pillars
So here we go again. Here's an excellent example of how I think I wish it would go more often.
Assault victim fatally shoots assailant outside Westlake Center
By Jonathan Martin
Seattle Times staff reporter
A bizarre case of what appeared to be justifiable homicide rattled the heart of Seattle's swanky downtown shopping district late Saturday morning.
Seattle police are still piecing together what happened, but this much is known: A young man was killed on the crowded sidewalk outside Westlake Center, and the confessed shooter was allowed to walk out of a police station.
The case, according to police and witnesses, began at 11 a.m. Saturday with a 911 call.
Witnesses reported a man in a yellow shirt acting erratically, insulting and threatening passing pedestrians at Pike Street and Boren Avenue near the Washington State Convention and Trade Center, said Seattle police spokeswoman Deb Brown.
A half-hour later, a man matching the same description was reported near Westlake Center. At the same time, a second man, described by witnesses as balding and wearing a leather jacket, was walking through the nearby plaza after finishing his lunch.
Neither man's identity was released by police on Saturday.
The man in the yellow shirt apparently focused in on the second man, saying, "I am going to kill you," Brown said. He then began punching and kicking the second man until the man fell to the sidewalk.
"He was down there, minding his own business. There is nothing to think he was anything but a random target," Brown said.
The victim happened to have a concealed-weapons permit, Brown said, and he was carrying a handgun. He pulled out the gun and fired once, hitting his attacker in the abdomen.
"It looked to me like he shot him in self-defense," said Linda Vu, who was across the street from the shooting, handing out fliers for political activist Lyndon LaRouche. "It's kind of crazy."
The man in the yellow shirt died after being taken to Harborview Medical Center. The King County Medical Examiner was trying to determine his identity, a task complicated by the fact that the man carried no identification.
Several nearby Seattle police officers heard the gunshot. When they arrived at the shooting scene, the victim, sitting on a streetside planter full of purple pansies, handed the gun to them and said, "I am the one who did this," according to Assistant Police Chief Jim Pugel.
The man was arrested, but after questioning him and other witnesses, detectives determined they did not have probable cause to book him into the King County Jail. The man was released. Police said they were withholding his name as a crime victim — of the assault.
It will be up to the county prosecutor to determine whether the man will face charges. But Pugel said, "It could be considered justifiable homicide."
The shooting stunned Jim and Edith Welsh, tourists from Australia who'd just left the Nordstrom store across the street when police arrived. Peering across the police tape draped across Pine Street, Welsh hugged his wife. "I think we're going back to our hotel right now," he said.
Ok, great. It sounds cut and dry, but listen to this argument:
Seems like a fair report to me, and if the facts are as reported the shooter is almost certainly not guilty of any offence.
He has a permit so therefore I presume he was in lawfully possession of the firearm.
There was a verbal statement of intent - 'I'm going to kill you' - which appears to have been witnessed, as well as a history of previous erratic and threatening behaviour by the deceased towards others, and a sustained assault - punching and kicking the [shooter] until he fell to the ground. The spontaneous nature of the attack appears to preclude the best option - escape.
The ground is not where you want to be in a fight. So, up to this point, the use of appropriate force in self defence is, at least to me, clearly justified.
The rub is that the response should [under UK common law, which I presume given our shared history is similar to US law] be justifiable in terms of the level of assault the victim suffered - i.e. reasonable force.
So, is it justifiable to shoot someone who has given you a moderate beating [no mention of any serious injuries to the shooter]?
Ordinarily, to use a deadly weapon on an unarmed opponent in a fistfight - for example, you grab a knife and stab the assailant - you have a lot of explaining to do to show why you were then and there in fear of your life. It could be you are on your own, with no chance of assistance, and have taken a serious beating. It could be that your opponent is built like a brick outhouse wall and you make Peewee Herman look like Chuck Norris. But you would still need to produce a lot of justification to show that you did not unreasonably or excessively escalate the situation.
However, if you are lawfully carrying a gun, then shooting most probably is justified, because if you get beaten unconscious and the gun is taken off you, you could then be shot with your own weapon by the clearly violent assailant, as could any number of bystanders.
That is the issue that intrigues me most - if the gun was not present, would deadly force have been equally necessary?
Great, this is an argument I've not considered, and now I have even more reason to not approve of every idiot being able to have a gun. If you figure every third guy has a permit to carry a concealed handgun, what happens when the unexpected fight breaks out, and the bad guy gets ahold of that gun? Nothing good. And while you'd like to think that wouldn't happen very often, how often did we really expect there to be a lunatic to walk into a public school and just start arbitrarily killing people?
Not enough yet, it seems...
Assault victim fatally shoots assailant outside Westlake Center
By Jonathan Martin
Seattle Times staff reporter
A bizarre case of what appeared to be justifiable homicide rattled the heart of Seattle's swanky downtown shopping district late Saturday morning.
