SF Reservist arrested in AZ

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by stone

I'm not trying to be PC-- I just think we're a nation of laws; it's what seperates us from the riff-raff, and we need to keep an eye on that.

Well put, stone.

[jatx]

I can see how this individual might have felt intimidated by the group's approach, but I see no indication (and he has not expressed one) that his life was in immediate danger. If even one of the men had been brandishing so much as a stick, the answer would be different. Absent a real threat, though, he would not have been justified in using the weapon against the men. The issue of the dog is a red herring - you are not justified in using deadly force against a human being to protect a pet, tempting though it might be. And if he wasn't justified in using the weapon, he shouldn't have drawn it and and used the threat of force to detain the group. We NEVER pull guns to scare people, we do it is a last resort.

What else could he have done? I've read nothing to suggest that he attempted to put distance between himself and the men. That would have been my first response. Even assuming that his movement was blocked for some reason, did he need to escalate directly to aiming the weapon? No, he could have drawn and held at low ready, continued with his verbal commands and efforts to maximize distance, then escalated if the threat became more immediate. Ideally, the men would have gone on their merry way and he would have dialed 911, leaving law enforcement to the pros.

I do not want to see this guy crucified, and worry that he is likely to become a victim of politics, but he was not using his head.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by jatx

...but I see no indication (and he has not expressed one) that his life was in immediate danger.

If you don't consider 6 adult males rushing toward you, armed or not, as a potential threat to your life, you a much badder man than I am. Have you ever seen what one unarmed man can do to another?

And if he wasn't justified in using the weapon, he shouldn't have drawn it and and used the threat of force to detain the group. We NEVER pull guns to scare people, we do it is a last resort.

...did he need to escalate directly to aiming the weapon? No, he could have drawn and held at low ready, continued with his verbal commands and efforts to maximize distance, then escalated if the threat became more immediate.

Huh? First you say brandishing is bad, then you talk about maintaining low ready and issuing verbal commands. Even at 'low ready' the weapon is out of the holster and ready for use. Have you seen how quickly someone can transition from 'low ready' to the ability to fire? If the weapon is in your hand, you're brandishing, so you might as well be ready to use it immediately rather than depend on it as a mere visual aid during negotiations.

Ideally, the men would have gone on their merry way and he would have dialed 911, leaving law enforcement to the pros.

So, its much better to allow these guys to move along and possibly injure and kill someone else (running with the illegal, possibly terrorist, scenario here) than to get involved, huh? You're safe and sound; too bad for everybody else. Those passengers in the hijacked airliner (Flight 93?) heading towards D.C. on 9/11/2001 should not have become involved with trying to detain the hijackers, as they could not have been 100% sure that their lives were in danger either, right?

Were any of the men detained injured? Other than being delayed in their travels, what long-term harm did they endure by this detainment? If legitimate law enforcement erroneously detains (or even incapacitates) a citizen, should they be charged with a crime as well?

Whatever happened to the concept of "better safe than sorry"?

[jatx]

Originally Posted by Razor

If you don't consider 6 adult males rushing toward you, armed or not, as a potential threat to your life, you a much badder man than I am. Have you ever seen what one unarmed man can do to another?

I am no badass and would not claim that I am. I am a normal guy by most measures. But the issue isn't whether the six men were a potential threat, it's whether they were an imminent threat. None of the news reports have indicated that they threatened him or brandished weapons of any sort, only that they moved toward him as a group on the way to a vehicle two cars down from his. No imminent threat of mortal injury = deadly force not justified.

Originally Posted by Razor

Huh? First you say brandishing is bad, then you talk about maintaining low ready and issuing verbal commands. Even at 'low ready' the weapon is out of the holster and ready for use. Have you seen how quickly someone can transition from 'low ready' to the ability to fire? If the weapon is in your hand, you're brandishing, so you might as well be ready to use it immediately rather than depend on it as a mere visual aid during negotiations.

I suggested that he first put distance between himself and the men. If, while doing that, they did in fact continue after him and not on the way to their own vehicle, he would be justified in fearing for his safety and could begin to escalate.

Originally Posted by Razor

So, its much better to allow these guys to move along and possibly injure and kill someone else (running with the illegal, possibly terrorist, scenario here) than to get involved, huh? You're safe and sound; too bad for everybody else.

Don't twist my statement. As civilians, we carry weapons to protect our lives and those of others from legitimate, imminent threats. We do not carry them in order that we may enforce the law, and we do not carry them in order to diffuse "potential threats".

Originally Posted by Razor

Those passengers in the hijacked airliner (Flight 93?) heading towards D.C. on 9/11/2001 should not have become involved with trying to detain the hijackers, as they could not have been 100% sure that their lives were in danger either, right?

