire warning shots, back in the day.
In Texas, you don't even have to show a fear of imminent danger! If someone comes on your property and you can show fear - even if it's just fear they are there to steal from you - you have the right to fire when ready!
I must be getting terribly old because I was taught to NEVER shoot unless it's to kill (or neutralize, as we were most often taught...different words; same meaning). The same goes for so-called warning shots. You just didn't fire warning shots, back in the day.
In Texas, you don't even have to show a fear of imminent danger! If someone comes on your property and you can show fear - even if it's just fear they are there to steal from you - you have the right to fire when ready!
Posted by: Dell at August 28, 2009 09:24 PM (NzENZ)
2
It is easy to look back and judge when one was not involved in the situation. For many, when attacked by an individual that weighs much more than you can be a scary and frightening experience. 100 pounds difference is more than many would like to handle, especially if one has not had the training necessary to deal with such a threat.
Also, having my CCL, we were taught to aim for center body mass. With the adrenline flowing mixed in with some fear, it becomes extremely difficult to control or aim for a specific area of the body. In my class, we were told to aim for the largest target (Center Body Mass). Any other area puts your life at risk, and may do nothing more than make the assilant mad.
If Craig Schmidt was on the ground, looking at someone who weighed 100 pounds more than he, I could not blame him for firing. However, your guide lines are a good starting point, but all need to remember that situations change. But there is much to this story that still needs to be examined and explained.
Also, having my CCL, we were taught to aim for center body mass. With the adrenline flowing mixed in with some fear, it becomes extremely difficult to control or aim for a specific area of the body. In my class, we were told to aim for the largest target (Center Body Mass). Any other area puts your life at risk, and may do nothing more than make the assilant mad.
If Craig Schmidt was on the ground, looking at someone who weighed 100 pounds more than he, I could not blame him for firing. However, your guide lines are a good starting point, but all need to remember that situations change. But there is much to this story that still needs to be examined and explained.
Posted by: David at August 28, 2009 09:57 PM (mgKyX)
3
Agree with you 100%, David...especially the part about much that needs to be examined and/or explained. Sounds like we went to the same school.
"Two hand hold. Knees slightly bent. Point shoulder (not aimed via the sights). Make the decision - shoot or don't shoot. If you shoot, you fire two rounds directed toward the center of mass."
It sounds cut and dried. Obviously, it isn't.
"Two hand hold. Knees slightly bent. Point shoulder (not aimed via the sights). Make the decision - shoot or don't shoot. If you shoot, you fire two rounds directed toward the center of mass."
It sounds cut and dried. Obviously, it isn't.
Posted by: Dell at August 28, 2009 10:24 PM (NzENZ)
4
I'll bet that more than 90% of the jury nullifications that occur involve shootings in self defense. It appears to me that the law in many jurisdictions does not comport with the popular sentiment. Concealed carry must issue and no retreat doctrine are spreading across the country. I fully expect this to accelerate.
Posted by: Roy Lofquist at August 28, 2009 10:31 PM (Aa3wK)
5
Bob, having read your PJM article and many of the comments, I offer you a different perspective. And it has nothing to do with the particulars of the incident. Rather, it is your rather quick, and dare I say, kneejerk reaction to Montana's "Castle" law. Until the case is adjudicated, we have no idea what impact the new law will have. It could well be that the prosecutor (or litigator, if relegated to civil court) proves that the shooting was unwarranted.
Many of us are applauding Montana placing the burden of proof of a wrongful shooting upon the person alleging a wrongful shoot; too long has it been the burden of the rightful gun owner to prove their innocence. In an ideal world, a true jury of ones peers would understand the intent of the law, then issue rational judgment. Too often we have seen irrational jurists and onerous governing laws issuing ludicrous decisions. In Montana, we see legislators counteracting what defense lawyers have long taken advantage of. But before we (you) spend our ammo on the legislation, perhaps we ought to wait till any trial is concluded to see if it is warranted.
Many of us are applauding Montana placing the burden of proof of a wrongful shooting upon the person alleging a wrongful shoot; too long has it been the burden of the rightful gun owner to prove their innocence. In an ideal world, a true jury of ones peers would understand the intent of the law, then issue rational judgment. Too often we have seen irrational jurists and onerous governing laws issuing ludicrous decisions. In Montana, we see legislators counteracting what defense lawyers have long taken advantage of. But before we (you) spend our ammo on the legislation, perhaps we ought to wait till any trial is concluded to see if it is warranted.
