Prosecutor: Man was justified in shooting at Grand Rapids gas station

[Mugu]

by Nate Reens | The Grand Rapids Press

GRAND RAPIDS -- Before he could hit a man with a 4-pound hard plastic garbage can lid during an argument outside a Boston Square gas station last month, Gabriel Rodriguez was shot and killed, a homicide Kent County Prosecutor Bill Forsyth ruled today was justifiable.

Forsyth said he will not file charges against Glenn Tett for the Feb. 18 shooting that left Rodriguez dead, citing an imminent threat and videotape evidence that shows Rodriguez, 48, as the aggressor in the altercation.

Tett, the 41-year-old brother of a Grand Rapids police officer, shot Rodriguez once in the head with a legally registered .38-caliber revolver after the men engaged in a brief argument as Tett pumped gas into his truck.

"Within seconds, Mr. Rodriguez reaches down ... picks up a large trash can lid and rapidly raises it above his head in a striking motion toward Mr. Tett," Forsyth wrote in his opinion. "Mr. Tett pulls out his gun and fires."


Complete article at:
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/man_was_justified_in_shooting.html

[edbermac]

1. Why not shoot his hand instead of his head?

:wtf:

[Mugu]

4. Maybe he was aiming for his hand and the guy's head got in the way. Oops.

[flyingfysh]

6. that only happens in cowboy movies

Accurate firing with a pistol is very difficult, especially if acting very quickly.

[selador]

8. lol

you are kidding me right?

as a firearms instructor, i can tell you that is absurd.

[Mike Daniels]

67. Because this isn't a Hollywood movie

which is the only place where people in stressful situations are routinely able to hit a small target.

In real life, when you shoot a gun to stop someone you aim for the larger mass objects.

[Selatius]

2. Personally, I wouldn't have fired if in the same position, especially if the lid was plastic.

You can take down a person without a gun. The only way I would've shot the man is if he were coming at me with another gun or a sharp instrument.

[varkam]

5. According to the prosecutor...

Tett did not have time to identify the object with which we was about to be whacked with.

[Selatius]

7. But if it were made out of steel, would that require a gun as the appropriate response?

In my mind, I don't know. You are more likely to survive a hit from a garbage can lid steel or plastic or otherwise than you are with a bullet fired from a gun.

[selador]

10. would it?

in most circumstances yes.

[michreject]

51. Maybe more likely, but not always

I wouldn't let anyone hit me with their hands, much less an object.

[varkam]

60. I would say so.

But that's just my thinking.

[selador]

9. assumes all sorts of stuff

first of all, you don't know what you would do. you know what you think you would do. unless you were in that situation, you don't know. nor do i. and i've carried concealed for over 20 yrs.

also, you don't know that he KNEW the lid was plastic. you merely know it was plastic. iow, when the guy was holding it over head and swinging, who knows if it was clear it was plastic.

[Selatius]

45. I have a fairly good guess, mainly I was trained to take cover first before using force when attacke

Second, by falling back and taking cover, I could more accurately gauge the threat and respond accordingly, but I also preface that by saying I've been in situations before where I was under attack and always remembered the simple slogan "run first, gun last" and that with this situation, it appears to me that the situation gave warning signs of escalation, namely the man was pissed off about him giving his girlfriend a ride in his car. He likely stated that he was the girl's boyfriend and that he was upset.

That should've been a warning flag to start moving away from the aggressor and from the car even before the aggressor got as close as he did. He even tried to call 911 no less than six times, indicating to me that he knew the situation was escalating. If something were to make me call 911 six times, I'm fairly certain I have received forewarning to move myself to a safer position, and I'm fairly certain I would've positioned myself so that the truck is between me and the potential attacker.

What would I have done in the same situation? I have a fairly good guess based on what I was taught, but ultimately, you are right in that I won't absolutely know until I get there, but I think I would've been far more hesitant to use deadly force, but that's just my opinion.

