Press the alarm to alert security and get myself and Reeva out of there PDQ.
I wasn't asking for what he should have done. We all know there were better courses of action. In fact he is in prison now for making those and other wrong decisions. I was asking for the correct procedure in the situation he described.
I wasn't asking for what he should have done. We all know there were better courses of action. In fact he is in prison now for making those and other wrong decisions. I was asking for the correct procedure in the situation he described.
What???
benji just answered your question correctly.
Why are you twisting it into something different?
The answer is clear. The correct procedure is call security and get the hell out.
Furthermore if one is of a 'nervy disposition' should one really be carrying a gun at all?
Anyone knows you need a great deal of restraint and a clear head to carry a fire arm, you can't just turn to a quivering jelly and start squeezing the trigger at the drop of a hat (or much less in OP's case!)
I wasn't asking for what he should have done. We all know there were better courses of action. In fact he is in prison now for making those and other wrong decisions. I was asking for the correct procedure in the situation he described.
Firing 4 bullets at a door that has someone behind it is not and never will be the correct procedure , as we know. There is no allowances made for this in S African law that I have seen. He should have retreated, possibly threatening the intruder as he went. He had a gun in his hand. He had the toilet door covered, there was no imminent threat to his person . He had choices that did not involve shooting. He chose to ignore all he had been taught both in terms of safety and the law. He is guilty of murder. Sorry if that offends you. It's all hypothetical. He. Shot Reeva , he knew it was her and he shot her. IMO. Of course.
Just wondering hypothetically if you were in OP's position in the bathroom, scared for your life and there was an armed intruder in the toilet about to emerge and shoot you dead what the procedure is?
Press the alarm to alert security and get myself and Reeva out of there PDQ.
Exactly. It would have been a shorter distance to cover to reach the bedroom door, which itself was protected by a short corridor.
In his position (a hypothetical one), I would quietly communicate with my OH, press the alarm button if available, pick up the keys and go the few steps to the exit. One of us would quietly open the door, while the other, taking advantage of the cover offered by the wall, waited with the gun trained on the bathroom corridor. Once the door was open, we would both leave, locking it behind us.
The answer is clear. The correct procedure is call security and get the hell out.
No. I'm not trying to twist anything. You're not answering the question asked. I just want to know for a trained shooter what the correct procedure would be for dealing with the imminent (perceived) danger described by OP as he stood at the bathroom door.
Its no good testing what he should have done. That's taken care of by the CH.
Exactly. It would have been a shorter distance to cover to reach the bedroom door, which itself was protected by a short corridor.
In his position (a hypothetical one), I would quietly communicate with my OH, press the alarm button if available, pick up the keys and go the few steps to the exit. One of us would quietly open the door, while the other, taking advantage of the cover offered by the wall, waited with the gun trained on the bathroom corridor. Once the door was open, we would both leave, locking it behind us.
I appreciate the response but I'm interested in the correct reaction from the point that OP heard the noise (the door/magazine rack or whatever it might have been) - on his version.
Furthermore if one is of a 'nervy disposition' should one really be carrying a gun at all?
Anyone knows you need a great deal of restraint and a clear head to carry a fire arm, you can't just turn to a quivering jelly and start squeezing the trigger at the drop of a hat (or much less in OP's case!)
BIB. No. But one can fool those who train the shooters and put them to the test etc. If he was that much of a quivering nervous wreck, he could have killed the trainer and many others at the training range.
OP passed these tests and should have known better. But of course in court he had every excuse under the sun and for someone who came across as so unstable, it is quite some cheek of his to implore for sympathy by saying he would never hold a gun again when really he's far too dangerous and unstable to even be considered to ever get a gun licence again.
No. I'm not trying to twist anything. You're not answering the question asked. I just want to know for a trained shooter what the correct procedure would be for dealing with the imminent (perceived) danger described by OP as he stood at the bathroom door.
Its no good testing what he should have done. That's taken care of by the CH.
The correct procedure in that event would be to say, "Reeva, is that you in there?"
I appreciate the response but I'm interested in the correct reaction from the point that OP heard the noise (the door/magazine rack or whatever it might have been) - on his version.
get behind the wall/corner, shout 'I'm armed stay where you are until the police get here' and then when nothing whatsoever happens, slowly retreat with your gun covering the doorway until you are away.
get behind the wall/corner, shout 'I'm armed stay where you are until the police get here' and then when nothing whatsoever happens, slowly retreat with your gun covering the doorway until you are away.
