“According to the document, Roberts said in the process of leaving the room, he noticed Garcia on the floor at the bedroom doorway and shot him again to ‘be certain he was deceased to eliminate any threat of having another altercation’.”
Big problem. “Neutralize the threat” isn’t always the right course of action.
Roberts is facing first degree murder and manslaughter charges, both felony offenses.
That’s going to be a Negative Outcome.
In the original report about the shooting, it’s unclear whether the two year old boy was killed intentionally or just a downrange failure.
No matter what the Outcome, the shooter’s life has now become a shambles and will be for the foreseeable future.
For those who are interested in improving your pistol shooting skills, my books are available as downloads.
Concealed Carry Skills and Drills downloadable eBook. http://concealedcarryskillsanddrills.com
Indoor Range Practice Sessions downloadable eBook. http://indoorrangepracticesessions.com
Serious Mistakes Gunowners Make, downloadable audio recording. http://seriousgunownermistakes.com
Military Special Forces routinely fire ‘anchor’ shots. It is required and expected under curtain circumstances. Similar with active shooter and terrorist fights. In a civilian dispute, if you fire an anchor shot, and tell investigators you fired an ‘anchor’ shot, you may as well go ahead and shoot yourself too. Perhaps this is a reason why lawyers instruct clients – Don’t say anything beyond the bare essentials, such as “My name is xxxx xxxxxx, this guy tried to kill me because I’m Gay, we fought”. (A ‘hate’ component in your favor could help).
Hmmmm. The guy seems to have watching too many John Wick movies. The prosecutor will have a lot of fun with this one. Let’s see-altercation equal to imminent and unavoidable death or great bodily harm? Nope. How about the need to use deadly force with the guy shot and on the ground to stop a possible future altercation? Nope. Yeah. I’d say he’s in for a negative outcome.
That’s not what stop the threat means.
The ‘problem’ was not that he stopped a threat. The problem is that there was no longer an immediate otherwise unavoidable threat of death or injure sufficient to justify lethal force.
Stop the threat does not mean eliminating all risk of future conflict.
I understand and trained to the AnchorShot.
as a civilian I’ve educated myself to untrain some of the MilitaryTactics I’ve been fortunate enough to have been trained to as some of them’ll surely get me in extra trouble out here in the DayToDay.
Here, however, the shooter missed the fact that legally, physically (and hopefully justifiably but the jury is NOT going to ‘like this shooter’ will they) he had already stopped the threat when he shot the man the first time, at which point the man was…
wait fooooorrrr iiiitttttt…
NO LONGER A THREAT!
If you feel he might be, you maintain Security over the shot man…
THIS AIN’T AIRSOFT.
REALLY! MY GOODNESS!!!
Bro, it was a fight over ‘WHATEVER something silly most likely’… and I’m pretty sure it didn’t warrant taking a life, especially if the shooter was MERELY trying to avoid a mere butt-whippin’.
Shooter shoots alleged Attacker, a story to study for sure.
Innocent child’s life lost for ego-sake? There’s the real SHAME in all this…
I wonder if the shooter either defaulted to his level of training, has watched too many Zombie movies (reanimation you know), or played too many video games. SERIOUSLY!!!