Posted by: bains at August 28, 2009 10:53 PM (yuTIY)
6
I have a CCP in the state of Ga. and I would never pull my weapon unless I was being mortally threatened. But you are trying to make self defense a legal maze. I don't know the particulars of this case but if someone socked me in the face knocking me to the ground I would consider that a life threatening event. The whole point of CCP's is that you don't have to where running shoes and you don't have to be a lawyer to protect your life. Moderation is expected from anyone carrying but stupidity is not an asset.
Posted by: inspectorudy at August 29, 2009 12:01 AM (wkCYX)
7
Seriously? NC teaches shoot to wound? I'd be interested to know what agency or organization has decided that using a gun in self defense you are to try to just injure, not kill?
Every class I've taken has taught you use the gun you shoot to kill.
Seriously? NC teaches shoot to wound? I'd be interested to know what agency or organization has decided that using a gun in self defense you are to try to just injure, not kill?
Every class I've taken has taught you use the gun you shoot to kill.
Posted by: DavidB at August 29, 2009 12:49 AM (bw2I7)
8
Watch the video of the Centennial bridge shooting by police. . A cop stoppped a large man walking on the bridge . Told the man to get down who was slow to do so. The cop tasered the man and the man attacked the cop instantly knocking the cop down. Smashed the cops head on the pavement and bit off his eyebrow. Another off duty cop came to the aid of the cop and tried to pull the man off the cop. Was unable to, but did separate enough for the cop to pull his gun and shot twice.
It was legit shooting. The man died. He had 15 minutes before violently attacked another person.
Once violence ocuurs to you , no one should have to depend on the mercy of the attacker not to do further damge. A kick to the head will kill and had happened in other cases.
So I disagree, that was a good shoot. If a heavy person knockes me down with violent intent then I do have the right to defend with deadly force.
It was legit shooting. The man died. He had 15 minutes before violently attacked another person.
Once violence ocuurs to you , no one should have to depend on the mercy of the attacker not to do further damge. A kick to the head will kill and had happened in other cases.
So I disagree, that was a good shoot. If a heavy person knockes me down with violent intent then I do have the right to defend with deadly force.
Posted by: RAH at August 29, 2009 07:01 AM (K8p1o)
9
Uhnsurprisingly I find NC's law to be more egregious than MT's.
NC puts the onus on the defender to somehow take into consideration the degree of the threat while simultaneosuly being assaulted, then judges them in the calm of hindsight. Thus giving the aggressor free range and whatever time they may require to calculate presicely the level of force that will not warrant getting shot at any time before initiating the assault.
Bass Ackwards.
Look at what happened to that movie star who fell while skiing last winter - even a minor blow to the head can be lethal. Size simply does not matter. Tripping someone while their hands are occupied easily leaves their head defenseless against whatever hard objects are in the area. I strongly doubt that the NC standard includes 'tripping' as an act intended to 'kill or cripple' yet we all know such acts most certainly can do precisely that.
The fact is that any physical assault is potentially lethal. Yes, some more so than others. But let's put the onus on the aggressor, not the defender.
Unwarranted assault is a crime. That the defender may choose a -potentially- disproportionate defense really should not be considered a fault of the defender, more an unfortunate consequence of the attacker's unlawful actions.
Montana's law is much more clear and just: If you don't want to get shot then don't get physical, because once it gets physical somebody might die.
NC puts the onus on the defender to somehow take into consideration the degree of the threat while simultaneosuly being assaulted, then judges them in the calm of hindsight. Thus giving the aggressor free range and whatever time they may require to calculate presicely the level of force that will not warrant getting shot at any time before initiating the assault.
Bass Ackwards.
Look at what happened to that movie star who fell while skiing last winter - even a minor blow to the head can be lethal. Size simply does not matter. Tripping someone while their hands are occupied easily leaves their head defenseless against whatever hard objects are in the area. I strongly doubt that the NC standard includes 'tripping' as an act intended to 'kill or cripple' yet we all know such acts most certainly can do precisely that.
The fact is that any physical assault is potentially lethal. Yes, some more so than others. But let's put the onus on the aggressor, not the defender.
