Iceman was shot, but will be OK

[daddog]

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ef8e1701cb2c2b25dc9160f484ee816f&threadid=194541

Iceman24 has flown with us a few times in Squad Ops. He was considering us for a squad about a year ago, but went elsewhere. I think Skernsk scared  him off. I saw right across from him at the Con. Very nice guy. Big fellow. Reminded me of Makarov.

Anyway read the link above.

[daddog]

I might still have his e-mail at home. Will check.

[Dichodog]

hmmm local boy done good

[daddog]

Here is his e-mail
iceman24@netzero.net

[Ghosth]

I hate to think of what he'd of done with a decent shot gun at hand!

[daddog]

I keep a loaded .45 at my bed side in a hidden compartment. Also have a shotgun with an improved short barrel. Gloria and I have talked about this many times. If I was single no material items are worth a life. They could take what they want. With with wife and kids now, I will shoot first once I know what I am shooting at.

[Simaril]

I keep a loaded .45 at my bed side in a hidden compartment. Also have a shotgun with an improved short barrel. Gloria and I have talked about this many times. If I was single no material items are worth a life. They could take what they want. With with wife and kids now, I will shoot first once I know what I am shooting at.

I live in a smaller town (about 100,00 in the county) and honestly I have a lot less to worry about when it comes to crime. But I've always been a little scared of this idea. I'm not afraid of guns at all, but I do have a healthy respect for them.I read the statistics, and statistically a gun in the home is far more likely to injure or kill a family member than an intruder. What really makes me hesitate is this: I have to be willing to KILL with that gun in the moment its use is needed, and I just dont know if  I could do that. (Of course, the danger is that with the adrenaline flowing, if I don't remove the threat completely the threat will be jacked up enough to kill me and my family...).


Anyway, since the risk out here is lower, and the dangers of the gun are the same, we've chosen to not go that route. Now that the kids are older (OK, and I am too....and maybe less able to defend?) I dont know. Its also kinda hard because we have some close friends whose dad (a long time target shooter) plunged into depression and shot himself after his wife died. Without the guns, Dwight's dad might be alive...and I cant forget the unbeievable pain and horror I saw in Dwight when he told me about going into that basement and finding his dad's body.


I'm not afraid of guns. but having one in the house would make me very nervous indeed.

[Dichodog]

Sim,

I used to be a gun enthusiast and even taught a firearms safety course for housewives of the rich and shameless for about a year.  I do have two antique weapons in the house that have had the firing pins removed and stored safely away from them.  The chance is too great that one of the kids will get curious about them and I'm not taking that chance. 

That said.

To the men and women that practice safe handling of firearms and have a healthy respect for them I have no beef with yall.  But I've seen what an accidental discharge can do with a 9 millimeter (through 6 walls of the house and into a brick wall).  Were I to choose a firearm for home defense it would be a 12 ga auto, sawed off, with birdshot in it.  That will put a grown man down across a room but runs a substantially lesser chance of wounding or killing someone in the next room or house if I miss. And you don't have to be a good shot to get the bad guy

Fortunately I think
<--- sparky

would handle any miscreants that decided to drop in

[ASAdog]

Before I begin –

I’m a LE Public Safety Officer, a Use OF Force Instructor, a Firearms Instructor, and a Baton and OC Instructor, plus I have a very strong background in other firearms and defensive tools and defensive techniques; but since I am not a Lawyer, I can’t give legal advice.

That said; I’m more than willing to discuss firearms, use of force, and other self defense issues with y’all here.

I’d like to take this opportunity to cover a few things.

I’m glad to see that Iceman survived the encounter. From what little I know of the encounter it appears that he acted justifiably and as necessary; but

It’s a horrible mistake for him to post in a public way about this encounter until after criminal and civil matters have played out, which will take maybe several years. Every thing he posted can be used against him.

Even if your use of force is legally justifiable and necessary, you have four things to survive in a use of force situation, especially if deadly force was used: The incident itself; your emotional and psychological reactions; the criminal justice system; and, the civil court system.

Even when one appears to have used force justifiably and as necessary the DA may still bring criminal charges. There are lots of reasons for this, and I can’t get into all of them, but the DA may have political reasons, or an agenda/bias, or some thing may suggest that the justifiability or necessity of the use force may be in doubt – and a DA can bring these charges years after the incident is over. Statements made after an encounter, even well intended ones, may be enough to turn the DA.

