Jury's Perspective vs. Tactics

[LittleRed]

A co-worker just sat on a shooting case where the "victim" was paralyzed. I don't know the exact details of the incident, but it was interesting to hear her talk about it. The "shooter" was acquitted as it was considered defensive which sounded rightfully so. Her perspective offered some insight. She would be considered conservative both religiously and politically so keep that in mind.

Some of the things the jury heard that lead to their decision were:

"Defendant tried to leave"

"He shot only once" — the impression was that multiple shots would have shown aggression, a single shot showed restraint

"He 'aimed' low" — he intentions was not to kill

"He was outnumbered"

"State law allows for deadly force without seeing a weapon"

"The victim has 5 previous felonies"

In a short conversation, it was interesting to see that the shooter was initially considered the bad guy until evidence proved otherwise—the exact opposite of innocent until proven guilty. It is also interesting that the above mentioned facts help the case, but none were required under state law.

Note that this person shot only once and "aimed" low. This is the opposite of what most defensive firearms advice would be—shoot until threat stops (or dabble-tap, etc.) and aim for center of mass.

I like to here some thought on balancing good tactics with good "PR" in a defensive situation.

Please no "I'd rather be tried by 6 than carried by 12 comments". If you have a family, a trial and possibility of conviction and lengthy jail term could be nearly as devastating as your own death (this could have carried a life sentence). I am also NOT advocating giving up and dying at all. But what are the win-win solutions or tips?

[Solus]

Sorry, Little Red, but I just can't see using any tactics that don't go for a fast and sure cessation to the actions of those threatening you in such a way that deadly force is necessary.

True, your friends statements obviously show that she and likely most of the jury had the shooter pegged as guilty and had to acknowledge facts that  un-proved him guilty.

For instance.  The perp had 5 previous felonies.  That indicated that if this was the first attempt he made to kill or harm someone the shooting would be less justified.  

Same with the outnumbered statement.  

I imagine that the shooter didn't am low, he just hit low, probably jerking the trigger under the adrenaline rush.  He was lucky a poor shot got the job done.

The only two statements that don't show a bias towards guilty are that the shooter tried to leave and that state law allows for deadly force without seeing a weapon.  

And those are only because one wasproper behavior in the situation and the other a fact of law.

And about life in prison being almost as bad as being killed, I'd like to note that there is no appeal to being killed and no parole either.

I'll stick to tactics that will stop the threat and avoid actions other than those that might have a PR downside.

If you have the skill and ability to "wound" to incapacitate every time under that pressure, you might want to choose a different tactic.

[Hazcat]

What state was this and does it have Castle or Stand your ground laws?

[tombogan03884]

You may not want to hear it, but you have to be alive to care about legal consequences.
As for  " If you have a family, a trial and possibility of conviction and lengthy jail term could be nearly as devastating as your own death"
that's ignorant BS.
The objective is to protect yourself and your family by removing  the threat as quickly and effeciently as possible and that is best achieved by blowing the f*ckers head off.
If you are not prepared to do that you should not bother carrying a gun.

[LittleRed]

Regarding:

"Sorry, Little Red," and "You may not want to hear it"

I totally agree with what you are saying, you don't need to convince me at all. No need to apologize. Regarding the "tried by 12" comment on my part, I was just trying to avoid the cliches. What I am attempting to stir conversation on is what (if any) do you add to already solid tactics (shoot to stop threat immediately, center-of-mass, etc.) to help you after the fact.

For example, is it worthwhile to shout "stop" or "help" while shooting. Witnesses would then see you as the victim even if your actions are the same. Certainly yelling "I'm gonna blow your (insert favorite explicative here) head off" isn't going to help you in court and doesn't contribute to saving your life either.

This is occurred in Florida, which has both Castle and Stand you ground laws. Part of what makes this an issue is that it ever went to trial in the first place. We have laws that should have kept this out of the courtroom completely.

Again, I am 100% in agreement with the idea that if involved in a deadly force incident, you react in the most decisive way possible. But are there other things that need to be included like calling 911 for an ambulance, shouting, etc.

[Sponsor]

[ellis4538]

It has been documented that under stress most individuals will keep shooting until the weapon is empty and not realize it!  I am surprised one shot stopped the BG.  I would imagine that the other four BG's backed off after the shot was fired but this may not always be the case!  I am surprised that the BG's past record was allowed as evidence especially since the GG was "presumed guilty" already!!!!!  The prosecuter seems to be trying to make a name for himself or something to let this case go to trial...not a good thing.

Richard

[robheath]

How can you tell the jury " I feared for my life but I took a non lethal shot"  Not good!

[tombogan03884]

OK, I see where you going now, and I somewhat misunderstood your comment.
I would say go with your own judgement as the situation develops, I may be yelling "stop", or "drop the weapon", but I'm going to shoot until either they comply, fall down dead, or I run out of bullets, which ever comes first.
You need to call 911 as absolutely soon as the situation permits so calling an ambulance doesn't matter, they will dispatch one along with the cops.
2 things to keep in mind, you may drop a deer with one shot from your favorite rifle, chances are that will not be the case with a handgun round, it's very important to keep putting rounds into the BG until he stops doing what made you shoot him the first time.
Second, you are responsible for every round you fire, with pavement, rocks, and all the other things that can cause a ricochet, and the long distances that bullets are able to travel, warning shots are the worst ida in the book, after "shooting to wound". The safest place for your bullets is in the BG, barring over penetration you are far less likely to get sued by some innocent schmuck.

As for what Ellis posted, there was a story going around about a woman being asked why she shot her attacker 6 times and she replies " Because the other times I pulled the trigger it just went click".

[Timothy]

Dead bad guys don't sue for becoming a victim.  Their family might but, if the shooting was righteous than they should lose in criminal court.  In civil court, anything goes as you don't have to prove diddle "beyond a reasonable doubt!".  Remember, you can't go to prison for a civil case!  Shoot for center of mass and don't stop until the threat is neutralized.

I know that doesn't really answer your question.

[tombogan03884]

Dead bad guys don't sue for becoming a victim.  Their family might but, if the shooting was righteous than they should lose in criminal court.  In civil court, anything goes as you don't have to prove diddle "beyond a reasonable doubt!".  Remember, you can't go to prison for a civil case!  Shoot for center of mass and don't stop until the threat is neutralized.

I know that doesn't really answer your question.

It does as I understand the question, "should you modify your tactics to account for the prejudices or political aspirations of your local prosecutor ".
Seems like a unanimous NO.