Unwarranted assault is a crime. That the defender may choose a -potentially- disproportionate defense really should not be considered a fault of the defender, more an unfortunate consequence of the attacker's unlawful actions.
Montana's law is much more clear and just: If you don't want to get shot then don't get physical, because once it gets physical somebody might die.
Posted by: ThomasD at August 29, 2009 09:53 AM (UK5R1)
10
I don't think that the NC training is saying shoot to wound, like some woman on the news crying about her kid, "why didn't them cops shoot the gun out of his hand?" I think it's saying shoot with the intent to stop the attack. A couple rounds center of mass is the most reliable means of stopping an attack, all things considered. It will likely stop them by killing them, but it might stop them without killing them. This is opposed to shooting game, wherein I want a kill shot, and won't fire if I don't have one. Also it expresses a similarity to bombing a nuclear weapons facility with civilian scientists and workers: the intent is to stop the weapon program, and their deaths are a known but unintended consequence of this intent being carried out.
Meanwhile, bodily harm is the proper standard, as there is absolutely no amount of harm that a person should have to accept before defending themselves. Now, the particular situation? I have no idea. Even if he started a physical confrontation, if the other person escalated a jostle to such an extent that there was fear of real harm, I'd say clean shoot + simple assault. If he got what he gave, then it wouldn't be a clean shooting, and I'm not in a position to know.
Meanwhile, bodily harm is the proper standard, as there is absolutely no amount of harm that a person should have to accept before defending themselves. Now, the particular situation? I have no idea. Even if he started a physical confrontation, if the other person escalated a jostle to such an extent that there was fear of real harm, I'd say clean shoot + simple assault. If he got what he gave, then it wouldn't be a clean shooting, and I'm not in a position to know.
Posted by: SoR at August 29, 2009 10:02 AM (1cITz)
11
ThomasD's statement really went to the heart of it.
"Unwarranted assault is a crime. That the defender may choose a -potentially- disproportionate defense really should not be considered a fault of the defender, more an unfortunate consequence of the attacker's unlawful actions."
That's a really good way to put it.
"Unwarranted assault is a crime. That the defender may choose a -potentially- disproportionate defense really should not be considered a fault of the defender, more an unfortunate consequence of the attacker's unlawful actions."
That's a really good way to put it.
Posted by: brando at August 29, 2009 11:45 AM (LjEkE)
12
Now, the first time I read the article CY posted I thought it was a bit over the top, but then I read it a second time and it was fairly decent.
Now there is one question I have to ask.
Here in NC if you initate the confrontation you may not use leathel force (outside of the home) unless you attempt to withdraw and make your withdraw known. Does Montana not have something similar?
The reason I ask is because even if you do not initate force, you can be seen as initating action by being the one who started the argument.
Now there is one question I have to ask.
Here in NC if you initate the confrontation you may not use leathel force (outside of the home) unless you attempt to withdraw and make your withdraw known. Does Montana not have something similar?
The reason I ask is because even if you do not initate force, you can be seen as initating action by being the one who started the argument.
Posted by: Matt at August 29, 2009 11:49 AM (XKpp2)
13
"A couple rounds center of mass is the most reliable means of stopping an attack"
Not the most reliable means, but the easiest and safest means.
A shot to the CNS is the most reliable way to make sure that person stops their attack. But it is much more difficult. Which is why you are taught to shoot center mass. It is a larger target, so you have less chance of missing. There are lots of vitals there to hit, and much more meat to stop the projectile from passing through the body and hurting someone on the other side.
But it is far from the most reliable way to stop them. I have seen people continue on for seconds to minutes after taking multiple hits to the chest.
Not the most reliable means, but the easiest and safest means.
A shot to the CNS is the most reliable way to make sure that person stops their attack. But it is much more difficult. Which is why you are taught to shoot center mass. It is a larger target, so you have less chance of missing. There are lots of vitals there to hit, and much more meat to stop the projectile from passing through the body and hurting someone on the other side.
But it is far from the most reliable way to stop them. I have seen people continue on for seconds to minutes after taking multiple hits to the chest.
Posted by: Matt at August 29, 2009 11:57 AM (XKpp2)
14
Matt,
That's what I meant, actually, just didn't get it across, I guess. "most reliable means of stopping an attack, /all things considered/", meaning chance of a given wound being a disabling hit times the chance of actually hitting the target area, because a sloppy chest hit is more useful than a head miss. I would take a cns shot if I was absolutely sure of hitting the target area, but would target center of mass, otherwise.
