Recent killing with 9mm Glock using hydroshocks
 

There have been several fatal shootings in the papers and on the TV news recently (vid. the mass shooting at the beer distributors warehouse) but the one that has seemed to generate the most public anger is about the guy who went to a dog park and used his 9mm Glock loaded with hydroshock bullets in a fatal shooting.

Apparently he was off duty (federal cop of some sort) and felt his life and the life of his wife was in danger. However, there appear to be no credible eye witnesses (that have come forth). There is some question if he was legally allowed to carry in MD.

On a number of forum discussions, I've noted that people discuss scenarios in which they might or might not use deadly force. I doubt that this scenario has been discussed often in the past.

If you think that drawing your weapon, or firing your weapon, or killing something with your weapon is going to result in an open and shut case, this event suggests that you may be underestimating the public response to the use of deadly force.

Check out the links and then post your comments...

Police question if carry was legal
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...olice-question

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...,5935972.story

Police report
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/feat...ice_repor.html

Hydroshock killing bullet
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/feat...ll_bearbe.html

Editorial asking for investigation
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,5950094.story

Story on Facebook and thousands sign petition
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/feat...cebook_pa.html

Remember - if you ever go to trial - the author, those making comments and/or those who "think like" those making comments might be on your jury.

When it comes to their pets common sense go out the window. Last summer I had my dog and my 3 year old at a dog park. Someone's dog got very aggressive with my daughter. I smacked it with one of those ball throwing sticks and kicked it once. Someone called the cops on me and the general consists was it was my fault for bringing a kid with me. It certainly wasn't the dogs fault or owners fault for not being able to verbally control her dog.

The issue in this case is the questionable nature of the shooting, the bullet is ancilliary. That the bullet became a issue is more representative of the mentallity of the population which will compose the jury pool (and write the editorials).

Follow this plan:

1- Know the laws of justified use of force.
2- Know how to shoot.
3- Know the attitude of law enforcement regarding concealed carry and non-LE us of force.
4- Know the attitude of the prosecutor regarding the same.
5- Know the attitude of the population which will contribute to a jury pool regardin the same.

Before a shooting "truly" gives the LE, DA, Jury (or editorial writers) traction on an issue like bullet (trigger, caliber, magazine subscriptions, training attended) the shooter has to give them a questionable shooting. Questionable shootings start with not knowing the law and flow into not being able to shoot.

Cover those two bases first. Invest a little energy in worries over the small stuff after investing a lot of energy over the things that really matter.

You are soooo right.

Means.
Opportunity.
Intent.

A dog possesses the means to cause great bodily harm or death inheritantly. If it's anywhere close to a person (let alone a child) it has the opportunity to cause great bodily harm. Now all that is required is communication of intent... barred teeth, hackles, lowered head, any sign of aggression.

Trifecta.

So, dear dog owners. Control your animals.

I will treat an animal (of any species) the same. Muffy isn't special.

Second thought:

We herar the same excuses out of dog owners as we do out of the parents of criminals... "my son/dog wouldn't hurt anyone..." the reality that the boy/bowser was threatening a person's life be damned. Denial is always a sad thing.

Exactly. While some tend to downplay these types of issues they have the potential to color a case to a significant degree. Thus the recommendation of experts in the field to stay within certain recognized and/or accepted norms of equipment. It's not that it will make or break a case by itself but it can certainly play a part. No need to give the other side any more ammunition (pun intended) to use against us. Lots of folks end up spending a lot to defend themselves for what they thought was a good legal shooting.

I read today that the average cost of defending a justified shooting prosecution was $40,000. Of cours, that doesn't include any of the costs that might be experienced in a civil action for damages.

The lawyer who taught my CCW class confirmed that number. I think he might have said 50, but you get the point. He has defended a few people in shootings.

How can this be! Why, we've been told right here on GT (by folks who are not lawyers, or in LE, and who have not ever testified in court in gun cases) that if the shooting is justified that there is nothing to worry about, and only questionable shootings end up in court! BTW, we're a bit cheaper, but I tend to agree in principal. I tell my students they should plan that even a good shoot is going to cost them $20,000, and that is assuming most everything going your way.

This is why I carry a well into 7 digits Umbrella Policy attached to my homeowners policy for my family. It also comes with a "Loser Pays" declaration for the other folks. You sue, you lose, we come after you for all of the costs. Go talk to your insurance person about one of these.

