Good Shoot? Bad Shoot?

[Werewolf]

Hypothetical scenario:

Outdoors Party/Social Gathering.

2 guys, we'll call them Subject A and Subject B.
Both have CCW's and both are carrying.
Neither is or has drank any alcoholic beverages.
Not friends, minor bad blood between them but not serious.

Subject B says something equivalent to a taunt to Subject A. Subject A clocks Subject B and knocks him to the ground. Subject A informs Subject B that he knows B has a CCW and he best not pull his gun. Subject B ignores the statement and begins to draw his gun. Subject A shoots and kills subject B.

Good Shoot or not. If not why? What would A be charged with. If Good Why. What repercussions.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

Bad shoot.... either or both could have and should have walked away. Not a lawyer... but I can't see a judge or jury see this for anything more than what it is--- a squabble that got out of control.

 

[Perrone]

If the whole story does not come to the courts then it's a good shoot because Subject A had a right to shoot Subject B whom was pulling a gun on him I believe.

If the whole story comes out then it's a bad shoot because Subject A could have walked away as Jefpainthorse said.

 

[zoomaster1]

If the whole story does not come to the courts then it's a good shoot because Subject A had a right to shoot Subject B whom was pulling a gun on him I believe.

If the whole story comes out then it's a bad shoot because Subject A could have walked away as Jefpainthorse said.

I agree, but all depends on how good the lawyer is.

 

[rlongnt]

There would only be one side of this told if it was a good shot.

 

[Werewolf]

There would only be one side of this told if it was a good shot.

Social Gathering; lots of witnesses.

FWIW:

IMO it would be a good shoot. At most subject A could be charged with and probably found guilty of misdemeanor assault because he initiated the event by knocking B to the ground.

Subject B was on the ground and at that point the event the event was concluded. Subject A even warned Subject B that he was aware that B was armed and he shouldn't pull his gun. The physical altercation was over. At no time was B ever threatened with severe bodily harm or lethal force after being knocked to the ground. Subject B reinitiated the confrontation by pulling his weapon without the fear of lethal threat being present (though one might make an argument that the threat of severe bodily harm was extant) even after being warned not to.

Subject A was within his rights to shoot Subject B when he was threatened with lethal force by Subject B pulling his weapon.

 

[Zombie]

bad - he shouldn't have mentioned the gun, should have walked away, and with no mention of guy getting up when the guy goes to draw what stops him from say a boot in the guys face to prevent? or other means of preventing that from occurring?

discretion is the better part of valor - and in bad blood situations cooler heads prevail would apply as he could have prevented it all by walking away

 

[RedRiverAmmo]

Bad shoot, as i understand it because subject A had just battered subject B and therefore used his gun during criminal act(the battery). Use of your concealed weapon while committing a crime is prohibited, correct?

 

[crimeftr]

are we discussing whether it is a good shoot or whether or not the DA will prosecute?

If I were the officer on scene, I would get all the witness statements and see what everyone had to say. With the given information, i have a problem with Subject A assaulting Subject B for something that was said. This is what initiated the physical confrontation. He is the aggressor now. So having said that. With no other information I would say it is a bad shoot.

Now as to the prosecution, it all depends on the DA, everyone is different. Some might prosecute and some might not...

 

[Werewolf]

bad - he shouldn't have mentioned the gun, should have walked away, and with no mention of guy getting up when the guy goes to draw what stops him from say a boot in the guys face to prevent? or other means of preventing that from occurring?

discretion is the better part of valor - and in bad blood situations cooler heads prevail would apply as he could have prevented it all by walking away

In a duty to retreat state I'd agree. OK is not a duty to retreat state.

Law and morality are too different animals.

Regardless of what led up to A shooting B B was the 1st to present any type of lethal threat and A was within his rights to defend himself.

I don't believe the OK SDA which addresses the lawful use of lethal force by a licensed citizen addresses escalation, retreat etc. If one is presented with a lethal threat to one's self one is legally within one's right to defend one's self.

The situation as presented is completely hypothetical though one I find interesting.

It would be educational if one of our legal eagles could jump in and give their opinion.