If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[Certaindeaf]

.The question is what are you attempting to prevent from happening?.

Getting shot? Isn't that why shots were fired?

 

[lucusloc]

Getting shot? Isn't that why shots were fired?

An easier way to not get shot is to not engage. If that was his priority there were better courses of action than shooting an innocent person.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

An easier way to not get shot is to not engage. If that was his priority there were better courses of action than shooting an innocent person.

Agree and as stated by many above seems like he was primed for it. And what he observed was interpreted to be what he was kind of waiting for. Seems to me that way anyway.

 

[Certaindeaf]

An easier way to not get shot is to not engage. If that was his priority there were better courses of action than shooting an innocent person.

You forgot to answer the question.

 

[lucusloc]

You forgot to answer the question.

I did. If his priority was not getting shot he should not have volunteered to be the one to proactively engage those kids. All he had when he decided to shoot was assumptions and incorrect perceptions. That is the difference between stopping a crime in progress and proactively preventing a potential crime. By being proactive he assumed greater risk in order to validate that things were as he saw them, which means digesting and processing the sum totality of the situation, not going off based on unvalidated preconceptions. Again, he went to them, not vice-versa. If it has been the other way around he would have had far greater leeway to act on assumptions and perceptions.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I did. .

No you didn't.

 

[Koda]

I did

The only reason mall cop fired his gun is because he saw a second gun. Thats why he fired.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

The only reason mall cop fired his gun is because he saw a second gun. Thats why he fired.

This is one of those opinions that some of us see as defending him. If you look at this as "he was correct and/or justified in shooting the second kid because he saw him as a treat" it reads as defending him. On the other side if you believe that he was not correct and/or justified in getting out of his car in the first place to violently assault the 3 teenagers than everything that happened after he got out of his car becomes 'Fruit Of The Poison Tree' and nothing that he did could ever be correct and/or justified.

A burglar that breaks into my house in the middle of the night can never be justified in shooting me because he saw I had a gun and nad saw it as a treat to his life. And yeah, I am on the side that believes his engaging the three of them was as unjustified and criminal as someone breaking into my house.

I know some of you don't see it that way and likely never will.

 

[RVTECH]

From another article:

As part of the charging decision, prosecutors said 51-year-old Aaron Brown Myers shot 17-year-old Hazrat Ali Rohani a total of seven times, including six times in the back. Prosecutors argued that Rohani could not have posed a threat to Myers since the teen was allegedly facing away from Myers at the time of the incident.

So, was Rohani possibly turning to run away?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

So, was Rohani possibly turning to run away?

Wouldn't you if some screaming lunatic charged at you with a gun?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Also seeing some variation of this in all the articles, generally not a huge fan of cameras all over the place, but in this case it looks like it's a good thing

Investigators said security footage contradicted the suspect's statements in his police interview, according to court papers.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

This is one of those opinions that some of us see as defending him. If you look at this as "he was correct and/or justified in shooting the second kid because he saw him as a treat" it reads as defending him. On the other side if you believe that he was not correct and/or justified in getting out of his car in the first place to violently assault the 3 teenagers than everything that happened after he got out of his car becomes 'Fruit Of The Poison Tree' and nothing that he did could ever be correct and/or justified.

A burglar that breaks into my house in the middle of the night can never be justified in shooting me because he saw I had a gun and nad saw it as a treat to his life. And yeah, I am on the side that believes his engaging the three of them was as unjustified and criminal as someone breaking into my house.

I know some of you don't see it that way and likely never will.

I would say don't confuse "defending him" with "prosecutor may not charge him". I.e. "this prick deserves to be punished for shooting the kid, but may not be charged because he saw a gun being drawn by the second teen".

Ie if there is reasonable cause that he was acting in self defense. I think they look at the totality of the situation though. The classic example is you can't claim self defense if you "primed the pump" for the altercation.

I think they have clear video of the whole thing. If they woudl simply publish that no one woudl have to speculate. Absent that we get arguments "but if this happened.. etc." its all guesswork on our part really cuz they won't release the video.

 

[RVTECH]

Wouldn't you if some screaming lunatic charged at you with a gun?

Yep - and probably the moment I first saw his gun!

 

[Koda]

This is one of those opinions that some of us see as defending him.

Then that would be making the same kind of assumptions mall cop made that day. All I stated was one of the few facts we have in this story. I didnt state an opinion of if he was justified.