A civil case is a high possibility even if one is believed by the DA, or is found by jury, to have used force justifiably and as necessary. It’s a simple reality that one can be found not guilty, but still get sued.

The standard for criminal matters is very high – Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. But the standard for civil matters is much lower – By the Preponderance of the Evidence (in other words “More likely than not” – 51% or better).

Iceman, even if not charged or found not guilty, still risks being sued by one of the surviving perpetrators or any one of the perpetrator’s family (including the deceased perp’s).

His statements could definitely be used in civil court. And my reading of his statements could easily show that he “lacks remorse” or worse.

(Note: The following is just how I might see how a civil case lawyer and a jury may interpret some of Ice’s statements.)

… i awoke and grabbed my pistol and got both of them…

What? You just came up blasting? You didn’t investigate? You didn’t pursue other avenues of resolve, other than deadly force?

… happened in slow motion like on the matrix hahaha anyways i got both them ****ers, one dead and the other is still in critical condition, hope he lives so he can go to prison forever and be ganged raped all night long hahahaha,…

Were you reliving a scene in a movie you watched, and wished to experience? Why are the death of a human being and the critical injury of another so funny? (All those “hahaha” hurts Ice.) Why would a normal human being wish not only that another go to prison, but they are “gang raped all night long”?

… the police said i shot him 7 times, 4 chest hits and 1 lower stomach, and 1 1/4" in from his right head, thats the guy in critical now…

Wasn’t seven times excessive? Wasn’t it possible that the “victim” was no longer a threat after the first shot or at the presence of a man with a gun?

… stupid gang banger wanna be's and there dumb auto 22's they had, takes more than that to kill me hahahaha…

Are you an expert in gangs? What caused you to believe they are/were “gang banger wanna be’s”? Was this belief reasonable? Was it this mere belief the reason you felt justified?

… tell everyone ill be back soon... see ya later betty boo  Iceman24…

You seem to be very light hearted about all of this. Have you no remorse?

Hope you see where I’m going with this.

I've also seen a few statements y'all have made I'd like to discuss - soon.

In Pursuit,

[skernsk]

I scared Iceman away

Damn, I'm scared of him.  Your laws are different from ours, we don't have the same liberties with firearms and I am not sure if we are better or worse off because of it.  I haven't seen the need for them.

[MP Sarge]

  I read what he said. still alot of things that need to come out. Like did you hear them break in before you got your gun.  in PA you have to try every possible way to avoid contact with burglars, and try every avenue of escape, and give the ones that broke in the chance to leave By announcing one way or another your on the phone calling police or something like that before going into deadly force. If you try every thing possible to avoid contact and then if your life is in danger that deadly force is the only alternative left.  There is alot of fine print to read about shooting people breaking into your house.  I would like to know the whole story, instead of the short version. I seen he used a .45 cal glock some where in those posts. Knowing firearms do you really need to shoot one guy that many times with a 45 cal pistol.. No different than the army 45 i used.

still too many blanks in that statement to show justifiable homicide

[Ghosth]

I do know justifiable homicide regulations vary widely from state to state.

Where I'm at in Fargo its pretty lax, its a very rural, conservative state, and emphasis is on protecting property & homeowner lives. Across the river in Minnesota its a lot tougher, but still not as tough as what sarge posted. Mostly based on amount of force your facing, if your bigger, younger, etc than the guy you shoot etc. 2 on 1 and both armed would be a slam dunk in Minnesota.

Fact remains if 2 people break into your house with guns, they deserve to die. Anyone that stupid should not be allowed to walk around to breathe and breed. As for civil suits, anyone who is injured while committing a crime should have NO recourse to civil court whatsoever.

A Misdemeanor is one thing, but getting shot while committing a felony should cost you ALL your rights to countersue.

[Dichodog]

I haven't checked lately but the last time I did in TX you can use deadly force in a situation called criminal mischief after dark and can not be prosecuted criminally however you can be sued in civil court.  However you are correct ASA his very public statements can land him in hot water. 

Roger that Ghost

[ASAdog]

The gist of my above post is: You should never talk about your involvement in a justifiable use of force (self defense) encounter, except with your attorney and with a counselor (mental health or clergy) who has a requirement of confidentiality.