I think this serves as a reminder to have a less-than-lethal option with you so that you're not put in this situation unless absolutely necessary. A blast of pepper spray (even if you get both dogs) gives you a chance to resolve it without killing one or both animals, an innocent bystander, etc...not to mention jail, courts, bankruptcy, whatever.

Boy! Is THAT a good point. Drawing your weapon should be the last choice not the first one!! A MEASURED response is called for.

Steve and Dave make excellent points. That's why the good shoot statement is just an Internet cliche. The poopy hits the fan when the shoot is at least ambiguous as with Bear-Bear.

It's well known now that, weapons apperance and presentation factors influence juries. That's why I got invited twice to talk about it at the Polite Society, write it up for a law journal and now for an upcoming social science gun encyclopedia.

The issue is decided, IMHO. Your lawyer, if you get into this, must be aware of this literature. You can also minimize risk by reasonable choices and behavior beforehand.

As for hydrashoks - that's a legit round. The defendant should be able to muster expert opinion as to its use by law enforcement and the safety aspect of not penetrating. But that will cost you $$.

One has to worry a touch about opening fire to save a dog - given all the risks of shooting in a public place. Is it worth it?

I once was driving down the street and saw a dad with his infant in one of those collapsable sling like strollers. He was also walking his little pooch. A big dog ran up and started being aggressive to the little dog. Dad was tangle up in the stroller and leash. Now, I decide to help (saving a baby makes it for my moral compass of being a good witness). Kid doesn't need to land on its head on the concrete. But I'm not opening fire into a tangle of dogs, baby, dad's lower body. However, Dad hauls back and boots the bad pooch with one that would have won the Buffalo Bills the Superbowl (still mad about that - my team). Fido flees it terror. I drive away.

OC is a good option too!

It shouldn't cost him anything. If he is a cop and acting properly (protection of life) then his agency should cover him for doing his job. It's only when you act outside of the law and training that you have to worry about going it alone.

I wish it were that simple. Sadly, there are many instances of departments doing their best to disassociate themselves from officers given the slightest of grounds as a means of removing themselves from the potential of loss. There is often a distinct incentive for an agency to argue that the officer was outside the law, outside of policy, outside of training, etc.

Agreed!

Appreciate you wading in, Glenn. I respectfully disagree that the good shooting statement is an internet cliche'. There are far too many concrete examples of clearly good-shootings which go just as we hope they will.

You live around these parts and you should recall all the clearly justified shootings. The woman who shot the professional boxer she found in her bedroom one night (the one released from DOC for rape just months before). The man who shot the burglar in his home. The car dealership owner who shot the miscreants vandalizing cars one night.

Just this weekend a man shot at a would-be car-jacker in the parking lot of Academy at Loop 410 near Vance-Jackson. A clearly justified shooting. No charges expected. Predictably, the ammo shot, the trigger weight used, the model carried aren't an issue.

When one knows the law and looks at the situation the shootings were clearly justified.

A guy pointed a gun at another man and demanded the keys to the car. If these facts remain true, those incidental issues won't ever matter.

You are absolutely right, when the situations get ambiguous, the poopy is more likely to hit the fan. This is why I suggest (nay- I strongly suggest) that one should invest tremendous abouts of energy (80%) in knowing when to shoot. Know the law. Most of the remaining energy on being able to shoot (19%). Then invest the remaining 1% in all the other concerns.

I maintain that the investment of the first 99% of one's "how to stay out of prison if I have to shoot someone" energy pays off more than 99%. If the things one worries about with that last 1% become an issue- it's because you screwed the pooch on the first 99%. I believe the overwhelming evidence supports this. When ammo, gun schools, trigger weight, weapon design, whatever, becomes an issue I can show you a clearly questionable shooting, not a clearly justified shooting.

The pattern repeats itself over and over. When the shooting is questionable, game on! All things are on the table. But when the shooting is clearly justified, the shooters (and their choices on ammo, model, trigger) are left alone.

This. It carries little risk for tremedous reward.