But then you would never have needed to go to the bathroom in the first place.
What if you were determined to stand your ground and didn't want to escalate the situation by threatening with the gun?
I appreciate the response but I'm interested in the correct reaction from the point that OP heard the noise (the door/magazine rack or whatever it might have been) - on his version.
He didn't hear any magazine rack. Remember Roux's incredulous look around the courtroom when he banged the table? Was that the noise op supposedly heard? Bizarre defence.
Which of course can be put aside if found to be erroneous .
No, factual findings by the judge CAN'T be overturned by the Supreme Court, that's the whole point. The prosecution can only appeal the verdict on points of law. That's why I think it's going to be difficult for the prosecution to get a murder conviction, considering the judge made a factual finding that OP feared for his life when he shot, and gave clear reasons for thinking that.
No, I don't. You asked firstly what WE would do, then you changed it to asking the "correct procedure".
Either way, the answer is CHECK whether it's a legitimate occupant of the house - wherever you might have thought they were.
With respect I asked of a trained shooter:
"Just wondering hypothetically if you were in OP's position in the bathroom, scared for your life and there was an armed intruder in the toilet about to emerge and shoot you dead what the procedure is?"
I am after exploring at what point your training would indicate that you should fire if there really was an intruder.
He didn't hear any magazine rack. Remember Roux's incredulous look around the courtroom when he banged the table? Was that the noise op supposedly heard? Bizarre defence.
The source of the noise doesn't matter. What's important is that he heard a noise that scared him into firing. As a trained shooter he presumably should have ignored the noise and held his fire, but at what point would firing be permissible?
"Just wondering hypothetically if you were in OP's position in the bathroom, scared for your life and there was an armed intruder in the toilet about to emerge and shoot you dead what the procedure is?"
I am after exploring at what point your training would indicate that you should fire if there really was an intruder.
When you see the whites of his eyes and his gun pointed at you. Is that the correct answer?
I don't know the correct answer. I have no gun experience. I'm asking.
If you are correct then the law seems unfairly weighted towards the armed intruder.
Are you really suggesting that someone protecting their home and family is supposed to wait until death is that imminent?
But Pistorius didn't protect Reeva did he ? He Shot her. He could have saved her had he done what he should have. Got her to safety. You are asking about a hypothetical situation that bears no relation to OPs situation.
The source of the noise doesn't matter. What's important is that he heard a noise that scared him into firing. As a trained shooter he presumably should have ignored the noise and held his fire, but at what point would firing be permissible?
This is all on the premise that these events actually occurred. Why would Reeva tiptoe quietly out the room and slam a window open and slam a door closed? It's all bullsh*t. You just need to see through his lies, as I'm sure the experienced judges at the SCA will do.
The source of the noise doesn't matter. What's important is that he heard a noise that scared him into firing. As a trained shooter he presumably should have ignored the noise and held his fire, but at what point would firing be permissible?
After he looked out the window and spotted the ladders against the window? Possibly ?
This is all on the premise that these events actually occurred. Why would Reeva tiptoe quietly out the room and slam a window open and slam a dooor closed? It's all bullsh*t. You just need to see through his lies, as I'm sure the experienced judges at the SCA will do.
The main eye witness said they did so I'm testing elements of his story.
There's no point in doing that if you don't do so within the context of his version. That only seems fair.
Comments
I wasn't asking for what he should have done. We all know there were better courses of action. In fact he is in prison now for making those and other wrong decisions. I was asking for the correct procedure in the situation he described.
What???
benji just answered your question correctly.
Why are you twisting it into something different?
The answer is clear. The correct procedure is call security and get the hell out.
Good post.
Firing 4 bullets at a door that has someone behind it is not and never will be the correct procedure , as we know. There is no allowances made for this in S African law that I have seen. He should have retreated, possibly threatening the intruder as he went. He had a gun in his hand. He had the toilet door covered, there was no imminent threat to his person . He had choices that did not involve shooting. He chose to ignore all he had been taught both in terms of safety and the law. He is guilty of murder. Sorry if that offends you. It's all hypothetical. He. Shot Reeva , he knew it was her and he shot her. IMO. Of course.
