Man Shot During Robbery. "Lincoln"

[Kendahl]

And in neither case is deadly force justified.

Since I mentioned three separate incidents, please indicate which two you believe did not justify defense using deadly force.

I should point out three things:

• In the 40 years I have lived in Omaha, I can cite six incidents in which people died from head injuries inflicted by unarmed assailants. Two more recovered after extended periods in a coma. Those incidents give the lie to the notion that hitting someone in the head is anything less than an assault using deadly force.
• A few years ago, a kid out of his mind on wet (marijuana laced with PCP) broke into an occupied home. Omaha police responded quickly but, before they could move the homeowners to safety, the kid lunged at them with a knife. The officers shot him to death.
• As far as I know, the Douglas County prosecutor has not filed charges against the homeowner who shot the home invader who, I suspect, was high on drugs.

[barmandr]

I'm referring to the incident in the original post.

[GreyGeek]

Three people have been beat to death in Lincoln over the last year.

[barmandr]

But we're not discussing those cases.  We are talking about one case...the one in the original post.  I understand people have been beaten to death before, but that isn't the case here and since the victim wasn't being beaten to death, had left the immediate area, and was no longer being attacked, deadly force was not warranted.  That's all I'm getting at...just this case with the information presented.  Not what has happened elsewhere, what could have happened, or any other irrelevant BS not about this, and only this incident.

[Sandhillian]

Not what has happened elsewhere, what could have happened, or any other irrelevant BS not about this, and only this incident.

What could have happened does matter, in that Nebraska's use of force law says that the use of force is justifiable if:

(a) The actor would be justified under section 28-1409 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;

(b) Under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and

(c) The actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

Note the wording "the injury he believes to be threatened."  So, it matters what the actor believes could have happened or what he believes was going to happen.  Or, at least a reasonable person under the circumstances as they existed at that time; not what the media has reported the circumstances to be.

[barmandr]

The victim was no longer threatened as he had already left the area therefore intervention was not needed and the suspect did not make a move towards the house until after the initial shots were fired.

[GreyGeek]

....  I understand people have been beaten to death before, but that isn't the case here and since the victim wasn't being beaten to death, had left the immediate area, and was no longer being attacked, deadly force was not warranted.  ...

The point is that any one of those blows to the head of the guy in the car could have done permanent or lethal damage.  When the perp charged the fellow who fired a "warning" shot, could you havepersonally guaranteed that the potential assault on the front steps would not lead to lethal injuries and be held accountable if it did?

Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, especially when the quarterback isn't responsible for their calls.

[barmandr]

"Could have" doesn't cut it.  No reporting I've seen says anything about the victim being punched more than once.  And regardless, the victim was not even in the area when the shots, including the initial warning shot, was fired.  Deadly force to stop the theft of a car is NOT justified, no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it.  Since the victim was not in the area, not being assaulted anymore, take him out of the equation.  The shooter was no longer intervening to protect his life, he was no longer in danger.  Sure, if he was still getting beaten by the suspect, then an intervention would be appropriate, but HE WASN'T EVEN IN THE AREA.  That is exactly the same as me coming to your house saying the guy in the front yard just punched me and you going outside and shooting him.  Not justified in that scenario, right?

[Gunscribe]

You are assuming that the news stories associated with this event are complete and 100% accurate. Sure they interview an authorized spokesperson but what are the new agencies leaving out because they have an anti-gun bias? What information is being held back by the police agency because this is still an open investigation?

You are basing all of your assumptions on what may or not be honest reporting by biased news companies that are in the business to make money.

And regardless, the victim was not even in the area when the shots, including the initial warning shot, was fired.

Where was he in relation to his motor car? Define area. Yards? Feet? Miles?

Why are you ignoring the fact that the suspect exited the vehicle he forcibly car jacked and (depending on what story you read) approached or charged the homeowner?

You are carrying on as if this is the whole complete story.

Nothing I have read states that the suspect was verbally threatening the homeowner. Nothing states he wasn't either.

Nothing I have read states that the suspect was unarmed. Of course nothing says he was armed either.

To implicitly state that this was NOT a justifiable instance of self-defense based solely on all of the information you DO NOT have is doing your fellow gun owners a severe disservice and playing right into the hands of the grabbers.

[barmandr]

Wrong.  I'm basing MY OPINION on just the information reported, right or wrong.  Almost everyone else is adding stuff to the story.  I'm not saying what has been reported is gospel, but using ONLY the information provided to base it on.  I'm not basing it on some other incident or that he was beaten within an inch of his life or anything else because that is not the information which has been provided.  There may well be information which has not been reported which may make everything justified, but it HAS NOT been reported.  So, quit reading into it, assigning some other attributes, or adding to the story and base it strictly on the information given and there's no way to justify what happened.  Oh yeah...every single story says the suspect approached AFTER the warning shot was fired.  And as far as me basing my entire opinion on the belief that what is being reported is complete and accurate, you're guilty of the same thing...you base yours on what may or may not be honest reporting.  And you said it yourself...the suspect had to exit the vehicle to approach the house and the 16 year old was already out of the vehicle and no longer being assaulted, hence no more violent act against him.

[GreyGeek]

"Could have" doesn't cut it.  No reporting I've seen says anything about the victim being punched more than once. 

Once is enough.  Besides a single punch, even if it wasn't lethal, the person hit may fall to the ground and experience a lethal concussion to the brain when his head hits the floor or pavement.

