Another Case Of C & C Gone Wrong?


I'm trying to think of another approach besides walking away (that just grates on me) and directly interceding and escalating the situation. Ok, suppose you approach the black dude and say something friendly like: "hey, why don't you come sit with me and eat?". You haven't said anything to the jackasses who were harassing him. Now, they turn on you but you refuse to bite, attempt to calmly de-escalate the situation, etc. etc. At this point, if they escalate to physical violence, are you justified in using appropriate measures? Or simply by sticking your nose into the situation, are you going to be faulted?

Hey JJFlash... I like that approach... If the hecklers feel like they wanna get in your face, now their choice... And this action may make someone else feel beter. I believe actions like that will be in the Highlight Reel when we meet the Good Lord... :happy:
 

So if I understand this right and I obviously dont have all the facts but it seems as though yall are saying that if you are carring then you cant speak your mind and tell some they are stupid/being dumb (maybe not in so nice of words) because then you become the aggressor if they wanna fight you for some words said? Just curious, let me spin off this with a what if and keep in mind in GA your vehicle is considered your personal property under the castle doctrine. Me being 5'7" 160 and Billy Bob (6'2" because that was used) is stopped at a green light, him being in front of me and I honk my horn, he then gets out, and being a man of considerable size, coming at me to "punch me in the face" I have no right to draw my weapon? I have to disagree and feel I have the right and even if miller did call the guy an idiot and tell him to move there was nothing that waranted a punch in the face if it were only words exchanged. As for leaving the scene he shouldnt have and doesnt FL have a civil protection in the castle doctrine? Again let me know if I am in left field or not. Another question is dont FL have a stand your ground law meaning you dont "have" to retreat first? It seems to me that the only crime here is fleeing the scene and possibly having the firearm. I know in GA you dont have to have a CC to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle, is FL the same way? If so no crime there either. This seems like Vigeant tried to be a big man and got put in his place. Im sorry for the family but seems he was in the wrong and is one reason I carry. I am also sorry for Miller who has to live with knowing he took another mans life, rough on the mind but easier then another coma.

If someone comes to your car and you are carrying, the only sane thing to do is lock your doors and drive away if possible. If you can't drive away, then just sit there with the doors locked and the windows up. If they break the window, I see no reason not to believe you are completely within your rights to shoot them, though I would let them see the gun and come to some decision before I shot.

Added thought: As soon as they got out of their car and started towards you, you should be on the phone with 9-11
 
I hope the guy who was punched was in a convertible..........because if I'm the prosecutor I'm going to say to the jury. "Now this gentleman has invested his time and money to take a Concealed Carry Course, but yet his judgement was so poor, that he didn't even bother to lock his car door. No it was just easier for him to shoot a kill a man, rather than take a simple step that might have avoided the entire situation all together." Back to the scenario, it says that two men got into an argument. Were they initially out of their cars and then returned or were they shouting the argument at each other while in their respective cars? That point might make a difference in liability.
 
I hope the guy who was punched was in a convertible..........because if I'm the prosecutor I'm going to say to the jury. "Now this gentleman has invested his time and money to take a Concealed Carry Course, but yet his judgement was so poor, that he didn't even bother to lock his car door. No it was just easier for him to shoot a kill a man, rather than take a simple step that might have avoided the entire situation all together." Back to the scenario, it says that two men got into an argument. Were they initially out of their cars and then returned or were they shouting the argument at each other while in their respective cars? That point might make a difference in liability.

Unfortunately the original articles are no longer available but in an earlier post I was able to post this description as accurately as I could of what happened.

Mr. Vigeant left Summerville for a couple of days of golf with friends and got to Myrtle Beach late. He decided to stop by McDonalds instead of Hooters for something to eat.

While at the drive through Mr. Miller pulled up behind him.

For some unknown reason Miller becam impatient and started honking his horn and cussing at Vigeant.

Vigeant may have been cussing back a Miller. That may have been probable but I don't know and not really part of it.

Vigeant finally pulled up to allow Miller to go on through. I think Miller pulled up enough to either place or get his order. he may not have even pulled up any but he is still yelling and cussing at Vigeant.

From witnesses reports Vigeant gets out of his car and walks over to Miller's car.

Wintesses hearthem arguing, a gun shot, see Vigeant stagger back to his car and Miller peal out of the place via the route the Vigeant had left open for him at a very high rate of speed.

Cops are called and Vigeant is pronounced dead.

Cops notify Vigeant's wife of his death and tell her that he went over to Miller's car to tell him to calm down and ask what is his problem. They tell his wife that they have a suspect but have not arrested him.

Cops locate Miller and make arrest the next day.

Miller claims that Vigeant punched him in the face and was the reason that he shot him.

Miller's family claims that the reason that he shot him was because Miller had been beaten half to death several years ago after taking on several guys down at Boardwalk at the Beach.
 
