“A Good Guy with a Gun Will Beat a Bad Guy with a Gun.” A case study of the concept.
“A Good Guy with a Gun Will Beat a Bad Guy with a Gun.”
A case study of the concept.
On Wednesday night (May 25th
2022) one night after the Uvalde shooting, it was reported that an unidentified
woman killed a gunman who had used an “AR-15 style” weapon to fire into a crowd
at a birthday party. In the interest of space and to make sure the story is
reported as it ran, here is the link to the Associated Press story, as reported
by CBSNews.com, and more than a dozen other outlets including FoxNews,
and the BBC as well as The Daily Mail in London.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/charleston-woman-kills-man-fired-rifle-party-crowd/
Tesla CEO Elon Musk was prompted by a follower on twitter for a comment on the incident: “Hey Elon, with your following, please help spread the word 'A good gal stops a bad guy with a gun!’” Musk responded "Wow, good for her and saving those people!" I would remind everyone that Elon Musk is reported to have 90 million followers on Twitter. 90 million people who will believe what they read. After all, “If Elon Musk says so, it must be right. He said it himself on Twitter”. But I digress by commenting on the power of the internet over people who don’t check their sources.
I do.
I had to look very hard to find a
version of the story that had any additional information besides the AP
version. Granted, most news outlets will rework an AP report without many
changes, but every story was too focused on the point of the woman having a “legally
owned firearm”. To verify the event actually happened, I had to find more
information, I finally found it by going to the local newspaper, The
Charleston Gazette-Mail, which did not use the AP source. The link to the
story as published is below:
I offer the following analysis of what happened point by point:
· The gunman had been driving recklessly in the area of a combination graduation/birthday party. He was stopped and cautioned to be careful. He left the scene and returned with a gun.
· Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Lieutenant Tony Hazelett released a statement covering the following points:
o The gunman was reported to have fired into a crowd of people at the party but “no one was injured”.
o "Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night," (This is apparently where the perception of a “good gal with a gun” stems from. I found this to be a truncated statement as reported.)
o The woman is “cooperating with police in their investigation.”
o “No charges would be filed against the woman.”
o “The investigation is continuing”
Additional statements from Lt. Hazelett were found on Insider.com that were not featured in even the Gazette-Mail story:
· "Upon further investigation, we quickly learned that the victim kind of turned into like a gunman," (Does that sound like a statement a police lieutenant would make? What does “kind of turned into like a gunman” mean exactly?)
· “She's just a member of the community who was carrying her firearm lawfully and instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night”
The account in the Charleston Gazette-Mail adds some other details that change the meaning of the shooter’s intent and the woman’s actions to a degree.
- Witnesses reported they said “What’s he doing?” and “There are children down there” during the shooting. This is a remarkably calm way to describe an active shooter at a party with children 24 hours after Uvalde. It implies the possibility that although the man had a gun there might not have been a substantial perceived threat.
- The gunman reportedly fired “into the crowd” and yet no one was hit. This leads me to believe he was acting to only intimidate, more than likely firing into the air. This possibility stems from Lt. Hazelett’s “kind of turned into a gunman” statement.
- At one point, the gunman pointed the gun at the unidentified woman. This is the only clear defendable threat verbalized in any report besides seeing a man with a gun, even one who “fired into the crowd” and yet “no one was injured”.
- He “pointed his gun at her” (the woman with her legally owned firearm). There is no mention in any news report that he fired at her, but I acknowledge he may have and will be revealed in the official investigation. Undoubtedly, her fear is justified by all of his actions, especially after the Uvalde shooting.
- She then fired and hit him “multiple times” and killing him, according to the Insider.com version. She had the shot and she took it, clearly in self-defense. This has been recognized because “No charges are being filed”. As she would have been able to verbalize a threat, she is justified to shoot in self-defense.
A former police C.O. of mine raised the question of a difference between the responsibility for a “clean shoot” for a civilian as opposed to a police officer. A “clean shoot” is a law enforcement term for the justified use of deadly force. I refer to:
West Virginia §61-2A-2. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
Paragraph 4(c) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
I refer now to West Virginia statute §61-2A-3
Paragraph
2(c) A law-enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
use of force as described in subsection (b) of this section, but the agency may
not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is
probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
and
paragraph 2(d) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court
costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the
defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court
finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection
(b) of this section.
Clearly the woman is covered by the law. But the fact remains that in order to establish “reasonably believes” the gunman had to be a credible threat at the time the defender takes action. Once the shooting stops, or in this case the perception of impending danger, the incident is over and the gunman is entitled to a fair trial. The reported act of “pointing the gun at her” re-establishes credible threat, but why did the gunman do so? Why did he point his gun at this particular person?
The only clear explanation is the woman pointed her gun at the gunman first in an attempt to end the incident. Having established the possibility that he (the gunman) really didn’t intend to hurt anyone but just frighten people, did he then see her action as a threat and point his weapon at her? Did that cause the woman to fire and ultimately kill him? I believe that’s exactly what happened.
The gunman was confronted about his driving. He left the area and returned with an AR-15 style weapon. He then fired the weapon. Although it is unclear what he was aiming at, no one was injured. This is in and of itself a threat to the safety of others.
The unidentified woman drew her “legally carried weapon” and drew down on him, seeing him as a continued threat. He in turn, saw her as a threat and pointed his firearm at her. She took aim, fired, and killed him. Again, there is no documentation at this point that indicates he fired at her. Pointing the weapon is enough to justify self-defense, hence no charges being filed. There may be some question about the number of times the gunman was hit and where that should be revealed in the investigation.
Is she a hero? Yes. Did she commit a crime? No. Is there a clear indication that the gunman intended to shoot anyone? That’s hard to say at this point either way, but I am inclined to think he had no intention to. Certainly, the image of a heroic gun owner charging forward into the face of “AR-15 style” gunfire is more dramatic for the news but is inaccurate at best. At least, not according to the more detailed report furnished by the local newspaper.
As an experienced Police Officer with specific training in this area, I have offered what I believe to be a clearer version of what happened. The investigation should reveal the circumstances as I have outlined them.
In regard to the news coverage, I have other observations:
· A majority of those reporting and commenting on the story never bothered to verify the details of the AP based reports.
· By omitting key details that were available online, and linking their stories with the Uvalde shooting, the news outlets were deliberate in their intent to promote the idea that any individual, even without specific training, can successfully defeat a gunman with superior firepower and the advantage of surprise.
· A few successful interventions do not unconditionally justify the validity of taking action in these situations. There are too many variables, not the least of all luck, that have to come into play to switch the advantage from the gunman to a potential defender.
If
you enjoy the content and would like to support the page, there is a
gofundme at https://www.gofundme.com/f/public-safety-today.
Comments
Post a Comment