Monday, July 29, 2013

18-Year-old Oregon Man Wrestles Gun Away from Cop and Fires One Round - He Lived to Talk About It



Local news reports

An 18-year-old man wrestled a gun away from a police officer Friday evening and managed to fire off a shot.

According to Beaverton police, Jared Steven Leone walked into Beaverton City Hall just before 6 p.m. and said he was overdosing and needed help. He was talking to a person at the police department's records desk, which is in the same building.

Three officers came out to help and that's when police say Leone swung a punch at one of the officers and a struggle ensued. Police say Leone displayed a high amount of strength during the struggle and it was difficult for the officers to restrain him.
At some point, Leone grabbed a gun from one of the officers and fired a single shot. No one was hit. The bullet went into a wall with an empty room on the other side.
Police initially said one officer struggled with the suspect in the lobby, but Detective Sergeant Jim Shumway on Saturday said surveillance video of the incident showed three officers attempted to detain Leone.

Good thing this kid didn't try that with our gun-rights commenters.  He woulda been D-E-A-D.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

15 comments:

  1. I think the only thing that saved him was that all three officers were wrestling with him. It would be very hard to avoid shooting your buddy.
    As for com mentors like me, if you grab a policeman's gun, or anyone else's for that matter, you have to assume he means to use it on you. This man is very lucky to be alive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He's lucky to be alive, yes. Without seeing the actual fight, it's impossible to comment on what could or should have been done. But certainly, grabbing a cop's gun and firing a round is a deeply bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'Without seeing the actual fight, it's impossible to comment on what could or should have been done."

    Hey Ted Nugent, did you apply that thinking to Zimmerman verdict?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Troll, did you? If there's no evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was in the wrong, the verdict was correct.

      Delete
    2. There was no evidence proving his story was what happened. The other side of the story, that guy is dead.

      Delete
    3. A person does not have to prove his innocence. It doesn't surprise me that Anonymous fails to understand U.S. law.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous,

      In other words, there was no evidence disproving his side of the story either. Ergo, without seeing the actual fight, it's impossible to comment on what could or should have been done. QED

      Delete
  4. Mike, Are you suggesting that it would have been wrong for one of us to use lethal force on a guy who snatched one of our guns and fired it at least once, presumably attempting to shoot us?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, T., it's wrong to kill someone unnecessarily. Could you have gotten away with it? Probably yes, but what the hell does that have to do with anything except indicate that you guys are trigger-happy and dangerous men prepared to justify the most morally reprehensible behavior using your castle doctrine and SYG laws.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, you're so deep in magical thinking that it's hard to sort out all your errors. Someone who has grabbed a gun and fired a shot is an immediate threat. In this case, it appears that there were enough good guys around to subdue him without anyone being hurt, but in a one-on-one confrontation, the situation would have justified shooting--if the person being attacked had a second gun, for example.

      It's not about being trigger-happy. In a violent confrontation, there's little time to hesitate. Again, I have to wonder why you prefer bad guys to live over good guys.

      Delete
    3. Mike,

      I agree that it's wrong to kill unnecessarily. Our divide here is whether it's necessary or not. If I'm on my own and this guy grabs one of my guns and fires it while I'm fighting with him over it, why am I not justified to shoot him?

      Maybe I'm wise not to--too many bystanders, someone is helping me subdue him and might get shot, etc.--but I fail to see how an armed guy who has stolen my gun/one of my guns and is shooting it is not an imminent threat to my life so that I'm justified in using lethal force, whether with a backup gun or my Benchmade.

      Yes, in this case, the cops got the gun from him without anyone being killed, but he could have gut shot one of them, or shot them in the leg and hit the femoral artery, etc. This could have gone very badly.

      In this case, the cops subdued him, but it was through superior numbers and because they were already involved in a grappling match when he grabbed the one cop's weapon--they couldn't let go of him to hold him at gunpoint because that would give him the opportunity to shoot them, so they had to stay in a situation where they risked getting shot at point blank range.

      Demanding that others take that risk, usually solo, just because they Might win the fight, is ridiculous and is the type of second guessing I've talked about. In the course of the fight, the person has to make reasonable decisions. In a similar case with a lone permit holder and a mugger who grabs their gun, continued grappling and response with lethal force are both reasonable options. Both risk one or both parties getting shot and killed. Having the jury speculate on what the outcome would have been if one were chosen over the other is ridiculous second guessing.

      Delete
    4. That's why we call it the "shoot first" law. You express it perfectly.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, you call it that because when your side is honest, it loses. Of course, when you lie, you lose, too.

      Delete
    6. Mike, You claim to be valuing all life equally, but your response to my explanation shows that you, instead, value the lives of attackers More than you value the lives of their victims. You show this by demanding that the victim who is having lethal force used against him or her respond with less than lethal force repeatedly and only escalate to lethal force after suffering some form of injury (which could, very well, be mortal)--all of this to ensure that they don't injure or kill the attacker who has already shown a callous disregard for the victim's own life.

      Delete
    7. Most of us look at this story and say, "Whew! I'm glad none of the cops got shot or killed!"

      You ignore this possibility and say, "Whew! I'm glad that this guy who tried to shoot these cops wasn't killed!"

      Yes, his life is valuable, but when he's already showed that human life doesn't matter for him, my concern shifts to worrying about the lives of the people who do care about the value of the lives of others. If he has to be killed to protect them, so be it. Better than him snuffing out one of their lives. If he can be subdued without killing him, bonus--maybe he can learn the error of his ways and stop putting the lives of others in danger.

      Delete