Legal question: A counter-sniper guy sees a person on a rooftop outside
the security zone with a rifle.

It could be a supporter watching the event through the telescopic sight
with an unloaded rifle or a potential assassin.

When could you shoot?

In the real event, AFAIK the person on the roof was approached by a
uniformed law enforcement person who retreated for his own safety and
then commenced shooting at the politician. As I understand it, the counter-sniper then killed the shooter with a head shot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 23:11:49 -0700, Roy wrote:

It could be a supporter watching the event through the telescopic sight
with an unloaded rifle or a potential assassin.

If the former, then a Darwin award should be a given.

I am mildly anti police - generally people with power invariably abuse
it. However I also respect the fact that (in theory) their job is to
protect the public at large. And in that vein, if you are stupid enough
to go around with what is (or appears to be) a lethal weapon, then you
should consider yourself lucky to be alive after encountering the police.

My price for that licenc/se is no cover ups.

A more interesting question would be what if a *civilian* bystander had
seen the gunman and was in a position to fire.

Little surprised to read about a head shot. I've known a few (UK) armed
police and they've always said training is to got for the biggest target
which is usually the torso. Although given the bullets they use, it's
rather moot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:v77n7j$1n87n$[email protected]...

Legal question: A counter-sniper guy sees a person on a rooftop outside
the security zone with a rifle.

It could be a supporter watching the event through the telescopic sight
with an unloaded rifle or a potential assassin.

When could you shoot?

In the real event, AFAIK the person on the roof was approached by a
uniformed law enforcement person who retreated for his own safety and then >commenced shooting at the politician. As I understand it, the
counter-sniper then killed the shooter with a head shot.

I think the simple answer is that you are allowed to shoot if you have reasonable belief that your life or someone else's life is in immediate jeopardy. If you see a non-law enforcement person pointing a rifle at a person (which would seem to have been the case on Saturday), then I believe
a reasonable person would feel justified in shooting.

The much more complicated case might be if you see a law-enforcement officer
or someone dressed as one pointing the rifle at someone. Then you have to
make a quick calculation of whether this is a legitimate officer with his weapon pointing for a legitimate reason (such as to guard the area) or if it
is a fake. In this case, the snipers defending the former president did not fire until the gunman had started firing, which makes me wonder if they
might have perhaps assumed or suspected he was actually a legit law
enforcement officer guarding the area.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roy <[email protected]> wrote in news:v77n7j$1n87n$[email protected]:

Legal question: A counter-sniper guy sees a person on a rooftop outside
the security zone with a rifle.

It could be a supporter watching the event through the telescopic sight
with an unloaded rifle or a potential assassin.

When could you shoot?

He can shoot when a reasonable person would conclude, under the
circumstances, that the person posed a real danger to the life or health of another person.

In the real event, AFAIK the person on the roof was approached by a
uniformed law enforcement person who retreated for his own safety and
then commenced shooting at the politician. As I understand it, the counter-sniper then killed the shooter with a head shot.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 09:25:52 -0700, Rick wrote:

"Roy" wrote in message news:v77n7j$1n87n$[email protected]...

Legal question: A counter-sniper guy sees a person on a rooftop outside >>the security zone with a rifle.

It could be a supporter watching the event through the telescopic sight >>with an unloaded rifle or a potential assassin.

When could you shoot?

In the real event, AFAIK the person on the roof was approached by a >>uniformed law enforcement person who retreated for his own safety and
then commenced shooting at the politician. As I understand it, the >>counter-sniper then killed the shooter with a head shot.

I think the simple answer is that you are allowed to shoot if you have reasonable belief that your life or someone else's life is in immediate jeopardy. If you see a non-law enforcement person pointing a rifle at
a person (which would seem to have been the case on Saturday), then I
believe a reasonable person would feel justified in shooting.

The much more complicated case might be if you see a law-enforcement
officer or someone dressed as one pointing the rifle at someone. Then
you have to make a quick calculation of whether this is a legitimate
officer with his weapon pointing for a legitimate reason (such as to
guard the area) or if it is a fake. In this case, the snipers defending
the former president did not fire until the gunman had started firing,
which makes me wonder if they might have perhaps assumed or suspected he
was actually a legit law enforcement officer guarding the area.

--

I would hope - in 2024 - such basics of personal protection had been
ironed out. Otherwise it does seem to gift the bad actors an advantage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:v783et$2e4n8$[email protected]...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 23:11:49 -0700, Roy wrote:

It could be a supporter watching the event through the telescopic sight
with an unloaded rifle or a potential assassin.

