The Final Three Bullets

[AJBB87]

This is related to the thread started by Kutnupe14 about a loud music trial:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/333685-loud-music-trial.html

In a different light, however, this story also goes to show the difference between "shooting to kill" and "shooting to stop a threat":

This excerpt taken from Bearing Arms: The Final Three Bullets

We’ve talked about the dangers of “shooting to kill” vs. “shooting to stop the threat” here before. We had Attorney Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense, state his opinion on the matter last night.
Put simply, continuing to fire when the “bad guy” is attempting to retreat can transform you into the bad guy in the eyes of the law… and in the eyes of the jury.
There is some evidence that Michael Dunn just learned that lesson the hard way:

A Florida jury convicted a white, middle-aged man on Saturday of three counts of attempted murder for opening fire on a car of black teenagers during an argument over loud rap music, but could not reach a verdict on a murder charge for the killing of a 17-year-old in the car.
Michael Dunn, a 47-year-old software engineer, fired 10 rounds at a vehicle carrying four teens in a Jacksonville gas station parking lot in November 2012, killing black teen Jordan Davis.
​

According to the Reuters report, it may have been the final three shots Dunn fired that sealed his fate:

Earlier on Saturday, the judge said questions posed by the 12-member jury indicated they thought Dunn was initially justified in firing the first seven bullets to defend himself from Davis, but then went too far by continuing to pull the trigger as the fleeing teens drove off.
The judge speculated that jurors felt Dunn overstepped the limits of self-defense law by shooting a final volley of three bullets after he got out of his car, when the teens no longer represented any kind of threat.
“They may say justifiable use of deadly force was in play to (a) certain point and then it went away. There was no justification for those last set of shots,” the judge said.
​

You may only legally shoot to stop the threat. Anything beyond that, and you face going to prison for may years to come, as Micheal Dunn has now discovered the hard way. Those of you who insist on “shooting to kill” at all costs once the shooting starts because some non-attorney shared their incorrect “conventional wisdom” are going to be very popular on the prison dating scene.
Note: The media and their citizens control allies are attempting to make the same claims about “stand your ground” laws in this case as they did in the Zimmerman trial. That claim was patently false in both trials. Neither Zimmerman nor Dunn raised “stand your ground” defenses.

 

[LawofSelfDefense]

Hey folks,

Just stopped by because I noticed the reference to my little email/post over at Bearing Arms. I'd be happy to answer any questions, entertain any counterarguments.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

 

[SteveM4A1]

Sounds like the initial media reports had it wrong...who woulda thunk it?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Was the individual no longer a threat because of retreating, or no longer a threat because he was dead? Retreat and tactical withdrawal look an awful lot alike. I'm not completely versed on this case, but the defendant believed there was a shotgun in the vehicle. Believing the individuals in the SUV with loud music were tactically withdrawing (regrouping to come back and shoot the defendant) seems reasonable to me.

Remember the so-called "Highway of Death" at the end of Desert Storm in 1991? Retreat DOES NOT equal surrender. The vehicles outnumbering the bodies never mattered to those who have an anti-military (anti-US military anyway) agenda and wouldn't know Law of Armed Conflict from a hole in the ground. Its the same Monday-morning QB thinking as in the Dunn case.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's absolutely INSANE to me (based on the info I gotten from the case), that the jury thought Dunn may have been justified. But OP makes a good point, shooting at someone that appears to be fleeing, isn't ever going to look good.

 

[Bobby]

I am have not been following the details of the case to be able to offer and informed opinion. With that said, if an individual was to use his or her firearm in self-defense, how likely would that same individual who would have the adrenaline coursing through their veins recognize when to stop firing to avoid legal trouble with the police? And, what would stop "retreating" bad guy or guys from firing a parting shot after retreating for a short distance?

Seems like there not any way to win for the legal gun owner. "Shoot to kill" and possible face legal trouble from police vs. shoot to "stop the threat" and risk getting hurt by your attacker as she or he retreats. I know that it is easy for me sitting here in my comfortable chair to maybe overanalyze things but am I WAY off base here?

 

[Maximinus Thrax]

I am have not been following the details of the case to be able to offer and informed opinion. With that said, if an individual was to use his or her firearm in self-defense, how likely would that same individual who would have the adrenaline coursing through their veins recognize when to stop firing to avoid legal trouble with the police? And, what would stop "retreating" bad guy or guys from firing a parting shot after retreating for a short distance?

Seems like there not any way to win for the legal gun owner. "Shoot to kill" and possible face legal trouble from police vs. shoot to "stop the threat" and risk getting hurt by your attacker as she or he retreats. I know that it is easy for me sitting here in my comfortable chair to maybe overanalyze things but am I WAY off base here?

I've also not been following the case so I don't know exactly how the situation changed over time but in any given scenario the circumstances can change so fast that an adrenaline pumped legal gun owner may not be able to fully appreciate and acknowledge the changes before going one step too far. I guess this is where shutting up when the police arrive and having a lawyer readily available is the best option...

 

[HoughMade]

Was the individual no longer a threat because of retreating, or no longer a threat because he was dead? Retreat and tactical withdrawal look an awful lot alike...

You are justified in using deadly force to defend your self from a present threat, not from a possible future threat. Self defense and the prosecution of a war can be very, very different,

 

[CathyInBlue]

Hey folks,

Just stopped by because I noticed the reference to my little email/post over at Bearing Arms. I'd be happy to answer any questions, entertain any counterarguments.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

How about those circumstances where one is placed in fear of one's life, and so entirely justified in "going to guns", however, in the non-instantaneous time that it takes one to draw, aim, and fire, the aggressor's central nervous system has reassessed its course of action and now chooses to turn and run? In those cases, it's entirely appropriate for the evidence to show only shots to the perp's back. What is the best legal defense for such cases should the prosecutor in one's case choose to ignore/discount claims of self defense?

 

[HoughMade]

Mas Ayoob or some such expert demonstrating how quickly a person can turn, compared to reaction and response times. That's a factual defense supporting a self defense claim, not a legal defense. Demonstrative animations help. It's not an uncommon issue in court when self-defense is at issue.

 

[Tinner666]

You have to have the ability and knowledge to know when not to shoot or quit shooting.
Some here were all over me for not taking the guy out. Then for not going after him when he chased a lady into the street. He wasn't catching her, just chasing.
It's a thin line indeed.