That probably was no clearer about what I meant than in the first place, so just, "what he said".
That's what I meant, actually, just didn't get it across, I guess. "most reliable means of stopping an attack, /all things considered/", meaning chance of a given wound being a disabling hit times the chance of actually hitting the target area, because a sloppy chest hit is more useful than a head miss. I would take a cns shot if I was absolutely sure of hitting the target area, but would target center of mass, otherwise.
That probably was no clearer about what I meant than in the first place, so just, "what he said".
Posted by: SoR at August 29, 2009 12:21 PM (1cITz)
15
Hmmmm... a smaller man has a gun on him. He knows the law now says he can shoot to kill and not have to prove himself as not having escalated the matter.
The shooting victim says the smaller guy provoked the argument.
I don't see why the big guy threw the first punch. Because he's saying the other guy shouldered him - then he punched him. He's 100 pounds bigger than the guy who shouldered him. He had no need to hit the guy in self-defense - it would seem.
So, I don't believe the big guy (most likely - would need more info) acted in "self defense" to hit the smaller guy.
However, if the smaller guy began the physical altercation by shoundering the big guy - then I don't believe he deserves the "right" to use deadly force with a gun to shoot the guy for punching him.
He started it. If this guy started it by getting physical - it's not self-defense. It's assault with a deadly weapon, imo. The small guy provoked the big guy into a position where he shot him.
So, if the facts bear out the small guy started the physical part - and the small guy isn't charged for assault - this is a bad law.
The shooting victim says the smaller guy provoked the argument.
I don't see why the big guy threw the first punch. Because he's saying the other guy shouldered him - then he punched him. He's 100 pounds bigger than the guy who shouldered him. He had no need to hit the guy in self-defense - it would seem.
So, I don't believe the big guy (most likely - would need more info) acted in "self defense" to hit the smaller guy.
However, if the smaller guy began the physical altercation by shoundering the big guy - then I don't believe he deserves the "right" to use deadly force with a gun to shoot the guy for punching him.
He started it. If this guy started it by getting physical - it's not self-defense. It's assault with a deadly weapon, imo. The small guy provoked the big guy into a position where he shot him.
So, if the facts bear out the small guy started the physical part - and the small guy isn't charged for assault - this is a bad law.
Posted by: laura at August 29, 2009 01:31 PM (JFvHi)
16
Mr. Owens, I guess I still don't understand the point you're trying to make. How is this HB 228 "a seriously flawed attempt at providing the citizens of Montana a variation of the castle doctrine"? If I've read you right you believe that this incident resulted in an unnecessary escalation of force..... And that somehow flaws this bill.
What I see was an escalation of force. Was it unnecessary, maybe, maybe not. I wasn't there lying on the ground with my head spinning, my ears ringing and that smokey taste in my mouth from a good punch.
As for a "flawed bill". I only see it as simply putting the onus on the DA to do his job. That is, find out what happened, determine if any laws were broke, prosecute if necessary. I haven't read the whole bill in question, but if it's like you say a variation of the Castle Doctrine, then this new law wouldn't preclude any of that.
What I don't see is if I was to shoot somebody, why am I automatically the guilty party? Should I be doing some explaining? Certainly. If I can't give a righteous reason for ventilating some perp then perhaps it's time to look at me real close. But, automatically guilty and locked up? Surely, that wasn't what you meant.
As for the part about "shoot to stop the threat, not to kill", I believe that is there for the time when it goes to a civil suit.
The way you rationalize that a thrown punch does not justify a bullet in return really, really bothers me. It has not been established that that is what happened. As of right now, the bullet was to stop an act of aggression that resulted in bodily injury with who knows what next on the agenda. To me, the use of only one bullet means that the guy did use some restraint.
Mr. Owens, I spent over 30 years active in the martial arts. I shot out two .45 barrels shooting Combat Pistol (about 45,000 rounds.) I've been hit, I've been hurt, hell I've been kicked into the cheap seats. I've a personal acquaintance who took 5 rounds from a .45, two in the chest and not only lived, he wasn't even knocked down. In this family, we don't practice guessing what some perp is going to do once he has us on the floor. We practice two in the chest, one in the face to stop the threat. That you don't feel that way is admirable that you've thought about it and taken a stand, but foolish. Who will protect your family when you go down?