Hey marionandjohn: I absolutely agree with your frustration about not being able to do anything just because you have a CCW but you must realize that the police, the solicitor and the jury were not there, do not have a personal stake in the situation, and easily can see this 180 degrees from your VERY personal view of things.You are the one with the gun, you are the one who just killed someone,you do not have any marks on you, and worst of all, the dead guy does not have any weapons of any kind. Now you are going to tell these people how fearful you were about dying. I hope all of you posters will just realize that all of us are just having a good time exchanging thoughts and there may be disagreement--but we can all learn something by hearing all the opinions even if we do not agree with all of them. In the Miller/Vigeant case, Miller signed his own guilty plea by running away and hiding---he cannot explain that fact away---scared ain't good enough.
 
I agree with him being guilty because he ran away I even said that earlier and I fully agree with doing what you can before you have to even draw your weapon or fire. I do not believe that because I have a gun I "win" and that I can take on any situation. I do believe however that because I have a gun I do not loose my right to tell the idiot that is stopped at a green light that he needs to move. as far as miller getting punched the first thing you do in a drive through is roll down your window (theres the way in the car) unfortunatly we have became such a lazy society that almost all cars have electric windows and because people have no common sense the windows can be stopped while being rolled up. (lost the chance to lock vigeant out of his car). I am not trying to say this is what happened just my take. I know that if I shot a guy twice and he is stumbling back to his car that he might have a gun in there and try to return fire weather he is legal or not and I would leave the immediate area and call 911 not just hide and pretend it didnt happen. And it might be just me but if I see someone coming towards me in great anger my cell phone is not the first thing I am reaching for nor am I wasting time dialing 911 when I should be trying to get the heck out of there if not that then securing my families and my own safty then grabbing the phone (securing safty from an angry person is positioning myself in a defensive postion)
 
Hey marionandjohn: Cannot argue with anything you have said and appreciate your comments. Just the fact that there are so many variables that we end up talking about in the comfort of our little computer room gives you reason enough to understand that all those who will judge us when we use our CCW will have opinions that may be very different from our own seemingly correct actions; their opinions could be the difference between criminal charges and/or severe civil penalties (although many states do have a civil penalty disclaimer that ties into criminal non-guilt or no criminal charges).
 
A civil suit is almost certain however.....

I see a contradiction here. See Item 'B':

(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.

Am I wrong?
 
I see a contradiction here. See Item 'B':



Am I wrong?

Not necessarily. If they should decide not to prosecute Miller then no real ruling has been made to satisfy the code. The best way would be to present the case to a grand jury and they refuse to indict. Then Miller would have a good basis for a defense against a civil suit. Just becasue either the prosecutor, grand judy or a criminal jury fails to find Miller guilty it does not prohibit a civil lawsuit. However the platiff would have an uphill battle to try an convince a jury that the shooting was not justified and obtain an award. In fact there would have to be some circustances beyond the criminal proceedings to actually get an award. If they could not prove their case they would be liable for the legal fees of the defendant. It is possible for a civil lawsuit following a case involving the Castle Doctrine but extremely rare.

Results of a criminal trial are normally not allowed as part of the evidence in a civil trial. Remember that a jury finds someone Not-Guilty rather than innocent. About the only time a criminal charge can be used if if the defendent pleads Guilty to the charges.
 
Thank you FN1910 for once again providing excellent "mentoring" to many of us who try to be knowledgeable on the very serious subject of CC and its myriad of do's and don'ts and potential for terrible choices. I look forward to your comments in this forum and pay attention when I see them.
 
For those of you that think, and say, that Tennessee has a Duty To Retreat law:

39-11-611. Self-defense. —
(a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Business” means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;
(2) “Curtilage” means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;
(3) “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, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;
(4) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and
(5) “Vehicle” means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:
(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.
(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
 
We can argue the Myrtle Beach case forever but in the end it will come down to 12 people on a jury, which still will not settle anything except that particular case and the evidence that is presented and examined. Mr. Miller will not only have spent his savings on a lawyer but may very well end up in jail and, if he ends up in jail, will spend the rest of whatever he has on civil penalties brought by the Vigeant family. Personally if I was on the jury I would find him guilty, based on what I understand of the facts. If I was in the car and a Mr. Vigeant came over to me and punched me in the face I would pull away (if I could), note his license plate, call the police and press assault charges against Miller; I would find it difficult to believe I would shoot someone over a punch in the face. Easy for me to say sitting here in my computer room and not on the receiving end of a punch from a guy who is yelling and screaming at me.The more you think about this CCW "thing" you realize how truly difficult it is to navigate the law as written and the real world as it occurs to you in a particularly difficult and confrontational moment in time.
 
