Justifiable Shooting? — UPDATED
I was eating in a restaurant at a shopping center in suburban Memphis when this happened. I didn’t hear or see any of it happen, but was around when the cops showed up. On the surface, it sounds ok: person A charges person B, person B warns person A that he has a gun, person A keeps coming, person B shoots person A dead. If that were all there was to it, I’d say it’s pretty cut and dry.
But there are a few things that give me pause. For starters, person B (the shooter) had been drinking in a bar before the incident. Compounding that, according to people on the scene (some of whom I know), person B was told that person A was “messing with his car” (I’m paraphrasing), and person B went out there specifically to confront person A. So while person A was indeed trying to fight person B, it’s unclear who started the fight, and it’s also unclear as to whether person B was justified in being afraid for his life. From what I’ve been able to piece together (admittedly from very limited information), without the shooter’s gun, the chances of anyone ending up dead or even seriously injured as a result of the altercation were pretty close to zero. And in any case, if I’m afraid for my life, I don’t go initiate a confrontation.
The crowd at the bar, many of whom know and like person B, seemed to have mixed opinions about whether or not the shooting was justified. The whole thing is a mess, and it makes me just sick. I’m glad I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve even considered pulling a weapon on someone, and I hope I never am.
UPDATE: There are a lot more details here, and they demonstrate the dangerous nature of rumor and innuendo in such matters. It apppears that my person A above was the one who had been drinking in the bar. And the details about someone charging someone else don’t get any mention. Second-degree murder charges have now been filed against the shooter (H/T: commenter chris).
February 7th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
If person B was carrying, he shouldn’t have been drinking. Mind you, I don’t believe that should be a law, but it’s not exactly smart to risk impairing your senses while carrying (or driving for that matter) a dangerous weapon.
February 7th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Well, going off the limited data I have, if I see you messing with my car, I am going to confront you. The fact that I wasn’t afraid for my life at first doesn’t mean squat when you start to attack me later.
2) If this guy had been drinking, which assume multiple drinks, then that needs to be taken into consideration. If the situation wasn’t as bad as he made it out to be and the impairment from the alcohol clouded his judgment, then I’d say that makes him liable.
3) Remember, it’s not necessarily fear for your life, it’s also great bodily harm. The problem with that is a person’s size has nothing to do with their ability to hurt you. I’ve seen plenty of fights where the little guy who looks like he’d weigh 100 pounds holding a 200 pound anvil beat the ever loving shit out of a linebacker.
Sometimes that’s a tough call. Being trained by the Marines has taught me how to fight although that was decades ago. I’ve got 2 kids and a wife who couldn’t do very well with me in the hospital or out of work because I broke something, so my situation on what I would need to do to resolve the situation is different than others.
I would like to state for the record though that booze and any dangerous machinery does not mix. Cars, guns, or backhoes, if you’ve been drinking, your judgment isn’t going to be able to help you control those things safely. If he was not in enough control of his faculties, then he should be charged (and again, that’s not a clear line. Some people can drink a six pack and be more coherent that others who have half an O’Doul’s).
February 7th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
You wrote, “I’m glad I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve even considered pulling a weapon on someone, and I hope I never am.”
Having been in that situation a couple of times as a police officer, thank goodness I’m now retired, those moments are etched in your mind seemingly forever. They will come back to haunt you while you’re sleeping or at other times when least expected. Hope you never have to be in that situation, ever; but having read your articles for some time now, at least you understand the responsibilities that go along with citizenship.
February 7th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
From the article:
“Dallas Schwerin, who was with his father, said he saw the man reach into his vehicle, pull out a gun and shoot.”
That’s pretty important information. Shooter did not have his gun on him, he went into the car to get it. It’ll be an interesting case to follow I’m sure.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Not a lot of info on the circumstances, but I tend to lean away from the shooter at this point.
From what has been said so far, I just don’t see a threat there that would justify it. “so far” being the operative caveat.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
The day that I shoot someone over a stupid car that’s made by the millions ….
February 7th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
For the record, there are now many more details in the linked story than there were when I originally posted it, and those details don’t seem to favor the shooter. But this is not an easy situation.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
This is a tough one because it (for those of us in Utah) borders on “entering into mutual combat,” or in other words entering into the altercation, verbal, physical or otherwise, and then failing to retreat (withdraw from the encounter and effectively communicate to the other person your intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force) before using lethal force. Utah Code: 76-2-402
February 7th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
“I’m glad I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve even considered pulling a weapon on someone, and I hope I never am.”
Tom, I recall you posted a few years ago on a situation where someone was outside your house and you went outside with a rifle. Am I mis-remembering?
February 8th, 2009 at 12:02 am
“person B went out there specifically to confront person A”
Echoing Reese above: If that is true, person B was under no threat of lethal force, and therefore his use of lethal force is not justified.