Seattle police are still piecing together what happened, but this much is known: A young man was killed on the crowded sidewalk outside Westlake Center, and the confessed shooter was allowed to walk out of a police station.
The case, according to police and witnesses, began at 11 a.m. Saturday with a 911 call.
Witnesses reported a man in a yellow shirt acting erratically, insulting and threatening passing pedestrians at Pike Street and Boren Avenue near the Washington State Convention and Trade Center, said Seattle police spokeswoman Deb Brown.
A half-hour later, a man matching the same description was reported near Westlake Center. At the same time, a second man, described by witnesses as balding and wearing a leather jacket, was walking through the nearby plaza after finishing his lunch.
Neither man's identity was released by police on Saturday.
The man in the yellow shirt apparently focused in on the second man, saying, "I am going to kill you," Brown said. He then began punching and kicking the second man until the man fell to the sidewalk.
"He was down there, minding his own business. There is nothing to think he was anything but a random target," Brown said.
The victim happened to have a concealed-weapons permit, Brown said, and he was carrying a handgun. He pulled out the gun and fired once, hitting his attacker in the abdomen.
"It looked to me like he shot him in self-defense," said Linda Vu, who was across the street from the shooting, handing out fliers for political activist Lyndon LaRouche. "It's kind of crazy."
The man in the yellow shirt died after being taken to Harborview Medical Center. The King County Medical Examiner was trying to determine his identity, a task complicated by the fact that the man carried no identification.
Several nearby Seattle police officers heard the gunshot. When they arrived at the shooting scene, the victim, sitting on a streetside planter full of purple pansies, handed the gun to them and said, "I am the one who did this," according to Assistant Police Chief Jim Pugel.
The man was arrested, but after questioning him and other witnesses, detectives determined they did not have probable cause to book him into the King County Jail. The man was released. Police said they were withholding his name as a crime victim — of the assault.
It will be up to the county prosecutor to determine whether the man will face charges. But Pugel said, "It could be considered justifiable homicide."
The shooting stunned Jim and Edith Welsh, tourists from Australia who'd just left the Nordstrom store across the street when police arrived. Peering across the police tape draped across Pine Street, Welsh hugged his wife. "I think we're going back to our hotel right now," he said.
Ok, great. It sounds cut and dry, but listen to this argument:
Seems like a fair report to me, and if the facts are as reported the shooter is almost certainly not guilty of any offence.
He has a permit so therefore I presume he was in lawfully possession of the firearm.
There was a verbal statement of intent - 'I'm going to kill you' - which appears to have been witnessed, as well as a history of previous erratic and threatening behaviour by the deceased towards others, and a sustained assault - punching and kicking the [shooter] until he fell to the ground. The spontaneous nature of the attack appears to preclude the best option - escape.
The ground is not where you want to be in a fight. So, up to this point, the use of appropriate force in self defence is, at least to me, clearly justified.
The rub is that the response should [under UK common law, which I presume given our shared history is similar to US law] be justifiable in terms of the level of assault the victim suffered - i.e. reasonable force.
So, is it justifiable to shoot someone who has given you a moderate beating [no mention of any serious injuries to the shooter]?
Ordinarily, to use a deadly weapon on an unarmed opponent in a fistfight - for example, you grab a knife and stab the assailant - you have a lot of explaining to do to show why you were then and there in fear of your life. It could be you are on your own, with no chance of assistance, and have taken a serious beating. It could be that your opponent is built like a brick outhouse wall and you make Peewee Herman look like Chuck Norris. But you would still need to produce a lot of justification to show that you did not unreasonably or excessively escalate the situation.
However, if you are lawfully carrying a gun, then shooting most probably is justified, because if you get beaten unconscious and the gun is taken off you, you could then be shot with your own weapon by the clearly violent assailant, as could any number of bystanders.
That is the issue that intrigues me most - if the gun was not present, would deadly force have been equally necessary?
Great, this is an argument I've not considered, and now I have even more reason to not approve of every idiot being able to have a gun. If you figure every third guy has a permit to carry a concealed handgun, what happens when the unexpected fight breaks out, and the bad guy gets ahold of that gun? Nothing good. And while you'd like to think that wouldn't happen very often, how often did we really expect there to be a lunatic to walk into a public school and just start arbitrarily killing people?
Not enough yet, it seems...
Comments
The only reason this is an interesting quesiton is because UK doesn't allow ownership of firearms - so there is NEVER a firearm involved.
The standard is reasonable force, but deadly force can be reasonable to protect yourself the someone else. If this freak is attacking you and yelling "I'm going to kill you" and it seems reasonable that he is going to try to do so, then fire away. Whether or not you have the gun doesn't matter. If he were attacking and "trying to kill him" and he happened to have a bat or a butter knife from lunch or an umbrella - they can all be used to kill someone - that doesn't change the situation and it doesn't change the fact you can use them to kill the idiot attacking you.
Just like a criminal - not to bring a gun to a gun fight.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2006 1:42 PM