Edit, see ilikegunspdx reply to this...

 

[64MercurysRule]

Time will sort all this out . One thing is for sure this is a tragedy for many involved and there is no win in the end for anyone .

 

[lucusloc]

The only reason mall cop fired his gun is because he saw a second gun. Thats why he fired.

He was not justified in that shot because he was the one creating the threat.He was operating off of incomplete information, saw what he expected to see, not what what reality and acted on that.

Remember, there is no self defense if you started it. The argument that the first altercation was "over" and the second kid was a new altercation is weak at best, and outright contradicted by the facts at worst. It all happened at basically the same time and more to the point it all happened because mall cop went over there in the first place.

Finally the reports that we have of the - ah hem - shot placement indicate that some large number of those shots cannot really be justified no matter what your position on the "old vs. new" altercation is. It would even be hard for a LEO to justify that kind of shooting under fleeing felon laws, not least of all because no crime can be defined over the situation. As it stands even if the kid were trying to pull a real firearm they would have greater standing to claim self defense since again the mall cop was the one antagonizing them (disregarding issues with age, which cannot be relevant as there was no way for mall cop to actually know their ages. Yes, some people do look younger than they are).

 

[Koda]

The argument that the first altercation was "over" and the second kid was a new altercation is weak at best, and outright contradicted by the facts at worst. It all happened at basically the same time and more to the point it all happened because mall cop went over there in the first place.

Thats a fair statement and ive admitted its a weak argument, though it is something ive heard of in self defense law.
At least someone acknowledged it, finally.

 

[lucusloc]

Thats a fair statement and ive admitted its a weak argument, though it is something ive heard of in self defense law.
At least someone acknowledged it, finally.

It can be a thing, but really relies on if there was ever a point in time stopping a self defense action was required, then having to spin back up into defensive posture to react to something new. Since he had rolled up on all three it is far more justified to consider all three of them as being a part of the original altercation, which means no "second altercation" that has a new starting justification to make a clean self defense claim off of. He rolled up, antagonized all three, got one to disarm, probably scared the other into disarming too, then shot and killed the second kid in a fit of surprise and panic. All while ignoring the communication coming from the kids that they were in fact unarmed and it was airsoft that he was seeing.

Now sure, in some other circumstances the communication that "its airsoft!" might not be all that relevant. I am probably inclined to disregard such information if the guy is, for example, walking towards me, "airsoft" pointed at me saying "What are you gonna do? It's airsoft!" Well buddy, I will probably wind up shooting you because you are still acting aggressive even if it is airsoft. That is going to add a whole other layer to my decision making process and would still amount to a clearly articuable threat regardless of it is were airsoft or not.

But that is if they come at me, not if I am coming at them. Again we get back to the differences between proactive and reactive, and the responsibilities that come with those differences. Mall cop had an obligation to listen and respond to such communication as it would give him some much needed information in an altercation he started. Yes, it is still possible for them to lie to him, but how could he know either way? This is why I have been talking about him offloading that risk onto others. Maybe he did hear and assumed they were lying? Shoot them just to be safe? Sure; offload that risk onto them, they can take the bullets and everyone can deal with the consequences later. There just is no good way to justify that legally or morally. If you want to be proactive like that you need to assume some of the risk and slow you decision making process down until you have a better idea what you are really dealing with. And if that means in the worst case you have to sit still and wait for an actual threat (like an actual draw) then so be it, that is what you singed up for by being proactive instead of reactive.

And if you do not do that? Well you may just wind up shooting some innocent kid and going to jail for a very long time. But at least you did not get shot by an airsoft gun right?

 

[Koda]

It can be a thing, but really relies on if there was ever a point in time stopping a self defense action was required, then having to spin back up into defensive posture to react to something new.

It depends of if the surveillance video confirms his side of the story.
None of us have seen it, and im not relying on the media to describe it accurately.

 

[lucusloc]

It depends of if the surveillance video confirms his side of the story.
None of us have seen it, and im not relying on the media to describe it accurately.

I am having a hard time conceiving of a scenario where there would be an interim time in there. Like I said, he rolled up on all three, so all three would by default have been involved. The time in between was seconds, not even minutes, and there was no disengagement there that could have reset who was the instigator even if there were minutes involved. He started it, one kid reacted relatively fast dropping his "gun", the second reacted a bit slower. He was caught off guard by that slower response and reacted poorly to that. Same altercation, same conclusion on who is at fault.