[selador]

48. 911

i've read the article several times, i can't determine if it referred to him calling 911 BEFORE or after the shooting. it's not clear.

fwiw, the DEADLY part of the incident took all of 4 seconds.

it was a dynamci reaction to a dynamic stitution

regardless, the point is not DID THE GUY MAKE THE OPTIMAL decision to shoot

that's not at issue in my analysis

the issue i am addressing is - was it LEGALLY justified

entirely different metric

[Selatius]

52. Depending on the state, the two can be the same thing. In Michigan, it's not the same.

In some states, you are required to make a full faith effort to attempt to remove yourself from the threat before using deadly force unless it can be shown that is not possible or that it occurred in the confines of the victim's home, such as a dead-end alley where you're about to be raped or a burglar coming into the home with you in it.

However, in Michigan, the requirement to retreat was changed when Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) signed into law legislation basically removing the retreat requirement in terms of justifiable homicide. With that said, I'm leaning toward's the prosecutor's position on this. However, I don't think it's a bad rule of thumb anyway to attempt to retreat before resorting to deadly force.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204720,00.html

[selador]

55. im not aware

of any state (but admittedly i do not know 50 different codes) where somebody has to act optimally for ANY act ot be reasonable -that's not just deadly force.

that's anything.

but yes, a state could have a standard that says you have a duty to retreat under state law, as i understand it.

good post btw

[zanne]

3. A plastic garbage can lid vs. a gun?

No way is that justified. (The brother of a cop, huh?)

[selador]

11. again

you don't know that HE knew it was plastic.

also, i can tell you that i've investigated numerous deadly force incidents and this sounds like a reasonable use of force. i would like to read the complete report before i was certain, but based on the basic facts presented, it appears justified

[fascisthunter]

13. Holy Shit Ya Gotta Be Kidding Me

I know you want to defend the rights of a gun owner, but don't try to defend a guy blowing somebody away out of fear. I can see why you would be concerned. He could have easily gotten in the truck and avoided the situation. Instead he decided to pick up a gun and kill the person. That gun was accessible. He had two choices....He over-reacted and chose to deal with the situation with his gun. That's what this situation proves and with that questions about certain rights.

[Mugu]

15. So, without reviewing the video or talking to the witnesses,

you know more about what happened than the police and prosecutors.

[fascisthunter]

22. And You Know What That I Don't?

Stop defending a man that over-reacted and took a life for it. Maybe he couldn't handle having a gun so close to him in such an event. We see somebody is dead, but was it really necessary. Well I guess you'll keep us all updated. Don't want folks here looking at gun rights more closely... nah. You're really trying to give this guy a fair shake.

[Mugu]

25. I'm not the one claiming that the people with best knowledge are wrong.

[fascisthunter]

30. And? What are They Saying That Makes the Man Justified in Killing another Man?

Well?

[selador]

31. read the article

the man was swinging a garbage can lid at the guy, he had previously made a threat to "cut" the victim and the videotape evidence corroborates the victim's account

but lord forbid facts should intrude

[fascisthunter]

34. So What.. I Already Addressed That....

oooooh. Quick... grab your gun, cause it's the new sheriff in town now. I's the only answer we all have for threatening situations like this! Give me a break.....



Also, why in the head? Why not in the leg, arm, shoulder? Exactly... he over-reacted. He used poor judgement and took a life needlessly. Some people really can't handle owning and carrying guns.

That's alright everybody... if you too feel "threatened" just use your gun! Yeeehaaaaaaaa

[selador]

36. here we go again

again, the staggering ignorance of deadly force law (and firearms uses) just amazes me. educate yourself, THEN form opinion

fwiw, unless you are a sniper, it is NEVER advised to shoot anybody ANYWHERE but "center mass" and.or in the head and/or hip plexus region if the former isn't working (tactical armour)

i've been a firearms instructor for years. over 20 yrs of law enforcement experience, and personal experience in deadlyt force encounters.

the issue wasn't that he "felt threatened". the standard is far more. and based ont he fact pattern presented in the article, the standard was met.

[Mugu]

35. The authorities investigated and found no wrong doing.

You claim otherwise. The burden of prove is on you.

[fascisthunter]

39. Killing Somebody is Not Wrong Doing? That's All the Proof I Need

You really are strange..... guns mean much more to you than life itself it appears. Proof is right there in the article and how you are defending the right of the gun owner to take that man's life is really creepy. Nothing you said invalidates the points I have been making.

It appears tasing little 12 year old girls to you is acceptable as well, just to put this all in some perspective.

