TexasCHLforum.com

http://theadvocate.com/news/15952052-17 ... as-station

Mandeville, LA.

Aggressive (drunk?) man argues with store clerk. Open carrying armed citizen seems to stay out of it for a long time, but eventually tries to be a "good witness" by getting license plate number of the aggressor after the aggressor walks out of the store after having thrown things at the store clerk. Aggressor turns his attention to armed citizen. Aggressor ends up getting shot and killed by armed citizen. Local DA declines to bring charges on the armed citizen.

All caught on video tape. I'm not trying to judge the shooter's actions, but I think we have to critique these things so we can learn from other peoples' experiences.

Watch the video and let's discuss what you think the armed citizen did right, and/or wrong.

Note for those who do not want to see, the video DOES show the actual shooting at the very end, but camera angle is from directly behind the aggressor, so you don't really "see" anything (at least, I didn't).

Wow... That was painful to watch with all the pop ups.

Could not see the shot, but it's obvious the guy went down. I would like to say if I were the shooter I would have fought him off, but when someone is atacking you and can see the gun and still chooses to attack they must be intent on causing bodily harm or have a death wish.

While the patron obviously used poor judgement which resulted in his death, I also fault the clerk for engaging in a war of words with the patron. I have heard no audio but the body language seems to show a verbal battle. The patron exited the store multiple times. The clerk had the opportunity to simply lock the door and call 911. Loss of life was preventable. The clerk seemed to exacerbate the encounter rather than deescalate it.

The clerk called police when the altercation began, but Breland had been shot by the time they arrived.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

As someone's sig line used to say, "Carry 24/7 or guess wisely."

LTCTLB wrote:Wow... That was painful to watch with all the pop ups....

Sorry about the pop ups. I have Ad Blocker Plus installed on my computer, so I don't see any pop ups. Works well for me, if you want to give it a try

LTCTLB wrote:... I would like to say if I were the shooter I would have fought him off, but when someone is atacking you and can see the gun and still chooses to attack they must be intent on causing bodily harm or have a death wish.

I would agree. Or the aggressor may have just thought that the guy with the gun wouldn't have the nerve to actually use it. Hard to say what was going through the guy's mind.

WTR wrote:While the patron obviously used poor judgement which resulted in his death, I also fault the clerk for engaging in a war of words with the patron. I have heard no audio but the body language seems to show a verbal battle. The patron exited the store multiple times. The clerk had the opportunity to simply lock the door and call 911. Loss of life was preventable. The clerk seemed to exacerbate the encounter rather than deescalate it.

Yes, it does appear that the clerk and the guy were in a heated argument. Probably no way anyone involved could have imagined that someone was going to lose their life within seconds. I would imagine that these shootings often happen this way - suddenly and unexpectedly.

As for locking the door after the guy went out, I agree, yes, that would have been a very good solution. I couldn't tell from the video, but it may be that the lock on the door was the type that takes a key to operate from either side. Don't know, but agree that would have been a very good solution.

Pawpaw wrote: ..."When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." As someone's sig line used to say, "Carry 24/7 or guess wisely."

Agree. We cannot depend on the police to protect us. We must have the means to protect ourselves. Unfortunately, in this case, a life was lost. Justified, but unfortunate for the man's family, anyway.

I wouldn't want to ever be involved in an encounter like that. But, the deceased physically attacked the shooter even to the point where you can see his shirt being ripped in one of the frames. The shooter repeatedly pushed him away and tried to withdraw only to be pursued by the deceased who kept getting more and more violent.

Was there a way to end that without loss of life? Maybe. Was the shooter threatened? Yes. Did the shooter try to deescalate? Hard to say what happened in the parking lot. What would I have done? I hope I never find out.

Lynyrd wrote:I wouldn't want to ever be involved in an encounter like that. But, the deceased physically attacked the shooter even to the point where you can see his shirt being ripped in one of the frames. The shooter repeatedly pushed him away and tried to withdraw only to be pursued by the deceased who kept getting more and more violent.

