Documented LCP Shooting

[Shadow]

Anyone remember Bernhard Goetz & the subway shootings?  Another New York self-defense shooting where the prosecutors turned the real victim into the bad guy.

 Check out this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

[JAG]

Doesn't sound like this guy was represented by a lawyer during the "hours of questioning". If that is the case, well too bad for him. Being retired LEO of sorts, he may have thought he was talking to buddies. Bad move..........

I have the name and number of a good 2nd ammendment lawyer taped to the back of my carry permit.

[Hoosier]

I don't see any mention of the attackers having weapons.  No matter what state this happens in, you shoot an unarmed person and you're going to have a lot of questions to answer.

[mich3210]

I don't see any mention of the attackers having weapons.  No matter what state this happens in, you shoot an unarmed person and you're going to have a lot of questions to answer.

According to some of the NYS laws, it's a NO NO. It was clearly explained and then re-explained when I took my concealed carry class. Now granted I don't live in NYC (I live upstate), but the penal code and laws are still the same. It doesn't sound like they had weapons, and he went outside with them. He didn't try to get away from the situation. Lawyers are going to have a field day with this guy...

[unclenunzie]

Originally from Brooklyn, myself, and gone plenty times bowling in places like this.  I can just see this happening from scattered memories, except the gunfire part. 

At 145 in the morning these 29 year olds were probably drunk smartasses, smoking inside would be one of several typical jackass behaviors.  But if these schmucks were hassling the "old" man, pushing/shoving, maybe throwing a punch or two, he had no right to fire on them.  Seriously.  If these dodos were anything like some of the folks I grew up with, they would have had knives on them and maybe had aluminum baseball bats in their car.  If they really intended harm, the knives would be out or they would have gone to get a weapon and come back to "kick that ..'s ...".  The local population knows this.

To me this almost reads like a personal memory from way back when.  The police know the area, the people, the basics of who does what where, and I bet they decided gunfire was not call for.  I bet they had lots of other folks at the alley say something about what happened. 

Just reading the posted story, seems like charges would be unavoidable.  No one can say what actually happened based on just what's posted here, but for my money, Mr LCP went over the line.

Just a comment on the Bernie Goetz thing:  You will remember he had a great deal of public sympathy because of the force disparity (4 vs 1) with at least one armed with a sharpened screwdriver IIRC.  And at the time, and for a long time historically, violent street crime on the subway was a GIVEN.  But what also got a lot of people thinking was his shooting one of these punks while he was already down, saying, "here, you look like you need another one" or equivalent, can't recall exactly.  That's the kind of thing makes a person look like a maniac.

unclenunzie

[Pizza Bob]

  If they really intended harm, the knives would be out or they would have gone to get a weapon and come back to "kick that ..'s ...".  The local population knows this.

BS! You're supposed to be a mind reader when two punks half your age attack you in the course of your duties? Get real. Ever hear of "Disparity of force"? Two against one, even without the age difference, is enough to make one fear for their life. I don't know if they have a grand jury system in NY, but if they do - and this situation was as reported - hopefully they will no-bill these charges.

JMHO

Adios,

Pizza Bob

[unclenunzie]

Maybe so, intent is hard to determine without hard facts.  To you, they're dangerous thugs about to cause great bodily harm or death, as they were striking him.  To me, they represent run of the mill punks that need stopping for sure, but deadly force is hard for me in this example.  Not saying you can't be right, just that deadly force might not have been necessary.  Only when the facts are known can we be sure.

EDIT:  to add links

Left leaning:  http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/02/retired_correct.php
interesting comments follow the article

Right leaning:  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/fuming_ex_jail_cop_shoots_wv6igiXKn8XsT5GGkCCkpO

NYTIMES:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/nyregion/07shoot.html

local blog commentary:  http://queenscrap.blogspot.com/2010/02/shooting-outside-jackson-heights.html

[mich3210]

NYS Article 35 - Penal Law

S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
  1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably
believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from
what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful
physical force by such other person, unless:
  (a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent
to cause physical injury to another person; or
  (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn
from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such
other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the
use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
  (c) The physical force involved is he product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
  2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
  (a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
  (i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
  (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
  (b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery; or
  (c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.


S 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate
          larceny or criminal mischief.
  A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force,
upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes
such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes
to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of
larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than
premises.


http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm

[LiveFreeOrDie]

I thought this would be a good place to post this, it took one week for the AG's office to clear the cop.

N.H. AG says Keene police shooting justified
February 09, 2010 10:51 AM
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — The New Hampshire Attorney General's office says a Keene police officer was justified when he shot and killed a suspect during a hostage incident.
In a preliminary report into the Feb. 2 incident, officials say Officer Josh English was one of two officers called to the Keene home after receiving a report a man was threatening a woman.
The report says 39-year-old Charles Turcotte was shot once in the head after refusing to drop a knife he was using to threaten his ex-girlfriend. A hostage negotiator also was present.
Attorney General Michael Delaney says Turcotte repeatedly refused to put down the knife.
Officers feared Turcotte would cut the ex-girlfriend's throat and English shot him with his police rifle.

This is from May 2007, where a bystander watch an officer get killed at the traffic stop. He used the officer's weapon and killed the bad guy. It took 24 hrs for the AG's office to call it a justified shot.

