Man wields air rifle, is shot by APD, sues police.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out. It sounds like these were difficult circumstances to evaluate on the fly.
The fact that the gun ended up being a pellet gun is immaterial. It looked like a real firearm, giving him ability to inflict death or serious bodily injury. He was pointing it near people, opportunity. The only question is whether a reasonable person would have discerned jeopardy, or intent to cause harm.
K-Bay rockfish
1 hour ago
The presence of a firearm is a poor metric for determining potential violence. it's like using the size of someone's head to determine their suitability for public office.
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense.
A pellet rifle is quite capable of injuring or even killing a human. Would there have been an issue with this shoot at all, it it had been a crossbow rather than a pellet gun?
It's not the tool that's dangerous, but rather the person wielding it, and their choice of actions.
Raudbjorn,
ReplyDeleteThe traditional metric for using lethal force in self defense requires a "reasonable man" to perceive ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, as well as a risk of innocents being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.
The apparent presence of a rifle (or any deadly weapon) satisfies the ability requirement. A person with a firearm has the ability to inflict death or serious bodily injury. It doesn't matter that the rifle was a pellet gun, as long as a reasonable person would perceive it to be a real firearm. A crossbow would also qualify as a deadly weapon.
If that firearm is being wielded -- i.e., it isn't slung, but is being held in a position ready to use -- then the wielder has the opportunity to employ their weapon.
The final question is, is the person with the weapon putting others into jeopardy? What is the intent of the wielder? This is harder to discern. I mean, when I'm out hunting, I have a rifle and am wielding it, but I have no criminal intent to cause serious bodily injury or death to other people. You're exactly right in that it is the person wielding it, and their choice of actions. The tricky thing is, how do we know what is really in someone else's heart? Especially in a fast moving tactical situation...
Ultimately I think what a reasonable person would have perceived the rifleman's intent to be is what this case hinges on.
It is a great example for private citizens in a few ways.
1) If you use lethal force in self defense or legitimate defense of others, expect that snap decision to be questioned thoroughly afterwards. Even if you're innocent of criminal charges, there can be substantial, life changing civil suits brought.
2) If you choose to open carry, be aware of the context and risks. You're right that open carry is not grounds to be shot by a cop. However, you are also satisfying at least one of the "AOJ Triad" requirements (ability), and if you draw or unsling that weapon, you're satisfying two (opportunity as well). You are now relying on other observers to correctly discern your intent. Frankly, there are not many compelling reasons to be wandering around in a Taco Bell parking lot late at night with an unslung rifle. Context matters.
Cheers,
Chris