Was there a way to end that without loss of life? Maybe. Was the shooter threatened? Yes. Did the shooter try to deescalate? Hard to say what happened in the parking lot. What would I have done? I hope I never find out.

I couldn't agree with you more. I hope we never have to find out.

Could things have been handled better? Absolutely. But in the heat of the moment with emotions and adrenaline pumping through your veins it's hard to say what I would do. I will say the shooter showed restraint for a very long time. After watching the video, I can't say I wouldn't have drew my firearm. My first thought was just knock him out, everyone gets to go home to their families. I don't feel like that is fair to the shooter because I was never in his shoes.

Yeah... This is a tough one for me. And one in which I can honestly say, that I would probably have handled it separately depending on which way I was carrying. Since this was an open carry event. I'll start there. First off, I would attempted not To interject myself in the initial dispute as much. Would have probably been a little more discrete in obtaining the plate number, etc.. I would've (or tried to) just fade into the background A bit and observed from a distance. Much less likely that the BG would have even noticed my presence, or even turned his attention my way. Be a good witness first is always the best course if it's a legitimate option. In this case I think it was.

Once the attacker turned his attention to the shooter though, I thought the shooter handled it pretty well. The BG knows, or should know, that the shooter is armed, and more importantly where his weapon is kept because it's openly displayed. His continued aggression definitely poses a threat. The shooter shows just enough restraint before shooting him to display that he obviously was not itching to take the guy down. You can no way afford to become involved in a H2H scrum with a weapon on your hip and an aggressive, non-armed BG. Your weapon, could very easily become his weapon.

With that said, if I was handling it as a concealed carrier, I probably would've considered delivering an ole fashioned butt-whooping on what appears to be a drunk and impaired guy (appears to me to be a bit unsteady, and initially was buying beer). One well landed punch, would have likely taken this guy down. But then again I'm a bigger guy so the disparity of force likley favor me and I'm fairly skilled in H2H tactics. When somebody is continuing to attack a known armed person who's weapon is clearly in a known (to the BG) location, any H2H situation could end up deadly for me so use of deadly force is an inevitable option once he puts his hands on me. Concealed though, the BG has no idea where or how you are carrying, or if you're carirying at all and, in my mind, that gives you the advantage, more options and the ability to assess whether you could take the BG down with non-lethal tactics.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against OC, but in this situation I think being concealed would have been a much better advantage to the shooter and it may have, and I stress may have, turned out differently.

If you can't "stop the threat" in that situation, why carry at all?

The guy is laying hands on you in a very menacing manner, appears to be large sized, drunk or no, that gets him shot.

I think the victim (shooter) showed great restraint in not decking him, escalating the conflict and potentially voiding the good shoot.

I looked hard, but I cannot find anything the instructor did right. I find it amazing he was not charged.

First he was oblivious it seemed to the agitated man for the first few minutes, turning his back on him several times, while OPEN CARRYING!

Then he went out into parking lot, inserting himself into a dispute which was not his, thus escalating it, and in my opinion, making him a part of the problem.

Then instead of trying to descalate it by leaving area, he comes back into store and of course is followed, and he immediately goes to gun when there is no deadly threat whatsoever. A pushing match ensues, and with gun in hand he can no longer effectively push back so he shoots the guy.

I would say this a a textbook training video of what not to do when open carrying.

Solaris wrote:I looked hard, but I cannot find anything the instructor did right. I find it amazing he was not charged.

First he was oblivious it seemed to the agitated man for the first few minutes, turning his back on him several times, while OPEN CARRYING!

Then he went out into parking lot, inserting himself into a dispute which was not his, thus escalating it, and in my opinion, making him a part of the problem.

Then instead of trying to descalate it by leaving area, he comes back into store and of course is followed, and he immediately goes to gun when there is no deadly threat whatsoever. A pushing match ensues, and with gun in hand he can no longer effectively push back so he shoots the guy.

I would say this a a textbook training video of what not to do when open carrying.

