Good Samaritan shot for stopping to help

[Foxbat]

Police: Westmoreland Co. Man Kills Woman Helping Wounded Wife
...
From there, Swartz saw a bloodied Janet Piper run out of her house and flag down Stacey Feiling, who was driving by.

As Janet Piper attempted to get into the car, her husband allegedly opened the driver's side door and shot Feiling, 42, of Mount Pleasant, at point-blank range in the head, authorities said.

"We have no reason to believe that she was doing anything else but driving her vehicle south on Route 981,” said Trooper Stephen Limani. “We believe she had stopped to render some assistance or she just stopped her vehicle a short distance from where the majority of this incident was taking place at."
...
Read more...

 

[Sasha]

That's really unfortunate that she was killed, thoughts to her family.

Just goes to show you people are crazy any you need to put your safety above all else. Now that woman's family has to go on without her.

 

[TransportJockey]

Another point for the 'not stopping to help' catagory

 

[8jimi8]

or is it another point for "not living your life for fear of dying" category.

The ONE and ONLY "NO FEAR" shirt I EVER liked... went like this...


You don't greet death with a smile, you punch him repeatedly in the throat as he drags you away.


If i see some poor bloody lady running out of her house, let's just hope my blade launcher is faster and better aimed than some madman with a gun, or sadly, i won't be chiming round here anymore.... And no I wouldn't regret it, i'd just put my coin in the slot and play the next level.

 

[MrBrown]

Another point for the 'not stopping to help' catagory

Yeah no kidding .... my orange jumpsuit might make me overtly conspiciously targatable :unsure:

 

[mycrofft]

Scene safety.

Scenes are chaotic.

 

[rhan101277]

This morning working my regular job I drove past a 18 wheeler on a off-ramp. They were stopped with no emergency flashers. I looked in the driver side and saw no one. I pulled up and decided to reverse and check once more, I see nothing. I then left to go on about my workday. On the way back I see police and paramedics by the truck. I can only imagine what might have happened.

If he was trying to commit suicide and I interrupted him I may not be making this post. I don't know what he was doing, the engine was not running.

 

[lightsandsirens5]

Another point for the 'not stopping to help' catagory

So what you gonna do if a lady comes runnning out into the street covered in blood, waving her arms and screaming for help as you drive by?

 

[Flight-LP]

So what you gonna do if a lady comes runnning out into the street covered in blood, waving her arms and screaming for help as you drive by?

Apply my brakes so I dont run her over........................

Then, I'd call 911 and report the emergency to those who are responsible for that particular jurisdiction.

Afterwards, I'd wash my car as dried blood isn't a good look for my ride..................

 

[reaper]

That's really unfortunate that she was killed, thoughts to her family.

Just goes to show you people are crazy any you need to put your safety above all else. Now that woman's family has to go on without her.

Uhh umm!

 

[firecoins]

Another point for the 'not stopping to help' catagory

Is it? I am not too sure about that. They don't even know that she was helping. Its another point for scene safety and awareness.

 

[firecoins]

Apply my brakes so I dont run her over........................

Then, I'd call 911 and report the emergency to those who are responsible for that particular jurisdiction.

Afterwards, I'd wash my car as dried blood isn't a good look for my ride..................

They guy who shot her opened the driver side door. So she never got out. She simply hit the brakes much like you described.

Afterwards, the jury was show photos of a bloody car.

Lets not infer things we don't know.

 

[spinnakr]

Personally, assuming the linked article is correct, I think this is much more a +1 for the knowing when to act side.

"Neighbor John Swartz put his wife and son in their basement, grabbed his gun and got in his truck to look for the man.

He said he saw Raymond Piper walking along Route 981, so he yelled for him to stop what he was doing. That’s when Piper allegedly took aim at Swartz's truck and fired several shots, which struck the hood, authorities said."

Had Swartz returned fire - as he was completely within his rights to do - this likely would have ended right then. He committed to action when he went looking for the guy. If you then back down, as he did... you are asking to get killed. Swartz is lucky to be alive, and I bet you anything he is blaming this woman's death on himself right now.

Also, +1 to Firecoins.

 

[lightsandsirens5]

Personally, assuming the linked article is correct, I think this is much more a +1 for the knowing when to act side.

"Neighbor John Swartz put his wife and son in their basement, .grabbed his gun and got in his truck to look for the man

He said he saw Raymond Piper walking along Route 981, so he yelled for him to stop what he was doing. That’s when Piper allegedly took aim at Swartz's truck and fired several shots, which struck the hood, authorities said."

