The basic facts seem to be uncontested. After meeting in an East Knoxville store, Reginald "Stacey" Sudderth left the store, got into his vehicle, and left. Troy Whiteside, who had a Tennessee Carry Permit, then departed the store. Sudderth, reported to weigh 365 pounds, returned and got out of his car. Whiteside then shot 14 times and hit Sudderth 13 times with his Glock Model 19.
A probable cause hearing was held Thursday. Officer Nevin long said that, according to WBIR,
Whiteside and his attorney, Greg Isaacs claim self-defense. Special Judge Ben Strand says no, it's murder; he would have dismissed the case if only one or two shots had been fired.
The case goes next to the grand jury....
As the case goes through the legal system, the facts should become clearer. But, we can learn from this case now.
Self-defense using force, up to and including lethal force, is legal in most jurisdictions, including even Chicago (see article by Examiner colleague David Codrea), where handgun ownership is generally prohibited. In a previous article, After the shots are fired, I posed the question,
So shots are fired, and you are standing there with your gun, and the criminal has been stopped. What do you do next?
Well, 13 rounds into the side and back, rather than the frotal area of an assailant does not look like self-defense, does not look like a righteous shoot, and is not going to be easily defended before the grand jury, or trial jury.
If you shoot defensively, you shoot to stop, not to kill. Once the aggression has ceased, stop shooting. Otherwise, you will likely be viewed as the aggressor, even in self defense shootings.
For more on carrying and using a gun for self-defense, see the The Gun Digest Book Of Concealed Carry by Massad Ayoob (available at Amazon).
If you enjoyed or learned from this article, here are more you might like:
NRA 2010 Convention in Charlotte, Part V: The Marriott
Gun rights and prior restraint
Near the top of any article, you can SUBSCRIBE (free) (or click here), if you would like to be alerted to my future articles. Try it; you can easily unsubscribe at any time. Share the link with your friends.
Disclaimer: The information and ideas presented in this column are provided for informational purposes only. Gunrights, like all other Constitutionally recognized rights, must be exercised responsibly. Firearms, like cars, kitchen knives and life itself all can be dangerous. You should get professional training as part of any plan to use firearms for any purpose. I have made a reasonable, good-faith effort to assure that the content of this column is accurate. I have no control over what you do, and specifically accept no responsibility for anything you do as a result of reading my columns. Any action or lack of action on your part is strictly your responsibility.
Comments
Once the Subject becomes aggressive he becomes the Threat. You shoot to stop the Threat, while giving CLEAR and CONCISE commands (he might actually obey, but if he doesn't, it looks good in court when witnesses testify). Once the Threat has stopped, you conduct an after-action drill. This consists of keeping your firearm trained on the Threat, and then bringing the firearm into close-ready position. When in close-ready position, you check over your strong side shoulder, maintaining your firearm on the Threat. You then look forward and re-acquire your target. If the Threat is still stopped, you check over your weak side shoulder, and again re-acquire your target. Hopefully you have no other threats. At this point, if you have an additional magazine, you conduct a tactical reload. This is when you remove the magazine (empty or still with available rounds), and replace it with a full magazine, while retaining your used magazine.
Here's when you have to be smart. If witnesses are available, ask them to stay. Also, contact emergency for police and medical. When police arrive, YOU are the shooter. FOLLOW THEIR COMMANDS. You may likely be drawn down upon, disarmed, and arrested until they get the facts. You have no obligation to defend your actions to the police on scene and simply asking for a lawyer is probably the best course of action. Assuming you did things by the book, you should be in decent condition. Just remember Totality Of Circumstance. Age, gender, size, training, position, number of assailants, injury. All of these things play a big part in deciding whether or not you are justified.
Note to Ryan:
Thanks for the excellent comments. As the police arrive, if possible, it would be good to put the gun down on the ground, and step away from it. And, of course, do whatever the police say, without argument.
Liston,
Thanks for the compliment. I agree that disarming yourself for the police is a good idea, but I would not want to reach for my weapon without the police commanding me to do so. Different agencies have different SOP. Some may want you to unholster and get rid of the weapon, while others may want you on the ground, hands out palms up, so that they may disarm you and then cuff you.