If the former, then a Darwin award should be a given.

I am mildly anti police - generally people with power invariably abuse
it. However I also respect the fact that (in theory) their job is to
protect the public at large. And in that vein, if you are stupid enough
to go around with what is (or appears to be) a lethal weapon, then you
should consider yourself lucky to be alive after encountering the police.

My price for that licenc/se is no cover ups.

A more interesting question would be what if a *civilian* bystander had
seen the gunman and was in a position to fire.

Little surprised to read about a head shot. I've known a few (UK) armed >police and they've always said training is to got for the biggest target >which is usually the torso. Although given the bullets they use, it's
rather moot.

I think with an active shooter, a shot to the head would instantly
incapacitate the assailant. With a shot to the chest, they might be able to keep shooting for a few seconds.

Also, with a gunman lying flat as this one evidently did, the head might be
the easiest point to hit.


--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 17 Jul 2024 06:27:14 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:

Little surprised to read about a head shot. I've known a few (UK) armed >police and they've always said training is to got for the biggest target >which is usually the torso. Although given the bullets they use, it's
rather moot.

I presume he was lying down just below the peak of the roof. If the
police were lower than he was, the only thing sticking up and visible
would have been his head.

From the newspaper location and map-photo showing where he and the

target were, I found the place on sat view and street view and figured
out how to do this, but even though it's over and done, it's probably
not a good idea and also against Roy's standards to go into my planning details. Some of you guys might have less imagination but more energy
than I do.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/07/2024 14:27, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 23:11:49 -0700, Roy wrote:

It could be a supporter watching the event through the telescopic sight
with an unloaded rifle or a potential assassin.

If the former, then a Darwin award should be a given.

I am mildly anti police - generally people with power invariably abuse
it. However I also respect the fact that (in theory) their job is to
protect the public at large. And in that vein, if you are stupid enough
to go around with what is (or appears to be) a lethal weapon, then you
should consider yourself lucky to be alive after encountering the police.

My price for that licenc/se is no cover ups.

A more interesting question would be what if a *civilian* bystander had
seen the gunman and was in a position to fire.

The problem then I see is that if the bystander fired at the shooter
before the shooter fired, and the Secret Service sniper hadn't seen the
rifle shooter, he'd turn in the direction of the sound from the shot.
He'd then see someone with a gun, and that would immediately put the
bystander at risk from "friendly fire".

Little surprised to read about a head shot. I've known a few (UK) armed police and they've always said training is to got for the biggest target which is usually the torso. Although given the bullets they use, it's
rather moot.

They would require armour-piercing bullets if the shooter was wearing a "bullet-proof" vest. However, even if the bullet did not penetrate, the
shooter would feel its impact, and hopefully that would make any
accurate shots from him very unlikely.

--
Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/17/2024 9:27 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 23:11:49 -0700, Roy wrote:

It could be a supporter watching the event through the telescopic sight
with an unloaded rifle or a potential assassin.

If the former, then a Darwin award should be a given.

I am mildly anti police - generally people with power invariably abuse
it. However I also respect the fact that (in theory) their job is to
protect the public at large. And in that vein, if you are stupid enough
to go around with what is (or appears to be) a lethal weapon, then you
should consider yourself lucky to be alive after encountering the police.

My price for that licenc/se is no cover ups.

A more interesting question would be what if a *civilian* bystander had
seen the gunman and was in a position to fire.

Little surprised to read about a head shot. I've known a few (UK) armed police and they've always said training is to got for the biggest target which is usually the torso. Although given the bullets they use, it's
rather moot.

When you're a cop looking at a person standing upright, the torso makes
the best target. But when you're a pigeon, the head is much easier to
hit mid-flight *laugh*

I.e. if the person is laying on the ground and they're positioned where
their head is towards you and their feet almost directly away (think of
them aiming at a target and you're standing or laying maybe 30' to one
side of said target), the head is not only the easiest to hit but it may
be almost the ONLY thing you can hit with lethal damage.

See https://images.app.goo.gl/RjnznNqA6aRZ1na98 as an example. He's
definitely not aiming towards YOU, specifically (in fact, if he's 400'
away, I'd say he's aiming for somewhere around 400' to the side of you),
but you have the choice of a head shot, a shot at either shoulder,
TRYING to shoot his torso below the head or shooting him in the
foot/leg. I'd say a head-shot would be easiest, in this case, to make
sure it's lethal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)