This is an appeal to emotion, not a logical argument. Passengers on a hijacked airliner are certainly justified in believing that they are in mortal danger. The history of hijackings ending with violence confirms this. Therefore, they may take steps to subdue their assailants and protect themsleves.

Originally Posted by Razor

Were any of the men detained injured? Other than being delayed in their travels, what long-term harm did they endure by this detainment? If legitimate law enforcement erroneously detains (or even incapacitates) a citizen, should they be charged with a crime as well?

The law does not require that youinjure someone in order to fall under the definition of assault. My copy of Black's defines assault as:

"Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability to do so, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking, or doing bodily harm, to the person of another."

1. Did he threaten the men with injury? Yes, he held them at gunpoint on the ground.

2. Did he display the means to inflict injury? Yes, he drew the gun in circumstances where the use of deadly force in self defense would not have been justified.

3. Was the display intentional? Yes, he pursued some of the individuals after they were already in their own vehicle and forced them to get facedown on the ground at gunpoint.

Absent the conditions necessary to characterize the situation as one of justifiable self-defense, the men were assaulted. There is clearly a fine line here, and using force judiciously in self-defense requires you to be nimble both mentally and physically, but the decision to carry is the decision to play by the rules.

Originally Posted by Razor

Whatever happened to the concept of "better safe than sorry"?

Civilians are occasionally justified in legally detaining others, i.e. "citizen's arrest". These cases are usually limited to situations where:

1. A felony or misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace is committed or attempted in your presence.

2. A felony has been committed and you have reason to believe that the person arrested committed it, whether or not it was in your presence.

Obviously, this individual witnessed no crime and had no reason to believe that a felony had occured. He was not within his rights and, while I do not want to see him thrown in the clink, he isn't exactly a poster boy for responsible carry, either.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by stone

Still though, I think you have to be really careful with vigilanteism-- it's a slippery slope. While I might trust someone like yourself (or other members of this board) with detaining people, there are alot of ying-yangs out there who have no business carrying firearms let alone detaining people.

Do you think it is a slippery slope for individuals to categorize others as "ying-yangs out there who have no business carrying firearms"?

People I think are ying-yangs and should not have a gun may not be the same people you think should not carry. Whose opinion should prevail?

Individuals (elected and appointed) imposing their beliefs on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is how we got into the position of having to fight for the that right today.

TR

[Razor]

Ok, fair enough, jtax. How far do you allow the situation to escalate before you decide a threat is imminent and not potential? Do all the players agree to a time out, at which point each announces their intention to either kill or injure each other? In the SGT's statement, he used the term 'rushing' to describe the movement of the group towards him, and stated that they came to within 10 feet of his person. Even if they weren't displaying weapons (assuming that they weren't hiding any), could 6 men without weapons not easily kill or severely injure another man?

Bottom line is that we have the advantage of hindsight. Even in a fairly safe city such as where I live, I take precautions in certain areas due to a higher threat potential as I perceive it, based on historical crime data and not 'everyone is a good guy until they prove otherwise' pipedreams. If I feel sufficiently threatened, I will take those steps I feel necessary to protect myself and my family from harm. How many lines in the sand will you let someone cross before you protect yourself. Will you be proactive, or reactive (hopefully, with enough time and space to react effectively)? I suppose this boils down to a mindset issue; some of us are more offensively-minded than others. Being stuck in a primarily defensive mode might be adventageous in a courtroom, but I'd rather be wrong and breathing than, than wrong and room temperature.

Passengers on a hijacked airliner are certainly justified in believing that they are in mortal danger. The history of hijackings ending with violence confirms this. Therefore, they may take steps to subdue their assailants and protect themsleves.

Really? What was the percentage of hijackings that ended with passengers killed at the hands of the hijackers from 1970 to present? Is even a 1% occurance sufficient in your mind to justify taking offensive action, due to 'history'? If so, how often have people been attacked by a group of men rushing at them and severely injured/killed? I'd guess significantly more often than hijackers killing hostages on hijacked airplanes.

Again, we all have to do what we feel most comfortable doing. Myself? I'll err on the side of my survival and deal with the repercussions.

[jatx]

We may be visualizing the scenario differently, Razor, and I agree that we are doing so with the benefit of hindsight. I am interpreting the accounts as saying that the men were rushing towards him on their way to a car two spots down, you are interpreting it as meaning that they were moving toward him, but not their own car. That's why I'm not calling for the guy to be punished from the safety of my office, I just don't know.

In terms of "lines in the sand", the simple answer is that I will continue to draw such lines and seek to create distance until I have no other choice but to employ deadly force. That includes sprinting in the other direction like my hair is on fire, pride be damned. If all else fails and the situation warrants it, I will shoot and keep shooting until the threat is gone.