The judge is wrong in principle and likely legally as well. The fact that the record of the event is good enough to clear the defender if he had shot twice indicates that there is general consensus that he started shooting justifiably. Once that happens, the assailant is legally responsible for all that occurs. For example, if a defender shoots and kills one of two assailants, the living assailant is usually charged with manslaughter, since it was his criminal act that resulted in the death. In the same way, the criminal act of Sudderth resulted in his death, and that's where the responsibility should lie. To expect someone who is in fear of his life and shooting in a panic to somehow be aware about how the number of shots will look to a court, is clearly unreasonable. You keep shooting until you believe you are safe from harm...especially if you believe your assailant has a gun.
I disagree with Ryan's defense procedure. First, a person has no authority to yell commands at another. Second, a defender's primary concern is securing safety...not stopping the threat. You shoot to escape to safety. You either shoot until the assailant has moved far enough away to allow you to move away safely, or until the assailant is injured enough to allow you to move away safely. The defender should then get out of there to safety. Then the cops are called. You don't stay there and keep your gun trained on the assailant. A defender doesn't become a cop...he's under no obligation to secure dangerous criminals. A defender's only obligation is to himself to get to safety. If an injured assailant manages to get away, hey, that's the cops problem, not yours. The last thing you need is to get into a shootout with an assailant who decides, while he's lying there bleeding, that he needs to shoot you to escape. Get out of there...that's the number one goal.
It's ridiculous that a person licensed by a state to carry his gun is now in trouble for using it in obvious self-defense of a hulking name-caller. The dead guy obviously turned his back (and was walking backwards toward Whiteside) as an offensive strategy meaure.
The National Rifle Association MUST, immediately, embark on a crusade in states across this country for laws declaring immunity for all concealed carry permit holders, who by definition are the best trained and most law abiding gun wielders in our great gun-rights nation!
Without knowing the facts of the case, my biggest disagreement is the judge disallowing the defense of self defense. That should be decided by the jury not a politician. All judges are politicians.
I find it rather contradictory that a prosecuting attorney will not presss charges when a group of policemen empty their guns into innocent people by mistake, let alone the fact that they do so routinely with real bad guys, but somehow now, he insists on accountability for number of rounds sent downrange.
One shot would have done it. A dozen shots in the back makes Whiteside guilty of manslaughter. Calling it premeditated is stupid and unprovable.
Let's consider when police officers discharge their firearms. Are there many, if any, cases where the officer doesn't empty at least one magazine and maybe more? Are they ever charged with murder? I realize they often miss with all shots but that's not the point. It has been shown over and over again why legitimate self-defense rounds enter the side and back of the assailant. I was not at this was not at the scene and I believe that people are innocent until proven guilty so I will defer judgment until I read the court transcripts.
While we all should train often and we train to stop the threat, we do not know precisely how we will respond when an actual threat occurs. Anyone that has not been faced with violence and says they know how they will respond is nothing more than a liar.
Has anyone thought about the size of the attacker? I can say with near absolute certainty that the larger the man the harder it is to get a reliable hit that will stop. Does shooting to STOP mean shooting in the arm or leg? I suppose we'll all have to get better training than the police then. Oh wait, we already have better training than the police when it comes to shooting.
"If you shoot defensively, you shoot to stop, not to kill."
I have to strongly disagree. When faced with saving your life or the life of another in face of imminent bodily harm/death, you only shoot to kill. Anything less than this (ie, shoot to "stop")is fraught with peril. You never shoot to "wing" someone; if that was true, you might better be served using other intermediate courses, such running like hell, talking to them, or using an Asp or pepper spray. That is intermediate force, not shooting to wound/stop. Firing in self defense is using deadly force, not wounding force.
Shooting to Stop means two rounds to the center mass of the target, then (rapidly) assess the situation. If danger is still present, one round to the head is appropriate. THAT is what the police and armed Security personnel are taught. Anything more from a Cop should be considered excessive force.
Diallou in NYC was shot 41 times by police, including at least once through the sole of his shoe when he was down on the ground. He had no weapon, and had never been threatening.
The police were determined to have acted in self-defense.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!