Had Swartz returned fire - as he was completely within his rights to do - this likely would have ended right then. He committed to action when he went looking for the guy. If you then back down, as he did... you are asking to get killed. Swartz is lucky to be alive, and I bet you anything he is blaming this woman's death on himself right now.

Also, +1 to Firecoins.

No he most sertainly would not. You can only fire in immideate defense of self and others. As soon as he decided to hunt the guy down, it ceased to be self defense. In fact, Piper's defense might even be able to argue that the he (Piper) fired in self defense because Swartz is technically guilty of assualt with a deadly weapon.

Swartz's only hope would be the state has a fleeing felon law. His counsel may be able to argue it that way. Maybe. Thank God for him he did not fire.

 

[TransportJockey]

Apply my brakes so I dont run her over........................

Then, I'd call 911 and report the emergency to those who are responsible for that particular jurisdiction.

Afterwards, I'd wash my car as dried blood isn't a good look for my ride..................

100% what I'd do. And if I did stop and help I'd start by having her stop coming towards me... By any means necessary. Including drawing on the woman. Seeing someone running out into the street covered in blood does NOT seem like a safe situation to find myself in. I'd be very careful to watch what was going on around me in a situation like that

 

[reaper]

Or, He was like most people that carry. He had his gun in his truck and came upon this man that opened fire on him. Ladies and gentleman, Self Defense!

 

[lightsandsirens5]

Or, He was like most people that carry. He had his gun in his truck and came upon this man that opened fire on him. Ladies and gentleman, Self Defense!

That is not what the other post said. It specifcally stated that he got in his truck and found Piper.

But like I said, if he had fired and it had gone to trial, that is exactly what his lawer would argue.

Believe me, I agree with you. I think morally he was completely in the right, but unfortunatly in this country, morals and the law do not always parallel each other.

 

[spinnakr]

No he most sertainly would not. You can only fire in immideate defense of self and others. As soon as he decided to hunt the guy down, it ceased to be self defense.

Ah, but there's more to it than that. It never said he got in his truck with the intent of killing Piper. He was just looking for Piper. If your next door neighbor were shooting something inside his house and you heard/saw, and wanted to check it out, wouldn't you bring a gun with? I sure as hell would. Furthermore: defending the wife and daughter - the two that were already shot? - qualifies for self-defense, just like you said.

But regardless, think of the circumstances in the case. The man shot his daughter and wife, even before he murdered the good Samaritan. Regardless of the law, do you really think that a jury would convict Swartz of any wrongdoing? I sure as hell don't.

And, one more for the road: legally speaking, if you are justified in using lethal force in self-defense, then you had better be shooting to kill and NOT shooting to wound. Shooting to wound calls into question the very use of lethal force - if you didn't need to kill him to save your life, then why did you shoot him in the first place? So, assuming Swartz followed this doctrine, what do you have? You have a dead guy with a gun in his hand that just shot his wife and his daughter. Who would sue Swartz, the wife and daughter? Doubt it. The guy's family? There'd be no case. And would the state prosecutor press charges? Having worked with them (and police officers)... I doubt that.

BUT this whole thing hinges on the accuracy of that news article, which I would take with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Note also that Swartz almost certainly thought of precisely 0% of anything we've brought up here. If someone is shooting at you, regardless of how you got in that situation, you don't stop to think about criminal charges. You save your own life by shooting back, period. When normal people are put in self-defense situations, they ritualistically fail to first, run, and second, if running is impossible, draw a line in the sand. What I mean by that: Swartz needed to say to himself before he ever laid hands on his gun, "If I'm shot at, I will shoot back and kill whoever is shooting at me." Mental preparation is equally and oftentimes far MORE important to a "successful" outcome of any emergency situation than material preparedness.

No, my money is betting that Swartz (quite understandably) was shot at and wanted to put something in-between himself and the shooter. He, like a kid in a fire, does the same thing he's always done when it all goes south: he hides. It takes a lot of discipline and a lot of training to overcome that... and that's something that the average civvie, carrying or not, simply doesn't have.

/rant

 

[FLEMTP]

100% what I'd do. And if I did stop and help I'd start by having her stop coming towards me... By any means necessary. Including drawing on the woman. Seeing someone running out into the street covered in blood does NOT seem like a safe situation to find myself in. I'd be very careful to watch what was going on around me in a situation like that

So you're telling me you would brandish a firearm, and then assault someone with the said firearm?