[Razor]

No worries. We each have to decide on our personal comfort level in the self-defense measures we're willing to adopt. I understand the rationale upon which you've based your comments here, as its a common mindset that's trained by many throughout the country. Do what works best for you.

[jatx]

You make a good point about mindset and training. Mine is very specific to a defensive civilian application, i.e. staying alive and out of jail. This soldier has probably been living with different rules of engagement while deployed.

BTW, I envy Arizona's open carry law. Must be nice when it gets hot out.

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

In Arizona, Phoenix to be exact, a car full of illegals can drive through this city, speeding all the way and, if and when they are stopped, unless they are engaged in reckless driving with their speeding they are let go.

No drivers license, no insurance, no registration, not a legal citizen, not a problem here in Phoenix. The system is so over burdened unless there are over twenty illegals the Phoenix PD will just let them go.

Not only in Arizona....
I saw first hand one illegal with expired Florida DL (wonder how he got it...) that made it to the court room in Savannah, GA from driving violation. The judge "had" to let him go, and yes, thanks to the over burdened system. The cops couldn't help but smile...

This problem may be more wide spread than we are aware of

[JGarcia]

This absolutely makes me feel sick to my stomach thinking that this and worse actually happens these days. I think perhaps my idea of the United States, and being an American is a thing of the past. Anyone who does the right thing in regard to illegal immigration is a 'racist' 'gun toting ying yang' and so on.

I have no faith that our government, our people will fix this problem. It is the way people want it to be. Don't they see that illegal immigration is a factor in the growing expanse between rich and poor? These illegals benefit companies who hire them, the profit margin increases, the operation cost decreases, the money the illegals make goes back to their families in Mexico or Central America, not into the US. Hospitals in California close, because they cannot afford to stay in business. The drop out rate of high school students in the San Francisco bay area is over 50% in some districts. And our country's heroes are jailed for doing the right thing.

If we wanted to stop the flow across the borders tomorrow we could. If we wanted to envoke emergency powers a nation at war sometimes does, we could have most illegals gathered and sent home in a few months. We could pay for the cost from the sale of businesses and business owners property. All of it seized and sold right down to the kitchen knives.

Bush I feel has sold us out on this issue. Our government will consistently do what is best for the short term profit. I feel deeply saddend by the way things are.

What will be done? We'll give them amnesty, until eventually there is no border because 'we' will have voted it away. The rest of us are like tall green weeds in a healthy lawn, and some day may be 'cut down' just as this poor fellow in Arizona is now. I am anxious to hear how I am completely wrong, seeing the glass half empty, etc. Tell me how there will be a good ending to this story. Tell me things like the declaration of independence, and the constitution, are still sacred, that we still have the dream Thomas Jefferson expressed with divine inspiration so many years ago.

[jasonglh]

"I believe I'm a victim," said Haab, who spent 11 months in Iraq but declined to discuss his duty or location there, except to say that he takes medication for combat stress and lost a close friend in a roadside bombing overseas.

Well theres a good backup defense.


I would hate to think he would end up as a guest in tent city.


In regards to feeling let down by the govt on this issue. I think the 2 parties in power have the public dumbed down to the fact that neither is interested in change of the status quo. I suppose the public is too concerned with all the red vs blue state crap.

[stone]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Do you think it is a slippery slope for individuals to categorize others as "ying-yangs out there who have no business carrying firearms"?

People I think are ying-yangs and should not have a gun may not be the same people you think should not carry. Whose opinion should prevail?

Individuals (elected and appointed) imposing their beliefs on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is how we got into the position of having to fight for the that right today.

TR

Reaper:

I support (100%) the right of every American, ying-yang or not, to own a firearm. I did not intend to suggest otherwise. Of course that's not to say that, personally/privately, I don't wish that said irresponsible ying-yangs didn't own firearms.... just like I believe there more than a few people who probably shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.... but I certainly don't want to impose my personal opinions on what is inherently someone elses right.

At the same time, I would have a real problem with an unauthorized idividual attempting to detain me at gunpoint whilst on U.S. soil. I know that's a bit off-topic but that's the slope I was alluding to-- i.e. law enforcement should be left to professionals-- excluding rare circumstances like plane hijackings etc.

Respectfully

stone

[Dan]

Was listening to AM radio this afternoon and heard Sean Hannity interviewing the Sheriff from Arizona, that made pink underwear, prison stripes, and bologna sandwiches famous. The Sheriff commented on some info about the 9-11 call...it's obvious from the call that this guy was wrong. The Sheriff also made it known that this guy tried out for his department as a deputy last year, but wouldn't say why they didn't hire him.

[stone]

Quick note regarding ying-yangs-- I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm some liberal sob-sister that thinks everyone with a firearm is a goofball-- because NOTHING could be further from the truth. I just meant one needs to be careful with vigilanteism. Anyway, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse now!