[Richard Steele]

43. Not when it's in self-defense, obviously.nm

[fascisthunter]

44. Oh Naturally... because a trash can lid is sooo life threatening

ya... good one. You gun folks are funny. I guess getting in his vehicle was just too.. well... who gives a shit. Fuck it... blow the guy away. After all... had to defend myself... yuppppp.

[NutmegYankee]

49. You either have a terminal case of 20/20 hindsight

or a terminal case of ignorance. God damn son. If I swung a grey trash can lid right at your head, I bet you'd get whacked before you ever figured out if it was steel or plastic. If steel, you could be killed right then and there from blunt force trauma to your skull. If Plastic, it would likely unbalance you and daze you, after which I could knife you or continue beating you to death.

But hey, why defend yourself against a man trying to bludgeon you? You might kill him and save yourself in the process. How selfish...

[Richard Steele]

66. Someone is simply NOT INTERESTED in the facts of this case.

And it's not you or I....:eyes:

[zanne]

74. Son, you need to lie down now.

You're getting over excited. You have to stay sharp. You never know when someone will come along with a plastic garbage can lid and give you blunt force trauma. :rofl:

[NutmegYankee]

75. Try reading that again and comprehending it this time.

Steel lid = possible blunt force trauma

Plastic lid = might knock you off balance (likely), or daze you.


The point was he wouldn't have known in the few seconds which it was. The man assumed it was steel.

[zanne]

76. Yeah, yeah. nt

[Mugu]

47. What in the world are you talking about?

The proof in the article is that the authorities found no wrong doing by Mr. Tett.

"tasing little 12 year old girls" where did that come from?

[Mike Daniels]

69. People are allowed to take action to protect themself from attack

I'm sorry but anyone who attacks someone with any sort of weapon takes inherent risks that they aren't going to walk away from the encounter alive.

The guy was in the process of attacking someone else and got killed. He was content to harm someone by his own hand and got it back in return.

That's life. Deal with it.

[LisaL]

37. Everybody knows something you don't.

Prosecutor declined to charge the guy and said it was justified.

[zanne]

64. Have you reviewed the video or talked to the witnesses?

The guy could have been killed by a plastic garbage can lid. I can see the headline now: "Local Man Killed by Plastic Garbage Can Lid; Coroner sites plastic allergy as cause of death". :rofl:

[Mike Daniels]

70. As another poster already stated.....

Being hit with enough force by a plastic garbage can lid could easily have dazed the other person leaving him open to further attack.

I have an idea. Why not let someone hit you full force with a plastic can lid to see if it's as harmless as you seem to think it will invariably be and then come back and see if you carry the same opinion.

[zanne]

73. Obviously, you've already tes ted that theory...

With a lead garbage can cover.

[michreject]

53. Shooting someone out of fear

is a damn good reason.

[zanne]

63. Anything to defend guns, right?

It doesn't matter how ridiculous your statements are. Any criticism of using a gun is met with inane statements and kneejerk reactions.

[LisaL]

40. It doesn't matter what it was.

As long as the guy is acting in self-defense.

[zanne]

65. Well, here we go...

What next? If I call you a bad name and hurt your feelings, will it be self defense of your ego?

[slackmaster]

56. Never bring a plastic garbage can lid to a gun fight

That is exactly what the dead guy did.

[The Straight Story]

72. Guess maybe the guy with the lid should have been smart enough to know that

Would you go after someone with a gun when all you had was a garbage can lid :)

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mugu]

14. And you know that it was a "white guy" how?

You might want to actually look at the photos of the combatants.

[KG]

16. i really don't give a flying fuck what people on the other end of keyboard think about me.

and in the photo i'm looking at an open door the shooter could have hopped into. but i guess retreat is something you don't do if you have a gun.

[selador]

18. actually,

legally speaking retreat ISN'T something you have to do whether or not you have a gun. but then you apparently don't give a flying #$#$($# about case law, constitutional law, or the right to self-defense

you also dont know that he could have hopped into the car SAFELY.