Maybe you should rethink your decision to carry a firearm if you're going to be THAT reckless with it.


The ONLY time you should EVER clear leather (or kydex, or nylon, or whatever your holster is made of) is if you plan on pulling the trigger once the gun is clear of the holster.

You DO NOT EVER "draw down" on someone... unless you are a LEO in the performance of your duties and duly authorized to do so. Doing so being an armed citizen with a CWP/CCW would be brandishing (at the very least) and could be considered assault with a deadly weapon, and would create more issue.

If im driving down the street and I see a woman covered in blood, and someone standing next to a car holding the woman at gunpoint (as you just implied you would do) I would drop you before you knew what hit you.

 

[FLEMTP]

Ah, but there's more to it than that. It never said he got in his truck with the intent of killing Piper. He was just looking for Piper. If your next door neighbor were shooting something inside his house and you heard/saw, and wanted to check it out, wouldn't you bring a gun with? I sure as hell would. Furthermore: defending the wife and daughter - the two that were already shot? - qualifies for self-defense, just like you said.

But regardless, think of the circumstances in the case. The man shot his daughter and wife, even before he murdered the good Samaritan. Regardless of the law, do you really think that a jury would convict Swartz of any wrongdoing? I sure as hell don't.

And, one more for the road: legally speaking, if you are justified in using lethal force in self-defense, then you had better be shooting to kill and NOT shooting to wound. Shooting to wound calls into question the very use of lethal force - if you didn't need to kill him to save your life, then why did you shoot him in the first place? So, assuming Swartz followed this doctrine, what do you have? You have a dead guy with a gun in his hand that just shot his wife and his daughter. Who would sue Swartz, the wife and daughter? Doubt it. The guy's family? There'd be no case. And would the state prosecutor press charges? Having worked with them (and police officers)... I doubt that.

BUT this whole thing hinges on the accuracy of that news article, which I would take with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Note also that Swartz almost certainly thought of precisely 0% of anything we've brought up here. If someone is shooting at you, regardless of how you got in that situation, you don't stop to think about criminal charges. You save your own life by shooting back, period. When normal people are put in self-defense situations, they ritualistically fail to first, run, and second, if running is impossible, draw a line in the sand. What I mean by that: Swartz needed to say to himself before he ever laid hands on his gun, "If I'm shot at, I will shoot back and kill whoever is shooting at me." Mental preparation is equally and oftentimes far MORE important to a "successful" outcome of any emergency situation than material preparedness.

No, my money is betting that Swartz (quite understandably) was shot at and wanted to put something in-between himself and the shooter. He, like a kid in a fire, does the same thing he's always done when it all goes south: he hides. It takes a lot of discipline and a lot of training to overcome that... and that's something that the average civvie, carrying or not, simply doesn't have.

/rant

Oh my my my.. people's ignorance of the law and the idea of lawful self defense just never ceases to amaze me.

im going to say this one time, in bold print, so you can read, and hopefully understand this:

YOU DO NOT EVER SHOOT TO KILL - EVER!

When you get into a self defense situation involving your use of a firearm, you do not shoot to kill... ever!

You shoot to stop the threat. If you tell a police officer, or a prosecuting attorney that your intent was to kill that person when you pulled the trigger, in many states, that will lead to a second degree murder charge.

When you shoot, you're shooting someone to stop a threat, you're doing so because you feel that either you or someone else has an immediate threat of great bodily harm or death. It is NOT your job to execute someone. You're using a firearm to prevent great bodily harm or death.

You shoot to stop the threat. Several rounds into the center of mass of the person is prudent and reasonable. When the threat ceases to exist, then so does your use of deadly force.

If you use deadly force, and someone stops what they are doing, drops to the ground, and lies there, is still alive, but no longer has the means to be a threat, would you continue to shoot them until they are dead?

I would hope your answer would be a resounding NO!

If you use deadly force & incapacitate someone, and they end up dying as a result of the injuries sustained, then that is a TOTALLY different scenario than you using deadly force to intentionally take another person's life irregardless if the threat no longer exists.


Please please please people... educate yourself about the legalities of the use of deadly force, and the issues behind the carry of a handgun for self defense. Not only do you embarrass people like myself, who make it a point to be educated and well trained, but you also open yourself up for a HUGE criminal liability should you ever actually have to USE deadly force in the defense of yourself or another person, especially if they DO die as a result of their injuries.