What I see was an escalation of force. Was it unnecessary, maybe, maybe not. I wasn't there lying on the ground with my head spinning, my ears ringing and that smokey taste in my mouth from a good punch.
As for a "flawed bill". I only see it as simply putting the onus on the DA to do his job. That is, find out what happened, determine if any laws were broke, prosecute if necessary. I haven't read the whole bill in question, but if it's like you say a variation of the Castle Doctrine, then this new law wouldn't preclude any of that.
What I don't see is if I was to shoot somebody, why am I automatically the guilty party? Should I be doing some explaining? Certainly. If I can't give a righteous reason for ventilating some perp then perhaps it's time to look at me real close. But, automatically guilty and locked up? Surely, that wasn't what you meant.
As for the part about "shoot to stop the threat, not to kill", I believe that is there for the time when it goes to a civil suit.
The way you rationalize that a thrown punch does not justify a bullet in return really, really bothers me. It has not been established that that is what happened. As of right now, the bullet was to stop an act of aggression that resulted in bodily injury with who knows what next on the agenda. To me, the use of only one bullet means that the guy did use some restraint.
Mr. Owens, I spent over 30 years active in the martial arts. I shot out two .45 barrels shooting Combat Pistol (about 45,000 rounds.) I've been hit, I've been hurt, hell I've been kicked into the cheap seats. I've a personal acquaintance who took 5 rounds from a .45, two in the chest and not only lived, he wasn't even knocked down. In this family, we don't practice guessing what some perp is going to do once he has us on the floor. We practice two in the chest, one in the face to stop the threat. That you don't feel that way is admirable that you've thought about it and taken a stand, but foolish. Who will protect your family when you go down?
Posted by: Barney at August 30, 2009 12:30 AM (WS+OR)
17
Just his use of caliber would seem to indicate that he had no criminal intent to kill anyone. He could have done as much as he did do with a pricing gun.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 30, 2009 05:19 AM (aRm4V)
18
>>"I've a personal acquaintance who took 5 rounds from a .45, two in the chest and not only lived, he wasn't even knocked down."
Heh. The 45 fans who believe that their weapon is akin to Thor's Hammers won't like to hear that.
Heh. The 45 fans who believe that their weapon is akin to Thor's Hammers won't like to hear that.
Posted by: Steve at August 30, 2009 06:47 PM (DiJxB)
19
CY, I've noticed a couple of facts that are inconsistent. In your Castle post, you and Dude shared the position, and lambasted Scott for being the only person in the world who would think that your article was leading. It exists entirely in his own mind. That’s what you said. So that’s fact 1. Scott twisted words, invented something out of thin air, he’s the only one in the world that wouldn’t see your article as straight, and he needs a hobby to help him deal with his break from reality.
But now you’re saying that “more than one” reader didn’t think that your article was written straight. That’s an understatement, as I counted many who thought the same thing. I suppose I could go through and give you an updated count, but I don’t think that’s necessary. That’s fact #2. “More than one”. Many others perceive something that exists entirely in Scott's mind. Those are mutually exclusive things.
How can both of those things be true? One does not equal more than one. Which one is wrong?
I know that Dude still maintains whatever he is, but surely you don’t actually believe that Scott sockpuppeted that many times?
But now you’re saying that “more than one” reader didn’t think that your article was written straight. That’s an understatement, as I counted many who thought the same thing. I suppose I could go through and give you an updated count, but I don’t think that’s necessary. That’s fact #2. “More than one”. Many others perceive something that exists entirely in Scott's mind. Those are mutually exclusive things.
How can both of those things be true? One does not equal more than one. Which one is wrong?
I know that Dude still maintains whatever he is, but surely you don’t actually believe that Scott sockpuppeted that many times?
Posted by: brando at August 30, 2009 07:16 PM (LjEkE)
20
This post makes one thing clear. Montana is awesome. Actually, it makes two things clear, since we also learned that you should not throw plates at people and expect no repercussions.
Posted by: Kevin at August 31, 2009 07:16 AM (v3L+e)
21
I think the message inherent in this incident is that if you're a big guy who likes to knock little people down, Montana might be a little hard on you. It'd be best if you were to go back to one of those little eastern states with the funny borders where if that sort of behaviour isn't actually condoned, at least it's tolerated.
