[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Local CCW incident (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/18/2010 9:37:03 PM EDT
|
Former Okmulgee reserve deputy involved in fatal shooting Police responded to a fatal shooting Tuesday evening at Moe's Grill in the 500 block of South Lewis Avenue. JARREL WADE/Tulsa World By JARREL WADE World Staff Writer Published: 5/18/2010 8:57 PM Last Modified: 5/18/2010 10:25 PM A former Okmulgee County reserve deputy fatally shot a man Tuesday night at a Tulsa convenience store, police reported. Capt. Karen Tipler said the shooting took place about 7:20 p.m. inside Moe’s Grill in the 500 block of South Lewis Avenue. The former reserve deputy was talking with the store’s owner when a man he had previously arrested entered and the two exchanged words, Tipler said. The former officer drew a gun and fired after the other man showed a gun in his waistband. The man asked the former reserve deputy, “You want some of this?” as he showed the weapon, Tipler said. The man was hit multiple time in the upper body and was pronounced dead at the scene after an EMSA crew arrived, Tipler said. Tipler said police could not confirm yet the number of shots fired or the number of times the man was shot. Neither the shooter nor the victim was being immediately identified. The former reserve deputy, who had a concealed carry permit, was taken into custody for questioning, Tipler said. The Okmulgee County Sheriff’s Department late Tuesday confirmed that the shooting suspect was a former reserve deputy but was not currently commissioned with the department. A witness outside the store reported hearing eight to 10 shots and seeing people scramble from the building. Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100518_11_0_Aforme765360 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– I can't fault the guy for shooting him, though I am really not sure how I would have handled it. What do you guys think?
|
|
Quoted:
Sounds like a good shoot to me. "You want some of this"... famous last words.  CCW -> "Nope, but I got some of this for ya'!" IIRC, he should be covered because the previous arrest was while he was in an official capacity, and the BG confronted him as such. I know that in the federal system, that's still counted as assault/ threatening an officer, even if you're no longer an officer. -SleeperShooter |
|
Quoted:
Oh, I think it was a good shoot, but I never thought about a situation where someone flashed a gun in a waistband scenario. In an instant the DRT perp could have drawn and shot the man he was threatening. Plus the perp already had a poor history with the shooter. Play stupid games and all that. 
|
|
Quoted:
A former police officer will not be charged, a regular Joe would be in jail. The shooter IS in jail. "Taken into custody for questioning" is right there in the article posted for anyone to read, but it doesn't say anything about him being released, does it? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: A former police officer will not be charged, a regular Joe would be in jail. The shooter IS in jail. "Taken into custody for questioning" is right there in the article posted for anyone to read, but it doesn't say anything about him being released, does it? "That former reserve deputy had a concealed carry permit according to officers on the scene. He is being questioned, but police are treating it as a self-defense shooting." http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Tulsa-Police-Fatal-Shooting-Self-Defense/74oomjCsdkqcIY0lMg2mBQ.cspx You can't shoot someone and expect the authorities not to ask questions.... I doubt a regular Joe would have been treated any differently in Tulsa based on the same witness reports. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, I think it was a good shoot, but I never thought about a situation where someone flashed a gun in a waistband scenario. In an instant the DRT perp could have drawn and shot the man he was threatening. Plus the perp already had a poor history with the shooter. Play stupid games and all that. What would have happened if the guy was not a former LEO? Joe Nobody etc? That is what I am curious about. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A former police officer will not be charged, a regular Joe would be in jail. The shooter IS in jail. "Taken into custody for questioning" is right there in the article posted for anyone to read, but it doesn't say anything about him being released, does it? "That former reserve deputy had a concealed carry permit according to officers on the scene. He is being questioned, but police are treating it as a self-defense shooting." http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Tulsa-Police-Fatal-Shooting-Self-Defense/74oomjCsdkqcIY0lMg2mBQ.cspx You can't shoot someone and expect the authorities not to ask questions.... I doubt a regular Joe would have been treated any differently in Tulsa based on the same witness reports. I expressed myself poorly. My point was that the responding officers didn't just show up, find out the guy had been a LEO and then turn him loose with a "Job well done!". There have been many cases where non-LEO types were questioned after a self-defense shooting and turned loose. It's not like that only happens to former cops. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like a good shoot to me. "You want some of this"... famous last words. CCW -> "Nope, but I got some of this for ya'!" IIRC, he should be covered because the previous arrest was while he was in an official capacity, and the BG confronted him as such. I know that in the federal system, that's still counted as assault/ threatening an officer, even if you're no longer an officer. -SleeperShooter "Are you gonna whistle Dixie or fire this gun" that's what kill the perp, talking |
|
Quoted:
almost exact scenario a couple of us were discussing yesterday. My opinion was that showing the weapon by raising shirt or whatever constitutes threat Good shoot I believe that 'brandishing' is what you are trying to refer to, which covers the threat aspect, I believe. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
almost exact scenario a couple of us were discussing yesterday. My opinion was that showing the weapon by raising shirt or whatever constitutes threat Good shoot I believe that 'brandishing' is what you are trying to refer to, which covers the threat aspect, I believe. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile yes brandishing+"you want some of this"= life threatening IMO |
|
Quoted: A former police officer will not be charged, a regular Joe would be in jail. Means - gun displayed Motive - stated, confirmed by witnesses Opportunity - at close range Three strikes, you're out. While I could see a vehemently anti-gun DA pressing charges, this is pretty slam-dunk as a lawful self-defense case. Remember, even if you're completely justified in using lethal force, it can easily cost you over $30k in legal fees defending yourself. |
|
ETA: Link
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized Title 21. Crimes and Punishments Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder Cite as: O.S. §, __ __ –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: 1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and 2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if: 1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; 2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or 3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity. D. 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. E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant. G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement 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. H. The court shall award reasonable attorney 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 F of this section. I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner. J. As used in this section: 1. "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people; 2. "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and 3. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. |