Justified or not??

[Tanzer]

Picked this up off another forum. Click the link.
http://www.adn.com/crime/story/323301.html
Short article, but I don't think shooting in the face helped the defense.

[FL Guy]

Well, athough it seems the brother-in-law had a history of violence, and was a confirmed dirt bag arguing does not constitute a threat. Too bad for the defendant.

And you're right Tanzer, the 7 in the face didn't help his case

[BikerRN]

This just proves that the law is what the local prosecutor says it is, not what the books say.

The "one or two shots" argument could've been negated by a better prepared defense team. Sometimes, often, people requre more than one or two shots. Teaching is, you shoot until the threat has stopped. The number of rounds it will take to stop the threat cannot be pre-determined. I have pictures and reports of felons requiring multiple shots to stop.


Biker

[DMorrison]

I am surprised that I didn't here about this one, it's my hometown newspaper. It seems juries have forgotten what reasonable doubt means. I could see how this might sound like it wasn't self-defense, but the argument and facts seem to deffinately make a very compelling case for self-defense. Innocent, period. It's to bad, hopefully he gets a better attorney for his appeal.

[nodaywithout]

over ten shots in the head may be excessive but what ever it takes to stop the threat

[VegasGeorge]

"Kagel, who had a knife but didn't pull it, was not an imminent threat."

That says it all. You back away, or run away, from some meth head who's making wild threats and waiving his arms around. If your sister's there, you take your choice. You grab her and take her with you, or you stand back and watch the scene play out.

When the meth head actually pulls the knife out and makes a threatening move with it toward you or your sister, THEN you shoot him. Not before.

I agree with the jury, based on the law.

But, I disagree with the law. I have absolutely NO sympathy with dope heads. I think every a-hole strung out on meth, or crank, or whatever should be shot on sight.

[tuna]

I don't know why an unpulled knife doesn't constitute a threat.

I'm not quite as fit as I once was, but we had a discussion at work (me, a part time cop, and an openminded guy I'm having sucess with nudging toward the pro gun side). We were talking about how LEO training says 20 feet with a knife is imminent danger, and the openminded guy was skeptical. I gave him a pen to simulate a gun, and had him stand next to an empty cardboard box. We paced off 20 feet, and I was able to cover that distance, draw and open my folding knife, and stab the cardboard box before he could raise the pen to "shoot" me. He's now a believer and a lot closer to getting a gun.

[EBDPA]

Well, it seems that we don't have all the pertinent details of the scene. It seems to indicate that there was some distance, but not how much distance between the defendant ant the BG. Also, it did not say how far the BG was from the sister... they were having an argument.. they could have been right next to each other, in which case the defense should have argued imminent threat, particularly with the history involved.

All in all, it seems like a weak defense lawyer or Public Defender who was not motivated to work for his client.

Of course, I am not a lawyer and we don't have the transcripts to give the guy a fair shake on his defense. sometimes its just a roll of the dice with the jury. You know... gun friendly or gun shy community, election year, previous violence in the community or lack of it... etc.

On the face of it.. .seems like the guy got screwed. hope the appeals are more successful or he gets a better lawyer on appeal.

my 2 cents

[nodaywithout]

Which in turn brings up another question, what radius would you consider to be a danger zone?

For me it is about 30 feet or so which is the same distance that i use when i am at the gun range.

[tuna]

Which in turn brings up another question, what radius would you consider to be a danger zone?

For me it is about 30 feet or so which is the same distance that i use when i am at the gun range.


I'm trained as an augmentee for our Security Forces in the Air National Guard, in our training, we were told that 21 feet is the distance where it can be explained that you cannot draw and fire before someone gets to you (going along with what I've said earlier). This was backed up by our part time LEOs, both in the class, and in later discussions. (There is a name for this distance, or the person who first did this test, but I do not know it right now).
Best bet, is to find out what distance your LOCAL LEOs use as the threat distance, and use that. If it is good enough for the well trained cops to be in danger, then an average citizen would be in danger at the same distance, and will easily be defendable based on how the police train.