Posted by: Barney at August 31, 2009 09:54 AM (3UOyd)
22
Thanks for pointing that out Brando. I got a snide and snippy response from Mr. Owens, and I wonder if he's willing to take a bite of humble pie and show some class.
Again as I said before, letting a workplace argument escalate to violence of any kind is foolish and stupid. Even if Mr. Schmidt "started it", Mr. Lira was in no physical danger at that point and should have not thrown the punch. No matter which version is true Mr. Lira had the ability to prevent the escalation of this incident. He did not do so.
My "gut feeling" says the gun was unnecessary, I grew up where if you get into a fight you fight and take your lumps. A random every-dayish fight (like between kids and teens growing up) does not merit and should never escalate to deadly weapons. However, I'm not privy to all the facts and history involving this incident. Had Mr. Lira made threats before? Does he have a rep for verbally & physically intimidating/threatening behavior? Does he have a history of physical violence? We don't know, but we do know Mr. Schmidt had a CC permit thus he very likely doesn't have a history of violence, we also know he's 17 years Lira's senior. That would seem to make Lira's story unlikely, since getting a CC permit requires a background check and Schmidt's got almost 20 years more "history", and 20 years more "wisdom" (we'd hope). The two factors would indicate he's not a entirely foolish or stupid man, but it certainly doesn't preclude the possibility that Mr. Schmidt did "start it".
Personally I believe this incident is a poor choice for Mr. Owens to use for his standard on a piece against Montana's law. There's too much unknown, for example, had Mr. Lira made threats to Schmidt prior to this incident? Mr. Owens is being too much of an Armchair General, he wasn't there and it wasn't his person that was in danger. Also he seems to continue to maintain that the head shot was intentional while at the same time down playing that there was only one shot fired.
Had that single shot hit Mr. Lira's arm instead of striking his forehead would this story be as useful to Mr. Owens position against the Montana law? When people hear "shot in the face" or "shot in the head" they will often assume that the intent of the shooter was to kill. Especially those of the anti-gun persuasion. This intent cannot be clearly ascertained from the information presented by Mr. Owens sources. Had more than one shot been fired it would be a different case.
Again as I said before, letting a workplace argument escalate to violence of any kind is foolish and stupid. Even if Mr. Schmidt "started it", Mr. Lira was in no physical danger at that point and should have not thrown the punch. No matter which version is true Mr. Lira had the ability to prevent the escalation of this incident. He did not do so.
My "gut feeling" says the gun was unnecessary, I grew up where if you get into a fight you fight and take your lumps. A random every-dayish fight (like between kids and teens growing up) does not merit and should never escalate to deadly weapons. However, I'm not privy to all the facts and history involving this incident. Had Mr. Lira made threats before? Does he have a rep for verbally & physically intimidating/threatening behavior? Does he have a history of physical violence? We don't know, but we do know Mr. Schmidt had a CC permit thus he very likely doesn't have a history of violence, we also know he's 17 years Lira's senior. That would seem to make Lira's story unlikely, since getting a CC permit requires a background check and Schmidt's got almost 20 years more "history", and 20 years more "wisdom" (we'd hope). The two factors would indicate he's not a entirely foolish or stupid man, but it certainly doesn't preclude the possibility that Mr. Schmidt did "start it".
Personally I believe this incident is a poor choice for Mr. Owens to use for his standard on a piece against Montana's law. There's too much unknown, for example, had Mr. Lira made threats to Schmidt prior to this incident? Mr. Owens is being too much of an Armchair General, he wasn't there and it wasn't his person that was in danger. Also he seems to continue to maintain that the head shot was intentional while at the same time down playing that there was only one shot fired.
Had that single shot hit Mr. Lira's arm instead of striking his forehead would this story be as useful to Mr. Owens position against the Montana law? When people hear "shot in the face" or "shot in the head" they will often assume that the intent of the shooter was to kill. Especially those of the anti-gun persuasion. This intent cannot be clearly ascertained from the information presented by Mr. Owens sources. Had more than one shot been fired it would be a different case.
Posted by: Scott at August 31, 2009 12:27 PM (sQmd1)
23
Scott, I know it might seem like I'm riding the fence when I say this, but your opening salvo might have had a little to do with his angry reaction.
MSNBC? Ouch.
MSNBC? Ouch.
Posted by: brando at August 31, 2009 12:43 PM (IPGju)
24
"Ability: the attacker or attackers must have the ability to kill or cripple."