Exactly. It would have been a shorter distance to cover to reach the bedroom door, which itself was protected by a short corridor.
In his position (a hypothetical one), I would quietly communicate with my OH, press the alarm button if available, pick up the keys and go the few steps to the exit. One of us would quietly open the door, while the other, taking advantage of the cover offered by the wall, waited with the gun trained on the bathroom corridor. Once the door was open, we would both leave, locking it behind us.
No. I'm not trying to twist anything. You're not answering the question asked. I just want to know for a trained shooter what the correct procedure would be for dealing with the imminent (perceived) danger described by OP as he stood at the bathroom door.
Its no good testing what he should have done. That's taken care of by the CH.
I appreciate the response but I'm interested in the correct reaction from the point that OP heard the noise (the door/magazine rack or whatever it might have been) - on his version.
BIB. No. But one can fool those who train the shooters and put them to the test etc. If he was that much of a quivering nervous wreck, he could have killed the trainer and many others at the training range.
OP passed these tests and should have known better. But of course in court he had every excuse under the sun and for someone who came across as so unstable, it is quite some cheek of his to implore for sympathy by saying he would never hold a gun again when really he's far too dangerous and unstable to even be considered to ever get a gun licence again.
The correct procedure in that event would be to say, "Reeva, is that you in there?"
get behind the wall/corner, shout 'I'm armed stay where you are until the police get here' and then when nothing whatsoever happens, slowly retreat with your gun covering the doorway until you are away.
We have to assume that in his mind he already knew where Reeva was.
At which point is the home owner permitted to fire?
At the noise?
When the handle moves?
When the intruders gun is seen?
When the gun is raised in your direction?
But then you would never have needed to go to the bathroom in the first place.
What if you were determined to stand your ground and didn't want to escalate the situation by threatening with the gun?
No, I don't. You asked firstly what WE would do, then you changed it to asking the "correct procedure".
Either way, the answer is CHECK whether it's a legitimate occupant of the house - wherever you might have thought they were.
He didn't hear any magazine rack. Remember Roux's incredulous look around the courtroom when he banged the table? Was that the noise op supposedly heard? Bizarre defence.
No, factual findings by the judge CAN'T be overturned by the Supreme Court, that's the whole point. The prosecution can only appeal the verdict on points of law. That's why I think it's going to be difficult for the prosecution to get a murder conviction, considering the judge made a factual finding that OP feared for his life when he shot, and gave clear reasons for thinking that.
With respect I asked of a trained shooter:
"Just wondering hypothetically if you were in OP's position in the bathroom, scared for your life and there was an armed intruder in the toilet about to emerge and shoot you dead what the procedure is?"
I am after exploring at what point your training would indicate that you should fire if there really was an intruder.
The source of the noise doesn't matter. What's important is that he heard a noise that scared him into firing. As a trained shooter he presumably should have ignored the noise and held his fire, but at what point would firing be permissible?
When you see the whites of his eyes and his gun pointed at you. Is that the correct answer?
I don't know the correct answer. I have no gun experience. I'm asking.
If you are correct then the law seems unfairly weighted towards the armed intruder.
Are you really suggesting that someone protecting their home and family is supposed to wait until death is that imminent?
'course you would. to see if you just imagined it.
and why would you be determined to stand your ground? not if you are potentially in danger standing there you wouldn't.
seems you only want to hear the Pistorius reaction. shoot 4 times.^_^
But Pistorius didn't protect Reeva did he ? He Shot her. He could have saved her had he done what he should have. Got her to safety. You are asking about a hypothetical situation that bears no relation to OPs situation.
No, I was just imagining, given the situation he describes, how long I might have waited before I did fire.
I seem to be the only one here not highly experienced in being armed during a home invasion
This is all on the premise that these events actually occurred. Why would Reeva tiptoe quietly out the room and slam a window open and slam a door closed? It's all bullsh*t. You just need to see through his lies, as I'm sure the experienced judges at the SCA will do.
After he looked out the window and spotted the ladders against the window? Possibly ?
The main eye witness said they did so I'm testing elements of his story.
There's no point in doing that if you don't do so within the context of his version. That only seems fair.