Equally important, or perhaps more important, is that one cannot know if it is a good shooting or not until a third party rules on the issue. You might think it is perfectly clear that it was a good shoot, and well within the law. But someone else can just as easily disagree with you. Throw in things like an ambitious D.A., or a particularly sympathetic victim, and a clearly good shoot suddenly becomes a courtroom drama. I'd bet that a whole lot of defendants made the decision to shoot thinking they were well within the law and the shooting was good and were quite surprised that not everyone agreed with them.

Hi Steve - back from vacation. My comment on the cliche wasn't that there were NO good shoots but the throw away line that one shouldn't worry about XYZ because if it was a good shoot then you don't have to worry about XYZ. We are all talking about if you don't go down the good shoot branch and the shoot is troublesome, then the XYZ might come into play.

About the young lady who shot the boxer - that's one of my favorite examples for antigun folks. What would you do? But that's another cliche story - she shot him with a 45 ACP and he didn't die or fly out the window!!

However, it was a Glock 21 IIRC. If she used a 1911 - then he would have flown out the window and died.

We are all pretty close in agreement here.

Gotcha. I don't think I ever said not to worry about XYZ, instead worry more about ABC first and foremost. Keep it down the good shoot branch. It's under your control. Thanks.

On Duty issues: After one shooting situation I was involved in on the job (patrolman), the city attorney told me I was going to have to hire and pay for my own attorney. I politely explained that the suit was really against the city not me since I didn't have any meaningful assets, and that if the city wasn't going represent me I was going to testify for the other side.

The city kindly changed its mind and represented me.

Officer Charged in shooting

The LEO who shot the dog has been charged with 2 misdemeanors - discharging a weapon and animal cruelty.
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/new...Bear-Bear.html

This seems to suggest that when you choose to use your weapon in what you think is a self defense situation, your actions will be judged after the fact and yu may be requred to defend your actions in court. ... a sobering thought...

All of these stories are what first? Individual instances or cases tried. In different areas, by different people, by different lawyers, by different prosecutors, and covered by different newspapermen and covered by different news channels.

EVERY instance is different.

Every case is different.

In different counties in FL there are a multitude of varying attitudes toward firearms and self defense. There are justified shootings that somehow make it to court, for only the victim to be exonerated at a heavy monetary cost. There are also questionable shooting fatalities which meet the same fate in the benefit of the shooter.

You could have a justified shooting in a gun rights friendly county with a gun rights favorable DA with a gun rights favorable judge and if the ADA wants to make a name for himself (or herself) and presents a better case than that of your "all you can afford for $15,000 attorney". You may find your justified behind, behind bars or at the least bankrupted by the family of someone who was trying to rob you but who was "such a sweet kid! He would have never hurt anyone, he was planning on going to college..."

Before you believe anything you see hear or read, learn a little law from a good lawyer, know what the rules of exculpatory evidence are, you may find yourself heeding my Fathers advice, "Diffuse and distract, vacate or flee, and only when you cannot run, as a last resort stand your ground and be certain to kill your aggressor . When all is safe, call the authorities, tell them that you were being attacked, attempt to resuscitate your assailant, when the authorities arrive cooperate but immediately request your right to legal counsel. Shut up."

There are too many variables for any one individual to know and too many individual cases for you to walk down the street that if 123&5 happens to you just like it happened to Mr. Soandso tha you'll share the same fate as he. That's impossible.

This is a sad case in the sense that they tried to kill the investigation. I think the force used was overboard. dogs will be dogs, and lethal force should be reserved for life and death situations. No words on the LEO's dog's injuries, I doubt there were any worth mentioning... aside from hearing damage from the 9mm.

The bullet perception was ofc played up by an amateur blogger who read some marketing crap on the net. It is irrelevant IMO.

This incident reminds me of my neighbors old pit bull. Don't get me wrong I've met my share of sweetheart pit bulls. But this was not one of them. One day he was off leash and charged at me as I exited my gf's car. I've never met this dog and I don't know it, so I pulled my pepper spray (before the gun carry days... and I'd still use the spray first to this day) I held my ground and shouted "Go home" his owner was after him the moment he saw what was up, by the second "go home" and a stomp on the ground towards the dog he turned tail. The first shout barely slowed him, the second and the stomp stunned him and made him think better. I bet this cop could have avoided it all if he'd shown a bit of balls.

I can not justify shooting a dog in this situation. It's not even remotely the same as protecting a human. He done messed up.