He would have been better off taking photos with somebody’s cellphone and calling the cops about a crime against property.
February 8th, 2009 at 1:34 am
My gut says this was a bad shoot. The part where shooter reaches into his car to get the gun and then blasts the guy doesn’t show fear of death or grievous bodily harm to me. It’s rough to monday morning quarterback something like this, but at the same time something about the shoot doesn’t feel right in my gut.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
This is yet another situation where people who ought to know better trip all over themselves to find fault with the shooter, based on nothing but news reports.
Seriously folks, we all know how crappy reporters are about getting basic facts right, especially where firearms are involved. In addition, we all know that the great majority of reporters, even when they have basic facts right, slant their reporting of those facts against ordinary citizens who own firearms.
February 8th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Les:
A few years ago I did go outside with my pistol (as a precaution) but didn’t actually draw it on anyone.
mariner:
This isn’t just about what reporters say, though. I was there myself, and although I didn’t personally witness anything, I talked to several people on the scene.
February 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
It will be quite interesting to see how this plays out legally.
I went to school with the victim 35 years ago, and he was very well-liked.
The lesson to be learned, though, is that little good comes from confrontations over trivial matters.
Both of these people should have walked away.
I have had people behave in a threatening manner to me in the road rage context, which is odd because I am an average-speed driver who lets people in in traffic and doesn’t view picking up car keys as an exercise in Darwinism.
Although I always keep my gun handy in the vehicle, I just kept going and let it ride.
There is simply no sense in getting into a fist-fight over a car.
Please keep us posted on this, tgirsch.
February 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Not enough definite information to make an educated conclusion. I’m going to pass until I hear all the facts.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I don’t think any more details have been presented. It all depends on the continuum of force. If Person A is seen by B suspiciously by his vehicle, B has the right to go investigate. If Person A then threatens B with physical harm, B has every right to defend himself. Regarding the alcohol situation, if I think I won’t have the ability to operate a motor vehicle, I concurrently believe the same with a firearm. That being said, I will still drive to and from if I’m just meeting friends for a few drinks.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Sorry, but I just can’t imagine a creditable threat to life and limb if the shooter had the time and ability to reach into his car for a gun. That’s a whole lot of time and back turning to the alleged threat. Just doesn’t feel right.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Many more details are required to make any sensible judgements regarding this shooting. An old judicial saying: bad cases make bad law, comes to mind. This may be an event in which both sides have some blame, or it may be that one or the other person was acting correctly, or it could be that this was a senseless act of violence by the shooter.
That a Hummer were involved makes me wonder if at leasty one party in this altercation was an idiot, though that may be just my vehicular sensibilities prejudicing my judgement.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:10 am
charges have been filed for 2nd degree murder…
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/08/8shootingweb/
February 9th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
The details in this specific case are unclear, but I strongly disagree with the principles being laid out in the comments.
There has to be some right to protect one’s property. The police have no duty to protect me or my stuff. Going out to your car to keep it from being damaged or stolen is (or should be) legally different from going out looking for a fight.
If somebody is vandalizing my car, I have no recourse at all? Take pictures and follow-up in court is an unreasonable burden, a fundamental violation of property rights and personal responsibility.
Can a person’s right to bear arms be infringed by the apprehension of danger? Really? I’m allowed to go argue with a vandal, as long as I don’t have a gun? I’m allowed to carry a weapon, as long as no vandals are around?
February 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
from the update:
“I don’t understand what first or second-degree is. He just shot the man. My son-in-law didn’t have a gun or anything,” William Rentrop said.
1st Degree: Premeditated, with planning/forethought.
2nd Degree: spur-of-the-moment, crime-of-passion (not premeditated)
Up to the DA and the jury, may justice prevail.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
There has to be some right to protect one’s property. The police have no duty to protect me or my stuff. Going out to your car to keep it from being damaged or stolen is (or should be) legally different from going out looking for a fight.
I actually agree with straightarrow on this one. He had the time to go to his car to get the gun, then he had the opportunity to back down from the confrontation. In most states you have a right to use physical force to protect property, but not deadly force.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Dustydog,
You can very well argue with vandal if armed, and you can go armed if there is a vandal. But if some guy tells you to back away from his car, you don’t have the right to shoot him.
Comon sense people. Comon sense. There are people at my office I don’t like, that doesn’t mean I go up to them and punch them in the throat.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
For most red states, the proper process would have been to arm yourself, and then physically prevent the theft or vandalism with non-deadly force.
If the thief or vandal escalates by attacking you, your options change.
I would need to know if A was shot out of the blue up for approaching B … or if B had armed himself, demanded A back off, and then shot A when he didn’t comply.
The latter might be justified as needed by B to retain control of his firearm.