If a 260lb man had you down, all that he'd need to do was jump on your chest to kill you. A kick to the temple with work boots on would also do you in. More than enough capacity right there, let alone any random objects lying about the loading dock or a determined attempt to pin and strangle.
"Opportunity: the attacker must immediately be capable of employing that power."
Again, not hard to jump or even fall hard upon someone's chest/ribs or pin and choke.
"Jeopardy: the attacker is acting in such a manner that a prudent person would conclude that the act was mean to kill or cripple."
"I tried to stop him from turning back around to stab me," Danny Lira said...
Right there in the article about Lira's account Lira admits to pressing the attack after he punched Schmidt. Also in the accompanying photo there is no evidence of powder burns that would be likely if shot from less than a foot away, nor does the doctor mention them when speaking about Mr. Lira's injuries.
"Additionally, if Lira's claim that Schmidt slammed into him with his shoulder can be verified, that would indicate that Schmidt was acting as a agent provocateur, attempting to escalate an argument in an attempt to justify an attempt at murder."
Attempted murder? Again the evidence supporting this does not exist. You can in no way prove Mr. Lira's head was the intended placement of the shot and since only one shot was fired that Mr. Schmidt's intent was to kill. Had he emptied the clip into Mr. Lira that would be a different case.
This story just doesn't work for your intent Mr. Owens, you're trying to shoe-horn a size 12 foot into a size 6 shoe and it isn't working for you. I know the pickings are slim for stories that best demonstrate your point, which is that the Montana bill is too loose in its definition of what is "justifiable" force. However, trying to make this story work for you is actually detracting from the point you are attempting to make.
If a 260lb man had you down, all that he'd need to do was jump on your chest to kill you. A kick to the temple with work boots on would also do you in. More than enough capacity right there, let alone any random objects lying about the loading dock or a determined attempt to pin and strangle.
"Opportunity: the attacker must immediately be capable of employing that power."
Again, not hard to jump or even fall hard upon someone's chest/ribs or pin and choke.
"Jeopardy: the attacker is acting in such a manner that a prudent person would conclude that the act was mean to kill or cripple."
"I tried to stop him from turning back around to stab me," Danny Lira said...
Right there in the article about Lira's account Lira admits to pressing the attack after he punched Schmidt. Also in the accompanying photo there is no evidence of powder burns that would be likely if shot from less than a foot away, nor does the doctor mention them when speaking about Mr. Lira's injuries.
"Additionally, if Lira's claim that Schmidt slammed into him with his shoulder can be verified, that would indicate that Schmidt was acting as a agent provocateur, attempting to escalate an argument in an attempt to justify an attempt at murder."
Attempted murder? Again the evidence supporting this does not exist. You can in no way prove Mr. Lira's head was the intended placement of the shot and since only one shot was fired that Mr. Schmidt's intent was to kill. Had he emptied the clip into Mr. Lira that would be a different case.
This story just doesn't work for your intent Mr. Owens, you're trying to shoe-horn a size 12 foot into a size 6 shoe and it isn't working for you. I know the pickings are slim for stories that best demonstrate your point, which is that the Montana bill is too loose in its definition of what is "justifiable" force. However, trying to make this story work for you is actually detracting from the point you are attempting to make.
Posted by: Scott at August 31, 2009 12:59 PM (mqy6N)
25
Brando, just chalk it up to a flashy lead to engage the reader. The opening question was designed to both grab attention and express a sort of "WTF man??!?!" disbelief by alluding to MSNBC's recent incident with the man attending the Town Hall meeting with an AR-15.
Posted by: Scott at August 31, 2009 01:11 PM (sQmd1)
26
Here is Turley on the Montana law. I don't care for his politics but at least he quotes passages from the actual law to study.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/08/14/montana-police-release-man-who-shot-co-worker-at-wal-mart-due-to-states-sweeping-castle-doctrine-law/
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/08/14/montana-police-release-man-who-shot-co-worker-at-wal-mart-due-to-states-sweeping-castle-doctrine-law/
Posted by: inspectorudy at August 31, 2009 01:27 PM (wkCYX)
27
Size doesn't really matter. I'm 6'1" 240 lbs. I'm fairly fit, but a little overweight. I have been told that when I try, I can be very intimidating looking. But I'm also over 50 and have two bad knees, two bad ankles and arthritus is one shoulder. I played a lot of sports, but I'm not a fighter. I am not trained to fight (with my fists). I ended every fight I found myself in as a kid by running away. The last fist fight I got in was 25 years ago and I got my ass handed to me by a guy half my size. (Long story but running away wasn't an option that time) In a fist fight or a brawl against any random guy off the street I would give my self a
So as I got older and decided that I needed learn how to defend me and mine, I decided to allow Mr. Colt to even the playing field. I had been shooting and hunting for years as a kid, but I still got myself a lot of pistol training.