My own response to police is very limited to something like –

1. I want to be the first to call 911; this makes me the complainant.

2. I will tell the responding officer that I (or another) was attacked or threatened with the use or threatened use of deadly force by the perpetrator, and I will sign the complaint.

3. I will point out relevant evidence.

4. I will then inform the officer that I do want to cooperate with the police, but after such an event I need time to speak to my attorney first.

5. I will not talk any further unless my attorney is present.

You will not catch me talking to anyone else about the incident, and especially not in a public format.

Daddog:

If I was single no material items are worth a life. They could take what they want.

Fine and respectable statement by its self, but you add -

With wife and kids now, I will shoot first once I know what I am shooting at.

Two points here -

1. In essence you imply, by your choice of words in the above two quotes, that you would not defend property with deadly force if by yourself because “no material items are worth a life”, yet you will defend property with deadly force if your wife and kids are present.

How did the value (“worth a life”) of the property change by the mere presence of your family?

2. You finish by saying (because the wife and kids are present) “I will shoot first once I know what I am shooting at”, but you don’t mention “if justifiable and necessary”.

If perceived to be a “shoot first and ask questions later” type, one begins to look like the aggressor and may lose the protection of self defense.

Now I don’t believe this is what you intended to be taken for the meanings, but choice of words makes a big difference in the eyes of the law/jury.

If you will permit me; I believe what you meant to say is something more like –

1. I will not shoot someone over material items. Material items are not worth a life.

And;

2. But I will shoot to defend my wife and kids against a threat of deadly force, whenever justified and necessary.

Do I have this correct?

Su Amigo,


P.S. I'll cover more, and even get into the elements of justifiable use of force if any would like me to.

[d0gma]

Before I begin –

I’m a LE Public Safety Officer, a Use OF Force Instructor, a Firearms Instructor, and a Baton and OC Instructor

How do they always catch the batons after they throw them up so high in the air?  I've always wanted to know that.
 

I don't own any guns, but I do have good locks, a very large dog and a telephone.

[ASAdog]

When I throw MY baton, it usually sticks into what I'm throwin' it at!   

Peace Brudda,

[Dichodog]

pepper spray

assault with a painful fruit..

or you could hit them with a Canadien .. same thing

[skernsk]

That's 'Canadian' my slow talking friend.  It's okay, sound out words, the rest of us can likely make out what your trying to tell us   Once again Dicho, you're just jelous because Canada is bigger than Texass.

[Dichodog]

*chuckles like a drunken troll   

[daddog]

Good stuff ASA.

It’s a horrible mistake for him to post in a public way about this encounter until after criminal and civil matters have played out, which will take maybe several years. Every thing he posted can be used against him.

I agree. I was thinking as I read his account that this could cost him down the road.

1. In essence you imply, by your choice of words in the above two quotes, that you would not defend property with deadly force if by yourself because “no material items are worth a life”, yet you will defend property with deadly force if your wife and kids are present.

How did the value (“worth a life”) of the property change by the mere presence of your family?

It is not the property I am protecting, but my family. I will not take any chances (health and safety of my family) with an intruder in my house.

2. But I will shoot to defend my wife and kids against a threat of deadly force, whenever justified and necessary.

Do I have this correct?

Your quite right ASA. I see wording can make a huge difference. Certainly the interpretation of my words. To me deadly force is justifiable if there is an intruder in my house. Of course I live in California, anything but a conservative state. Most likely I would be in jail for a long time if shot an intruder and I personally did not feel threatened or could not show evidence of being threatened. None the less I will not take any chances.

[mrmidi]

That's 'Canadian' my slow talking friend.  It's okay, sound out words, the rest of us can likely make out what your trying to tell us   Once again Dicho, you're just jelous because Canada is bigger than Texass.

Yeah and their from Canadia!

[skernsk]

Yeah and their from Canadia!

Umm, I think midi done went and visited the still this afternoon. ... can anyone translate?  I lost my 'suthern --> English' dictionary.

[ASAdog]

What really makes me hesitate is this: I have to be willing to KILL with that gun in the moment its use is needed, and I just don’t know if I could do that.

A.  Then I’d agree that one should not keep a gun for self defense purposes.

When someone approaches me with “I’m thinking about getting a gun for protection”, the first thing I ask is “Are you prepared to take another human’s life, and if so are you prepared for the psychological, emotional, and financial outcomes for doing so?". If they can’t answer with a firm “Yes” I recommend other options to them.