Solaris wrote:I looked hard, but I cannot find anything the instructor did right. I find it amazing he was not charged.

First he was oblivious it seemed to the agitated man for the first few minutes, turning his back on him several times, while OPEN CARRYING!

Then he went out into parking lot, inserting himself into a dispute which was not his, thus escalating it, and in my opinion, making him a part of the problem.

Then instead of trying to descalate it by leaving area, he comes back into store and of course is followed, and he immediately goes to gun when there is no deadly threat whatsoever. A pushing match ensues, and with gun in hand he can no longer effectively push back so he shoots the guy.

I would say this a a textbook training video of what not to do when open carrying.

Well, yes and no...

I definitely agree on the initial oblivion and the deescalation points (as I stated above), but from a legal standpoint, not sure if he would be criminally liable. Depends if LA has SYG laws in place. If so, he has no duty to retreat. Unless the audio shows that he actually provoked the guy, than not sure he really did anything legally wrong. Don't get me wrong, his actions certainly did not deescalate the situation and likely led to the shooting as you state, but that does not translate to criminally responsible (at least in SYG states).

I also agree about the drawing of his weapon, which effectively left him only a one-handed H2H response and further made the shooting inevitable when the in BG pursued. But again, the question remains.... does that make him criminally responsible. I don't think so. The drawing of his weapon (IMO) was a defensive display of force, which was likely (here in TX anyway) justified to meet a threatening situation from the attacker. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that his "use of force" could be justified as a deterrent when the BG was still, in essence, just a menacing threat. It did not work in this case and the BG pursued a course of action that escalated the defendant to a position that make him believe that a use of deadly force was authorized. I certainly think that a more than "reasonable" case could be make by the victim that he felt in imminent danger when the attacker pursued H2H combat against his drawn weapon. Only the jury would determine that, but reasonable arguments could be made either way and his position would be a strong one.

So bottom line, I'm not sure I'd go so far to say that I'm "amazed" he wasn't charged, as the DA would have a tough time getting a conviction on this one IMO. Assuming LA has reasonably similar laws as TX does for SYG, use of force, etc.... He has no "duty to retreat" so the fact that he doesn't doesn't necessarily mean a thing. I don't necessarily think that the victim (shooter) going out to the parking lot necessarily demonstrates a provocation either. Looks like he was just attempting to get the BG's plate info, which is a perfectly legal thing to do. He should have been more discrete IMO, but again.... that's a responsible action vs. criminal action thing to me. Of course, this assumes that the audio doesn't change everything to show provocation from the shooter.

Overall though, I agree with much of what you said... the shooting certainly did not NEED to occur and the shooters actions probably increased the chances of a deadly encounter.... I think a beat down would have sufficed in this case personally. The whole incident IMO was not worth killing or dying over for sure.

Mavs00 wrote: IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that his "use of force" could be justified as a deterrent when the BG was still, in essence, just a menacing threat. It did not work in this case and the BG pursued a course of action that escalated the defendant to a position that make him believe that a use of deadly force was authorized. I certainly think that a more than "reasonable" case could be make by the victim that he felt in imminent danger when the attacker pursued H2H combat against his drawn weapon.

I know the shooting was in LA, but using the TX/PC as a guide:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

I think the video suggests (B) was not happening. That leaves only (A). In my world there is no scenario where a person pushes you a few times can be considered "the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force", thus I cannot envision a scenarios where one "reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"

So based on that tape alone, it was not justified, IMO. Yet he was not charged, leading me to conclude there were other aggravating factors we are unaware of, for example, he was shouting "I am going to take that gun from you and kill you", etc.

I'll start off by saying that I'm glad the shooter isn't being prosecuted and very sorry to aggressor is dead. It is very unfortunate that it ended that way.

However, I'm confused about why the shooter isn't being prosecuted. I guess LA's standard for the threat of deadly force is different than ours because I don't see that the shooters use of the threat of deadly force was justified. It was a one on one situation and the aggressor had no weapon and was not too dissimilar in size.