Ammoland
There is a joke that goes around the gun culture. After a defensive shooting, an attorney asks the person who was defending themselves “Why did you shoot him six times?” The stock punch line is: “Because I ran out of ammunition.”
The best humor has a lot of truth in it. In the highly charged atmosphere of a life and death defensive shooting, few people are able to count their shots. It is extremely common for people to empty their guns while attempting to stop a threat.
There is a phenomena that commonly occurs in life and death situations called tachypsychia. You perceive that time slows down, even though things are happening very fast.
An expert can empty a fully loaded .45 in less than a second. A person who is hit in the chest, even with a shot that hits the heart, can easily have 10-20 seconds of active life, just on adrenaline and the oxygen that is already in the blood supply. Hunters of big game, such as deer can easily understand this. It is common for a deer shot through the heart to run a hundred yards before they fall over. I have seen this phenomena many times.
It is common for people to be hit multiple times, very fast, before they fall down. They may be dead with the first shot; but they do not know it yet. It is easy for a person to empty their gun before their assailant drops. I doubt that Ann Baskervill has spent much time considering the finer points of the dynamics of defensive use of firearms. I say this with some confidence because of her recent statements.
From progress-index.com:
Ann Baskervill, the Dinwiddie County commonwealth’s attorney, said 18-year-old James Faison fired eight rounds at his father with a .45-caliber handgun, with six shots hitting the victim.
“He emptied the gun, the only reason he stopped shooting is because it didn’t have anymore ammo,” Baskervill said.
It is for this reason that she has charged Faison with first-degree murder, which could land the young man in prison for the rest of his life plus three years.The case is in process. The father, Irvine Faison, was a big man, 6’4″ and 250 lbs. He had a history of domestic violence charges, and was once sentenced to 11 months in jail, of which he served one month before being released on parole. Irvine Faison’s brother Michael Baumgras made this claim:
“It was senseless, that’s it overall,” Baumgras said. “If you were going to try and claim self-defense or something, why did you have to unload the clip in him? You could’ve just shot one time and that would have been enough.”
The concern with James Faison emptying the gun on his father is exactly why the Dinwiddie Sheriff’s Office and Dinwiddie Commonwealth’s Attorney office are pursuing first-degree murder charge.
If the shooting is justified at all, the number of rounds doesn't matter unless for instance there is some evidence showing he fired after the attacker is no longer a threat, such as after he's on the ground.
ReplyDeleteI doubt/hope this doesn't go anywhere considering the many examples of assailants still being a danger after multiple hits with a pistol. It also seems to be acceptable to empty your magazine if you're say an NYPD officer. Though this young man seems to have better skills, 6 hits in eight shots, good shooting.
This speaks to a truism you may have heard before, Mikeb--incidents of the necessity of more than one gunshot wound to stop the aggressor's life-threatening behavior happen all the time. In self-defense, it's not necessary--or even useful--for the aggressor to die It's only necessary that whatever he or she was doing that warranted a lethal force response in the first place stop right the hell now. It's not good enough that the goblin dies 20 seconds after being shot, but kills the person who tried to defend herself/himself in the meantime. That's why self-defense courses and police training universally teach to keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. Sometimes that takes more than 11 rounds.
ReplyDeleteYou're all over the place, Kurt. "the necessity of more than one gunshot wound to stop the aggressor's life-threatening behavior happen all the time."
Deleteand
"until the threat is neutralized. Sometimes that takes more than 11 rounds."
The first statement is patently false, which I adequately pointed out before. The other may be technically true, but extremely, extremely rare.
If the threat is neutralized the first shot, how would you know if you just keep shooting? You have a right to defend yourself and end the threat, that's not the same as making sure the person is dead. What citizens are asking about in these questionable police shootings, is did the cop have to use lethal force? The intent is supposed to be ending a threat and arresting the criminal, not killing the criminal unless absolutely necessary. And there does seem to be reasonable questions about police actions.
ReplyDeleteIf the threat is neutralized [with] the first shot, how would you know if you just keep shooting?
DeleteAnd if it's not neutralized with the first shot, you'll know when your assailant continues his/her assault, possibly ending in your death or great bodily harm. That's a gamble no one can be legitimately required to take. The onus is on the assailant to make obvious that his/her violent intentions are over.
"If the threat is neutralized the first shot, how would you know if you just keep shooting?"
DeleteNeutralized means no longer a threat, such as falling to the ground, running away, etc. If the assailant is still advancing towards you, they aren't neutralized.
An example of shooting after the threat is over was when Byron Smith shot two burglars and then after dragging them onto a tarp, and then putting a bullet into each head. He was rightfully convicted of 1st degree murder.
So far, we haven't heard of any justification for these charges beyond the number of shots. Perhaps something will come out later.
"If the threat is neutralized the first shot"
DeleteThat's what I said guys, then you jump all over me like I said something different. Gun loons sure are trigger happy (pun intended).
Yeah, you same guys who keep talking about "neutralizing the threat,"also justify every case I present in which the defensive shooter fires at a fleeing bad guy.