I read the statistics, and statistically a gun in the home is far more likely to injure or kill a family member than an intruder.

B.  This one is based on a study done in King County, Washington [1].

To achieve this statistic, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims, it (the study) failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed or injured (as in when the mere presence of a firearm in the intended victims hand was enough to cause the criminal to cease their activities). They also failed to consider the million or so homes in King County were firearms are kept, but no one is shot.

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, has shown that firearms are used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually. And yet these protective use fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide [2].

Even FBI statistics show that defensive use of firearms occurs at least 750,000 times a year nationwide, though their numbers are based solely upon reports initiated through police contacts and does not include non-reported uses. It is easy for me to believe that the real number (reported + non-reported) of defensive uses is at least three times (or 2.25 million) that of the FBI statistics - If the problem is solved without a shot fired, why would one feel compelled to report it? And, in the vast majority of cases no shot is fired.

Accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low [3]. Even though the number of firearms in American households has increased dramatically since firearm accident data began to be collected sixty or so years ago (it doesn’t take much math skill to figure the millions of new guns [with very long usage lives] sold each year added onto the number already in existence adds up to a very large increase in the number of guns in American households over a sixty year period).

C.  If one's decision to not keep a gun in the house is based on “A” above, I have no qualms - this is a sensible decision.

But;

If one's decision is based upon “B” above, then I think one needs to be more critical of the “statistics”. I am, even so of the stats that seem to support my pro-gun ownership position.

Notes:

1.  Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, pp. 1557-1560.

2.  Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997; FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, annual reports.

3.  National Center for Health Statistics and National Safety Council.

Peace, and In Pursuit,

[mrmidi]

Yeah and their from Canadia!

Umm, I think midi done went and visited the still this afternoon. ... can anyone translate?  I lost my 'suthern --> English' dictionary.

Nope Reveuers found and blew that one up with dynomite, got to build me a new one, thinking of hiding this one in the
bathroom little midi's oderrifious deposit's will discuise the smell 

mrmidi

Get-R-Done

[d0gma]

What really makes me hesitate is this: I have to be willing to KILL with that gun in the moment its use is needed, and I just don’t know if I could do that.

A.  Then I’d agree that one should not keep a gun for self defense purposes.

When someone approaches me with “I’m thinking about getting a gun for protection”, the first thing I ask is “Are you prepared to take another human’s life, and if so are you prepared for the psychological, emotional, and financial outcomes for doing so?". If they can’t answer with a firm “Yes” I recommend other options to them.

I read the statistics, and statistically a gun in the home is far more likely to injure or kill a family member than an intruder.

B.  This one is based on a study done in King County, Washington [1].

To achieve this statistic, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims, it (the study) failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed or injured (as in when the mere presence of a firearm in the intended victims hand was enough to cause the criminal to cease their activities). They also failed to consider the million or so homes in King County were firearms are kept, but no one is shot.

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, has shown that firearms are used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually. And yet these protective use fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide [2].

Even FBI statistics show that defensive use of firearms occurs at least 750,000 times a year nationwide, though their numbers are based solely upon reports initiated through police contacts and does not include non-reported uses. It is easy for me to believe that the real number (reported + non-reported) of defensive uses is at least three times (or 2.25 million) that of the FBI statistics - If the problem is solved without a shot fired, why would one feel compelled to report it? And, in the vast majority of cases no shot is fired.

Accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low [3]. Even though the number of firearms in American households has increased dramatically since firearm accident data began to be collected sixty or so years ago (it doesn’t take much math skill to figure the millions of new guns [with very long usage lives] sold each year added onto the number already in existence adds up to a very large increase in the number of guns in American households over a sixty year period).

C.  If one's decision to not keep a gun in the house is based on “A” above, I have no qualms - this is a sensible decision.

But;

If one's decision is based upon “B” above, then I think one needs to be more critical of the “statistics”. I am, even so of the stats that seem to support my pro-gun ownership position.

Notes:

1.  Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, pp. 1557-1560.

2.  Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997; FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, annual reports.

3.  National Center for Health Statistics and National Safety Council.

Peace, and In Pursuit,

Mark Twain said, 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.'

He really oughta shut up about it before he gets in trouble...  As if we haven't seen enough 'blog/myspace coming back and biting authors in the butt' already.