I don't look for trouble. I go out of my way to avoid it. But if someone hits me hard enough to knock me down, regardless of how big he is (or isn't)- I will shoot him. Getting the crap kicked out of you by the guy who just knocked you down is the wrong way to learn how much damage your body can tolerate.
So as I got older and decided that I needed learn how to defend me and mine, I decided to allow Mr. Colt to even the playing field. I had been shooting and hunting for years as a kid, but I still got myself a lot of pistol training.
I don't look for trouble. I go out of my way to avoid it. But if someone hits me hard enough to knock me down, regardless of how big he is (or isn't)- I will shoot him. Getting the crap kicked out of you by the guy who just knocked you down is the wrong way to learn how much damage your body can tolerate.
Posted by: David at August 31, 2009 04:49 PM (v3pYe)
28
That kid in Seattle who got knocked into a wall by a deputy sheriff might have a comment to make about use of force escalation, perceived threats and size diferential but he's in a coma right now.
I just finished Marcus Luttrell's book Lone Survivor and, let me tell you, therein is plenty of food for thought when it comes to rules of engagement when your life is at stake.
I just finished Marcus Luttrell's book Lone Survivor and, let me tell you, therein is plenty of food for thought when it comes to rules of engagement when your life is at stake.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at September 01, 2009 01:25 AM (aRm4V)
29
Interesting that you mention the force continuum. As a matter of fact, it is on the way out in law enforcement instruction. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center no long teaches the continuum after observation that it encourages officers to under-react in deadly force situations.
FLETC now teaches a use of overwhelming force when a suspect fails to cease dangerous behavior patterns in a confrontation.
That means any failure to comply with lawful instructions, e.g. show me your hands, results in a force reaction, not always use of firearms, but in a choice of various actions, strike, tazer, baton, pepperspray.
No longer being taught is repeated instructions. It is now one warning then force. Force that may include deadly force.
The reason is that video of real world situations show that officers are using to polite language and issuing repeated instructions that result in suspect attacks on officers.
In any event, your analysis of the Walmart shooting was lacking in that you took the stance that one of the invovled was wrong based on a lack of facts, then stated that previously either or both would have been arrested and confined for the duration of the investigation, which is not true, as police have to justify a probable cause arrest before a magistrate or judge, who in most cases, release such subjects on bail or recognizance.
Even before this new law, any suspect, unless they had a criminal record, would have been released anyway, especially on bail.
FLETC now teaches a use of overwhelming force when a suspect fails to cease dangerous behavior patterns in a confrontation.
That means any failure to comply with lawful instructions, e.g. show me your hands, results in a force reaction, not always use of firearms, but in a choice of various actions, strike, tazer, baton, pepperspray.
No longer being taught is repeated instructions. It is now one warning then force. Force that may include deadly force.
The reason is that video of real world situations show that officers are using to polite language and issuing repeated instructions that result in suspect attacks on officers.
In any event, your analysis of the Walmart shooting was lacking in that you took the stance that one of the invovled was wrong based on a lack of facts, then stated that previously either or both would have been arrested and confined for the duration of the investigation, which is not true, as police have to justify a probable cause arrest before a magistrate or judge, who in most cases, release such subjects on bail or recognizance.
Even before this new law, any suspect, unless they had a criminal record, would have been released anyway, especially on bail.
Posted by: Federale at September 01, 2009 01:21 PM (I6UoW)
30
"Craig Schmidt shot Danny Lira in the face after Lira punched Schmidt, and Schmidt fell to the ground." I had a friend yearS ago who was "stomped" to death out back of a Bar, being punched in the face and falling to the ground can result in a fatal outcome
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at September 01, 2009 08:11 PM (5ZsaL)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0214 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0155 seconds, 38 records returned.
Page size 39 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.