Delete"also justify every case I present in which the defensive shooter fires at a fleeing bad guy."
DeleteMike, we really don't know all of the information here. If there is other information to justify the charge, then fine. However, any competent defense attorney will make the number of shots thing look silly. They have but to bring up numerous police footage showing instances where multiple shots were needed because the assailant was still a threat.
As I said earlier, if there is some evidence that he continued after he was no longer a threat, then he rates the charge. If not, then not.
They have but to bring up numerous police footage showing instances where multiple shots were needed because the assailant was still a threat.
DeleteThank you, SSG. In case you missed it, Mikeb, that supports my "happens all the time" truism.
No doubt there is a valid difference of opinion when a threat is neutralized, but are we still talking a deadly threat? Just because a guy can still get to his feet doesn't mean he is still a deadly threat, especially when there are numerous cops surrounding one person.
DeleteRight SS, what about a naked drunk? Did he have to be shot even though there were multiple cops right there to help subdue him? Your kill happy tendencies are showing.
DeleteEvery use of deadly force is looked at one at a time. Perhaps if you want to discuss another event Mike will let you post something. I wasn't seeing anything in this event where police shot any naked person. This is one guy being attacked by one bigger guy.
DeleteAnd let's not forget, the burden of proof is. On the prosecution.
"police footage showing instances where multiple shots were needed"
DeleteThat's one thing. Emptying the gun is another.
"Thank you, SSG. In case you missed it, Mikeb, that supports my "happens all the time" truism."
DeleteKurt, it does nothing of the kind. You should be embarrassed to use a gross exaggeration like "happens all the time" when you so often hit me with a gotcha comment for similar things. When it's convenient, you insist on exact literalism. When convenient, you don't. That's hypocrisy.
In the NYPD mall shooting both officers emptied their pistols. In this case it sounds like he was using a .45 colt pistol that sports an eight round magazine. He hit six of 8 shots. (Better than the mall event.). So he fired fewer shots and hit more. It doesn't really take long to shoot eight controlled shots.
DeleteYou're wrong, Mikeb.
Delete"Perhaps if you want to discuss another event Mike will let you post something."
Delete??? SS, was that for Sammy?
You bought up two different events to use as examples in this thread alone. Sure each event has to be decided on its own, but surely there are guidelines for police on when and how deadly force can be used. In this case isn't an aggravated charge acceptable? If a person knifes someone 39 times as compared to just once, isn't there an aggravated charge?
Your right Peter, I was addressing Sammy. My apologies for not being specific. You are correct in that the event is looked at as a whole and judged on its reaonablness. What I'm saying is that it's not unusual to need multiple hits from a handgun to stop a threat. And those shots can be fired quickly enough to be considered a single engagement, as opposed to stabbing someone 39 times.
DeleteWe will likely have to wait a while to get more details since the prosecutor isn't sharing much at present.
"And those shots can be fired quickly enough to be considered a single engagement as opposed to stabbing someone 39 times.
DeleteI would disagree. I think every shot, no matter how quickly between each other, is another decision (event) by the shooter. I don't accept that the shooter can't think between each shot. And if I accept that definition on your part, then why not include 39 stabbings as the same event? You are saying each stabbing is an individual event (I would suggest an event like 39 stabbings is done in a frenzy by a person not able to think between stabbings) but each bullet shot is not.
"And those shots can be fired quickly enough to be considered a single engagement as opposed to stabbing someone 39 times. "
DeleteMy apologies Peter, looking back at my comment, I can see I didn't word it very well. Let me try again.
You are correct in that every shot or in the example knife thrust is a separated event and the person delivering it has to answer legally for each is as evidenced by what you see when you look at the listing of charges. For example, if we were to see the charging document for this event, we would likely see eight counts of aggravated assault, one for each round fired. And depending on where the hit occurred, extra counts for attempted murder, etc.
The medical examiner, with their various techniques, figures out if possible the order of each, and how everyone was positioned when it happens. And the prosecution for each count is considered separately by the jury during the trial. Depending on the requirements of the local law, the prosecutor usually needs to prove some sort of premeditation or planning for First Degree Murder.
The defense attorney then has to defend his client for every count. In this case, the defense is likely to be justifiable use of force by self defense. So if the evidence for instance shows that all of the rounds were fired in a short space of time, with the only changes being for instance an advancing attacker, then the argument can be made that all shots were fired during a credible threat.
If, on the other hand, the evidence shows that after three hits, the person was, say laying on the ground, he can be acquitted charges for the first three rounds, but still must answer for the remaining counts. And, as came out in an event that happened up my way, this can be used to justify the first degree murder charge.
It works that way, be it with a gun, knife, or bare hands. I wrote it badly because while every shot is a separate event and is presumed to be under the control of the person with the weapon, I tend to think in terms of dealing with the threat. Both in the military and civilian world, you engage until the threat has stopped. Since eight shots can be fired in a short enough time that they might all be fired before there is any indication to the person shooting that the threat has ended, selling the first degree murder charge to a jury might be a challenge if it's based solely on the number of shots fired.