[VegasGeorge]

... we were told that 21 feet is the distance where it can be explained that you cannot draw and fire before someone gets to you (going along with what I've said earlier). This was backed up by our part time LEOs, both in the class, and in later discussions.

I know this is true, although I'm not vouching for the exact distance. I, too, have read about it, but I can't remember the name or the distance.

However, consider this. You have the supposed bad guy standing there, 21 feet away from you. He has a knife in a belt sheath, or a gun in a belt holster. He does not have his hand on it. He is scaring you by yelling, waiving his arms, making verbal threats, or whatever. He is not moving toward you. He is not reaching for his weapon.

You could bring a whole string of expert witnesses into court to testify about that minimum safe distance we all know about. But, I don't think you would ever convince a jury that you were in "imminent danger," and justified in pulling out your gun first, and killing the guy.

This is why backing up, running away, or pulling out your gun and yelling, "Stop or I'll shoot," are alternatives we all have to consider.

[tuna]

VegasGeorge, you've got a good point - but I was answering the question nodaywithout was asking about 30 feet or so. (BTW Tueller Drill was the name I was looking for)

Every situation will be different, of course. But while you may have a hard time convincing a jury you were in danger at 30 feet from someone with a knife out, the extra 9 feet to 21 feet will give you much more credibility.

[VegasGeorge]

.... with a knife out, .....

Ah, that's an entirely different story. If the knife is out, the danger IS imminent.

In the news article leading this thread, it is stated: " ...prosecutors said Kagel, who had a knife but didn't pull it, was not an imminent threat."

That's the part of this case that presents a probably insurmountable obstacle to the defense.

[Tanzer]

The Tueller Rule;
Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.
The "rule" is more like guidelines however. It is subject to corruption via misinterpretation.
Notice the word average, and the implication that the weapon is drawn. Grampa with a kitchen knife in the basket of his walker doesn't count. Unfortunately, neither does the meth-head who hasn't drawn a weapon yet. The defender's ability is also subject to interpretation. One thing you can be sure of - They'll use it against you, so know how to use it for yourself. Don't think you can say that your training made you aware of this, so you intellegently waited and gave the BG every chance. They'll turn it around & ask; "With all your training, Army, CWP instructor, Sig Academy..... you shot this poor man, half your size, with no training, from twenty feet seven inches away?? You obviously planned this!!!!"

[Swift locksmith]

So... the meth-head, openly carrying a knife, while arguing with Saafi's sister threatened to kill Saafi in a state where there is no permit required to CCW if you can purchase a firearm.
I would assume that he is a deadly threat who MAY have a concealed firearm. I would also assume that someone who has made a threat against my life will remain a threat to my life even if I run away. Not to mention that the meth-head had a "history of abuse against the family". I honestly lose track of how many shots I've fired shooting at targets. If I made the decision to pull the trigger in such a situation, I think I would continue to pull the trigger until the loud noises stopped. Hopefully I'll never know what that's like, but some slick prosecutor convincing a jury that Saafi comitted murder in an apparently very gun friendly state seems to me to be just another sign of the times.

[Tanzer]

Swift locksmith wrote;
I would also assume that someone who has made a threat against my life will remain a threat to my life even if I run away.
Personally, I'd think they'd remain a threat for a long, long time. Unfortunately, I guess this wasn't enough.

[Swift locksmith]

Y'know in Georgia there used to be a "fightin' words clause". There may still be for all I know, as I've been off the east coast for awhile now. Basically if someone said that they were "gonna kick yer ass", legally they just started a fight. The same went for homicidal threats, somebody says "I"m gonna keel you" was treated the same as "shot's fired". If you get my drift...

[Tanzer]

somebody says "I"m gonna keel you" was treated the same as "shot's fired". If you get my drift...
Sure do. Words mean things in my world. I guess they do in yours too. Too often, we're taught to disregard such actions as "speaking in the moment". I was taught that every moment counts.
Little differences equivalate to big changes when a prosecutor gets involved.