We can argue the Myrtle Beach case forever but in the end it will come down to 12 people on a jury, which still will not settle anything except that particular case and the evidence that is presented and examined. Mr. Miller will not only have spent his savings on a lawyer but may very well end up in jail and, if he ends up in jail, will spend the rest of whatever he has on civil penalties brought by the Vigeant family. Personally if I was on the jury I would find him guilty, based on what I understand of the facts. If I was in the car and a Mr. Vigeant came over to me and punched me in the face I would pull away (if I could), note his license plate, call the police and press assault charges against Miller; I would find it difficult to believe I would shoot someone over a punch in the face. Easy for me to say sitting here in my computer room and not on the receiving end of a punch from a guy who is yelling and screaming at me.The more you think about this CCW "thing" you realize how truly difficult it is to navigate the law as written and the real world as it occurs to you in a particularly difficult and confrontational moment in time.

I would say that you are pretty much right on target with this. I can't really say how I would vote if on the jury but this brings up a great question. How would you handle the situation if you didn't have a gun? If you can get out of it without a gun then don't use it. Too many people look on their gun as a crutch and take on a totally different attitude while carrying one. A guy punches you, is that any reason to kill him? A guy keeps punching you and you feel your life ebbing away. Then is the time you don't worry about the law or anything else but your life. Those times in between are decision times and hope you make the correct decision. I really hate these questions about is it legal to use my gun in such and such a situation. If I am getting ready to kill someone the last thing I am going to worry about is the legality of it.
 
Hey Cocked and Locked: With all due respect to your comments, I'm not quite sure what your point was in your last post but if it is expressing your displeasure with this thread and/or its posts then do not read it and certainly do not waste your time on replying. Dozens of posters have expressed opinions but you just seem to want them to stop because you find them worthless and not up to your standards. I surely hope that your chosen user name and what seems to be very little patience in appreciating what other people have to say does not spill over to an exaggerated, aggravated and aggressive attitude if/when you choose to CC. I surely wish you the best as a person who obviously believes in the 2nd Amendment, but you should appreciate the fact that many people, including myself, support the 2nd Amendment but have a different appreciation of the responsibilities of CC and the time, place and circumstances of using a CCW. That is not stupid, that is being intelligent and ithoughtful.
 
Hey kelcarry, not being sure about my point means just that: you took it wrong. Episodes like this are only more fodder for the anti-gun lobby. The Stupid people that use their weapons like that are the ones that will be the undoing of the 2nd amendment - just helping the anti's along.

I have plenty of patience. That's why I waited for you all to get more-or-less finished over-analyzing this situation for what it really is: A stupid person abusing his firearm priviledge, simple as that. The preface about his unfortunate background and all that relates to most of the rest of the story, painful jury decisions and all is one big load of rubbish.

Just my humble opinion, FWIW.
 
Hey Cocked and Locked: The fun of these threads is reading what everyone has to say about something that someone brings up; even if it rehashes similar posts, there is always a little different "take" from each of the posters. I wish you well and understand your comments and lets all hope, as much as we may learn from the various "CC gone wrong" situations, that we never have to be put in a situation that requires CCW use. I lived most of my adult life (67 now) in NY/NJ and have travelled in some "funny" areas in those states. I have never been in a situation where I ever thought of the need for a CCW; I have found that common sense is a stronger weapon than any CCW and I think that is an overriding point and the essence of what most people on this forum believe and think. I am getting older and more cynical based on current national politics and this is the only time I feel real fear for where this country iis going; I cannot rely on my common sense to undo the things that the federal government is doing. Primarily, I have elected to exercise my 2nd Amendment right to protect myself and my family from what I consider to be a dangerous government and CC expands on this concern. CC in my everyday life is important to me but I still feel it is a secondary concern of mine based on the aforementioned 67 years of common sense. Wish you well Cocked and Loaded and look forward to your comments in this forum.
 
OK, I am not going to read 8 pages of comments to see if this has been stated yet. A guy gets out of his car and walks over to yours, he cannot punch you if the window is up. Roll up your window and wait him out.
 
I think marionandjohn have a point, one which I've tried to make before and had my head handed to me: When we're carrying, do we "lose" the capability to say anything at all in any situation? When we're carrying, I understand the higher standard which we must operate under but does that necessarily mean we can't address a situation as a rational human being without fear of escalation?

Here we go: I'm waiting behind a car which doesn't move when the light turns green and so I casually hit the horn (not loud and long, just a tap) to get their attention. No offense intended, just wanted to get their attention. Now, if someone does that to me, I think "oops", wave to them, and move my car. No problem. But, Numbnuts in the car ahead of me doesn't like it, opens his door and starts walking back toward me. Being the rational and friendly person I am, I roll down my window to say, hey, no problem...but he's not buying it and off we go. I've done nothing wrong, in my opinion, but some folks are just wound too tight. Should I not have hit the horn because of this possibility? And my first reaction when Numbnuts gets out of his car is not to roll up my window and dial 911; I would attempt to explain, as I said.

So, because of the POSSIBILITY of escalation, must we always refrain from any reasonable language or action which MIGHT be interpreted wrongly by someone else?

PLEASE NOTE: I DID NOT SAY I WOULD SHOOT SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T MOVE THEIR CAR WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN! :hang3:
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,543
Messages
611,260
Members
74,964
Latest member
BFerguson
Back
Top