And regardless, the victim was not even in the area when the shots, including the initial warning shot, was fired.  Deadly force to stop the theft of a car is NOT justified, no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it.  Since the victim was not in the area, not being assaulted anymore, take him out of the equation.  The shooter was no longer intervening to protect his life, he was no longer in danger.  Sure, if he was still getting beaten by the suspect, then an intervention would be appropriate, but HE WASN'T EVEN IN THE AREA.  That is exactly the same as me coming to your house saying the guy in the front yard just punched me and you going outside and shooting him.  Not justified in that scenario, right?

It doesn't matter where the original victim was, the perp directed his hostilities toward the one who gave a warning shot.  When the perp charged the person with the gun that person was now at risk of possible lethal injuries, directly from a punch or indirectly from a fall resulting from a punch.  That the perp was charging a man with a gun is evidence that he had no regard for life, even his own, or that he was drugged out.

I was taught years ago that one does NOT pull a gun unless he intends to use it.  I was also taught that if you feel the need to shoot, then shoot to kill.   Even the police are taught that, and many YouTube videos show that they put it into practice, sending a full magazine of bullets into the perp as  quickly as they can.

While hindsight is always 20-20.   As the Zimmerman case established, twisting events with 20-20 hindsight can create an illusion of guilt that isn't real.

[barmandr]

Once is enough.  Besides a single punch, even if it wasn't lethal, the person hit may fall to the ground and experience a lethal concussion to the brain when his head hits the floor or pavement.  BUT HE DIDN'T...quit with the what ifs and could haves and stick to what DID happen as reported (whether the report is accurate or not)


It doesn't matter where the original victim was, the perp directed his hostilities toward the one who gave a warning shot.      By firing the warning shot, he became the aggressor.



While hindsight is always 20-20.   As the Zimmerman case established, twisting events with 20-20 hindsight can create an illusion of guilt that isn't real.      The rest of you guys defending the shooters actions are the ones twisting the events...I'm simply going off just the information reported.

[Dan W]

If this is an open and shut case of wrongful death, I wonder why LPD has not made an arrest or the City attorney has not filed any charges?

[barmandr]

No one died.  The suspect, to my knowledge, will be arrested when medically cleared, and it's still up in the air as to what charges, if any, the shooter will face.

[66bigblock]

I cant find the online LJS link now, but Im pretty sure I read yesterday that the DA said that no charges would be filed against the individual that fired the rifle.


66bigblock

[Gary]

The last update I see to this story is Monday.  This is now Thursday.

http://www.1011now.com/home/headlines/Man-Shot-During-Robbery-267824451.html?device=phone

In contrast, and in fairness to the media, they have kept us up to date on the soap in the 27th street fountain story.

http://www.klkntv.com/story/26087467/city-fountain-vandalized

[Dan W]

No one died. 

You're right, I forgot that that the perp lived.

[Gary]

Interesting update!

Police: Man shot in attempted robbery arrested http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/article_2c907729-7969-5b96-a81d-0d9d7d8b1139.html

Seems this is the same gentelman that was walking around nude on I-80 a few days ago, kicking cars that stopped to help him. 

http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/naked-man-arrested-on-i/article_37ff3101-a5b4-5caa-8b43-299af3dc441e.html

Still no word on the good samaritan homeowner with a rifle.   Given this guys rap sheet, guessing the homeowner is off the hook with some advice to flick the deadbolt next time.

This bad guy is a real piece of work. 

How did he get from nude on the interstate attacking cars, to where he was shot a couple days later?   

Was he out on bond?   Seems like a 30 day look over at a mental hospital would have kept him from getting into more trouble.

[GreyGeek]

Germain to this discussion about self-defense shooting of an unarmed assailant is a story today in the LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-good-samaritan-killed-child-attack-20140725-story.html

Ortega shielded the child from what appeared to be an "imminent" attack and told the man to leave the child alone. The man punched Ortega in the face and fled the restaurant, said Los Angeles Police Department West Bureau homicide Det. Steven Katz.

Ortega filed a battery report and told police officers he would seek his own medical care, Katz said. Two days later, Ortega checked himself into Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and complained of a headache and vomiting, Katz said.

He died from his injuries July 14. The coronor's office determined Wednesday that Ortega died of blunt force trauma and listed his death as a homicide, Katz said.

All it takes is a single punch.    The vic didn't even feel injured enough to take himself to the hospital following the incident, but unknown to him the blow obviously created a small bleeder in his brain.  As the area affected grew and the blood clotted, it cut off circulation to additional areas of his brain.  Eventually, enough of his brain was damaged that he died.

Even if the blow to the head isn't sufficient to cause a bleeder, if the blow is enough to knock the vic down and in the fall he strikes his head on the pavement, THAT is sufficient to cause a lethal bleeder.    Neeson Iam's wife was standing on ski's and slipped.  Her head hit snow and that was all it took.  While the brain case was stopped by the snow, the brain inside was not, and it continued down, striking the inside back of the brain case with enough force to create the bleeding which eventually killed her.

Never be so stupid as to give a perp a free punch before you feel justified in defending yourself.     After all, the "peace maker" was the weapon that made the 90 pound weakling equal to the 200 lb bully.

[ILoveCats]

It's been almost a month now.   A google search is revealing no updates on the person who shot in self-defense and whether he was charged, exonerated, or kept in limbo.

Anyone know what ever became of this?

The comments on local social media and traditional media web pages were relatively supportive of the guy, so I was wondering if they were going to wait for the story to fade in everyone's memory before they charged him.