Deadly encounter
On May 11, 2007, Floyd, an ex-Marine, watched as Liko Kenney, 24, of Easton, shot and killed Franconia Cpl. Bruce McKay, 48, after McKay pepper sprayed Kenney and his passenger during what began as a routine stop in Franconia. Floyd tried to come to McKay's aid, picked up the officer's service weapon, and fatally shot Kenney.

Attorney General Kelly Ayotte cleared Floyd of any wrongdoing within 24 hours

[Valorius]

One of the morals of this story is to never talk to the cops, ever.

Even if you are totally in the right.

Ever.

Many people talk themselves right into jail. Very, very few ever talk their way out of it.

[3putt]

I agree; don't say a word until you and your attorney can conjure up a proper defense.  That said, going outside with the two punks probably detracts from his "self defense" theory.  Should have called the police,IMO, because being roudy and smoking are not life threatening activities.  It's a shame, because looks to me like the good guy is in big trouble.  Hopefully, there is more to this than posted so he can move on with his life.

[JKRacing37]

I don't see any mention of the attackers having weapons.  No matter what state this happens in, you shoot an unarmed person and you're going to have a lot of questions to answer.

In Michigan size differential between attacker and victim is taken into account, and is grounds to use a gun in self defense.  In my CCW class the lawyer explained if a 300 pound man is beating the snot out of a 90 woman, even if he is only using his hands if she feels the situation is life threatening she is in her legal right to defend herself.  It's the same if it's a guy assaulting another guy or multiple attackers assaulting one person.  Just because another person is unarmed does not mean they do not have the means to seriously hurt and even kill you.

As always I'm sure there is a huge "gray area" in there that the lawyers could have a field day with.

[MountainGator]

I don't see any mention of the attackers having weapons.  No matter what state this happens in, you shoot an unarmed person and you're going to have a lot of questions to answer.

In Michigan size differential between attacker and victim is taken into account, and is grounds to use a gun in self defense.  In my CCW class the lawyer explained if a 300 pound man is beating the snot out of a 90 woman, even if he is only using his hands if she feels the situation is life threatening she is in her legal right to defend herself.  It's the same if it's a guy assaulting another guy or multiple attackers assaulting one person.  Just because another person is unarmed does not mean they do not have the means to seriously hurt and even kill you.

As always I'm sure there is a huge "gray area" in there that the lawyers could have a field day with.

"No matter what state this happens in, you shoot an unarmed person and you're going to have a lot of questions to answer."  That is NOT the case in Montana, and in many other states. Assault (not battery, but assault) is a felonious act most every where, and MANY states authorize the use of deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony (as does U.S.C.)   A woman who BELIEVES that she is about to be raped is authorized to use deadly force (in most places) irrespective of the attacker being “armed”.  Now the commission of  Battery sure helps establishes “fear & belief” (bruises, scratches, torn clothing, etc.) but it is not a requirement. 

And as pointed out, size CAN also be a consideration.  Last year, in Billings, MT, an UNARMED #300 supervisor assaulted and battered a #150 subordinate, who had a MT CWP, and who drew his .25 ACP and shot the supervisor.  The Anti-2A DA did NOT press charges.

I would SURE HOPE that my Mother (&MIL), Wife (&Ex), Daughter (&DIL), and Granddaughters, or any other woman for that matter, could always use deadly force to stop a rape BEFORE IT HAPPENED, even if the attacker was completely unarmed.

StaySafe,
MG

[tractiongrips]

I'm a cop in Georgia, and used to live in NY, so I think I'm in a good position to share my thoughts.  I think the laws in New York are well written, but enforcement and prosecution are guided by liberal politics that dictate that an individual should just lie down and let two attackers beat him, possibly to death, before using a pistol to defend his self.  Two guys, who were just escorted out the door by the defendant, attack him, and it's them that are seen as victims?  It's possible that the guy wasn't very articulate in explaining his justification for using deadly force, but from my point of view, the issue of using deadly force to prevent criminal mischief doesn't apply because he was using it to prevent what he perceived as deadly force being used against him.  I'm looking at my old copy of the NY Penal Code from when I was up there, and section 35.15 states a person may not use deadly force upon another UNLESS "he reasonably believes that such person is using or about to use deadly physical force".  It shouldn't be hard for a person coming from a law enforcement background to see the clear possibility that two dirt bags half his age are about to beat him to death, even if they are unarmed.  I'm sure they weren't telling him that they were only going to beat him until he was NEARLY dead while pummeling him outside the door of the business.  The circumstances seem to indicate he wasn't the one looking for trouble, and surely had the right to defend his self against the use of deadly physical force.  I'm just glad I moved far enough south to have the right to defend myself, my family, and anybody else from being stomped to death without fearing prosecution.  The two dirt bags should be brought before a Grand Jury on charges of Assault in the first degree (120.10), based on the fact they were "engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person".
Just the $0.02 of an over-tired cop who believes a person has the right to use reasonable force to defend his self, regardless of where he is geographically.

[unclenunzie]

Periodically I search the Internet for updates on this case, but have found nothing.  At this point all that's out there is the original public story + peoples comments and opinions.  What we do not have are *any* actual facts.  If anyone has seen anything new *of substance*, please post.  I'm personally interested in this case because of it's closeness to my ancestral home and "spiritual" connectedness with bowling nights

If these two guys really did attack him and in accord with NY law he did justifiably defend himself, then MI should be released with charged dropped, and the two attackers charged.  If not, he'll have to face the consequences that the facts dictate.  Until someone produces evidence one way or another, this case/story remains interesting and relevant, but unresolved.