Was this a good shoot?

[30Glock]

This guy has the training and I would assume he is knowledgeable regarding the laws, but I question the shot in the back.



http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/alle...esults_in.html

[Shodan]

Boom ... O-head shot!





Seriously though, after reading the part about it being impossible to determine the order of the shots, I don't think being shot in the back has too much importance.

I don't know what potential sentence he's facing for the manslaughter charge, but I think he's probably getting off lucky.

[sprrdhawk44]

I'd say it was a good shoot. He will be able claim seeing what's known as a "furtive movement" as a defense. The attacker articulated a threat to the security gaurd, and then physically made good on that threat. Because of his actions, he's now shaking hands with Biggie and Tupac.

As far as shooting an attacker in the back is concerned, the totality of the circumstance must be considered. I get this question often in my classes, with people generally believeing that it is illegal to shoot an attacker in the back. So long as there is a clear and present threat to your life, it doesn't matter(legally) where your rounds land in an attacker. Think about it: Somebody mugs you on the street, you get the drop on them and draw your firearm, they turn to run away, shooting behind them towards you as they run away. You return fire. Where would your rounds land? In their back. Completely justified.

[Philbert]

Martin said Randolph was shot three times -- once in the back, once in the abdomen and once in the right thigh -- and it is impossible to determine the sequence of those shots.

People can turn around really fast. The placement of a shot only tells you how everyone was positioned in the fraction of a second that it takes for a bullet to leave a gun and hit the target.

[350CI]

good shoot, imo

[Philadelphia]

Too bad there's not better video footage.

If it happened just as the guard says, I'd call it a good shoot. My only issue is with the "reaching for waistband" quote -- I just see that formula too often and wonder if that's the new "abracadabra" when the thug with holes in him ends up being unarmed. Seems so many (mostly cops) have learned the magic words and I have a tough time believing that so many thugs when confronted with a muzzle all tend to reach for their own empty waistband. No video, who knows.

Since its the Commonwealth's burden to negate self defense beyond reasonable doubt, I'd have a lot of doubt. A drunk, pot smoking scuzzball looking for trouble versus somebody with a clean enough record to get his Act 235 -- not guilty.

[Preble Pro]

If it had been a police officer that shot him, it would have been a good shoot, so why not the same for the security guard?

I vote good shoot based on the information given.

[libra8]

Too bad there's not better video footage.

If it happened just as the guard says, I'd call it a good shoot. My only issue is with the "reaching for waistband" quote -- I just see that formula too often and wonder if that's the new "abracadabra" when the thug with holes in him ends up being unarmed. Seems so many (mostly cops) have learned the magic words and I have a tough time believing that so many thugs when confronted with a muzzle all tend to reach for their own empty waistband. No video, who knows.

Since its the Commonwealth's burden to negate self defense beyond reasonable doubt, I'd have a lot of doubt. A drunk, pot smoking scuzzball looking for trouble versus somebody with a clean enough record to get his Act 235 -- not guilty.

What I highlighted and if someone shoots at me I'm turning around really fast. IE shot in the back.

[God's Country]

Seems to me he's been Trayvoned.

From the article it sounds like a good shoot to me.
Being shot in the back doesn't mean shit in this case.

[Mirlen]

Where is the video of the altercation, or am I blind?