[happyslug]

58. The duty to Retreat is state law dependent.

In my home state of Pennsylvania one has a duty to Retreat IF POSSIBLE, Other states that is NOT the rule. I have read (But NOT done the research myself) that Texas has such a rule (But it has been modified by Statute to the no duty to retreat rule). Illinois is a state that does NOT require a person to retreat. Massachusetts requires a duty to retreat (Even from one's home, a rule NOT followed in Pa, i.e. no duty to retreat from your own home in PA). Just pointing out the duty to retreat is state law dependent, and then only if it is reasonable.

[Mugu]

21. My reference was to your comment about "white guy" nothing else.

[selador]

17. idiotic

did you even READ the article. there's a photo of the guy. he's not white

but when in doubt, insert your racial prejudice

frigging AMAZING but typical

[KG]

19. well, since i'm caucasian, i guess i'm prejudiced against my own race.

:eyes:

[selador]

23. nice backpedal

but the point is you ASsUMED the guy is white

guess what. that's racist.

and you assumed RACISM was a factor.

with zero evidence.

see again: bigotry.

but nice try

[KG]

24. you're really reaching now.

don't you have a gun to clean or something?

[selador]

27. no

i have your prejudice to expose.

which i just did

thanks for displaying it so clearly.

you assume somebody is white because they used deadly force to defend themselves.

nice world you must live in.

[KG]

57. ok, you got me. damn. so, i 'll bet you're feeling pretty good about yourself right now

you know, after exposing my prejudice and all that. :rofl:

[spoony]

54. That's entirely possible since you made such an idiotic statement.

[KG]

61. that's right, genius, i'm prejudiced against white people.

dag, you must have a big ol' brain to figure that one out. :eyes:

[Mugu]

62. Having the only post on this thread

that moderators felt the need to remove says something.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

20. Tett, the ... brother of a ... police officer...

Maybe a little "professional courtesy" here?

[HuffleClaw]

26. guess its good to be related to a cop

"Tett (the shooter)tried to call 911 six times, but misdialed in the heat of the moment. He eventually called his brother, Police Officer Walter Tett, who came to the shooting scene."

[selador]

29. except

the fact pattern suggests justification.

clearly.

i could cite numerous examples of citizen uses of self defense ruled justified where no "cop" coneection existed.

but if you can find a reason for bias that u can insert your anti-cop prejudice, feel free to insert it

[chixydix]

28. Ah, the old "Tett Offensive" gambit.

blgetofmeousxtfwsax

[Mugu]

32. "Tett Offensive"

I like it.

Cheers, Mugu

[chixydix]

42. Crappy joke but if you got a chuckle, that's good.

:D :D

[SteveM]

77. Good God!

[Javaman]

33. How does that saying go?

oh yeah, "never bring a trash can lid to a gun fight".

we have become a nation of pussy's that hide behind guns.

Flame me all you want, I don't give a shit.

[Poll_Blind]

38. Tett may have been legally justified but after watching the video...

...it sure looks like he knew what was coming. Maybe more- expected it? Courted it? The video doesn't show the shooting itself, just everything right up to that point.

  Some commentary that struck a cord with me from the site:

I completely thought when I clicked this I would think it would be justified. 95% of the time when I read these stories I am ok with the use of force. I have no problems with concealed weapons permits and handgun rights, but this is crazy. The whole thing is fishy. Missdialed 911 six times before he called police brother. Are we to believe that. This type of shooting connot be considered justified and I am sure there are those taking a closer look at the situation.

  From his shoulder movements he's drawing/unholstering the gun as Rodriguez picks up the garbage can lid. He doesn't appear to move an inch. And he fires with a more-or-less completely straight arm which, at that range, is also a little surprising considering the claim that he was fearing for his life. And he's got one hell of a quick draw.

  This guy has the drawing and shooting part down a little too well, but he can't dial 911 for shit? Instead it's easier to call his brother- tha cop?

  From my experience, and this is all speculation of course, it sure looks like Tett started some shit with a guy who he knew might take a swing at him, was ready, and got that gun good and close to Rodriguez before pulling the trigger.

  I wonder what words were excahnged. Tett and Rodriguez are the only two who know.

  And maybe, Tracy Thomas.

  Haven't seen a video quite like that in a while. Disturbing.

PB

[ljm2002]

41. So the whole thing was over in 4 seconds...

...according to the story. The picture shows the man with the garbage can lid as being on the other side of the island, and the shooter with his gun drawn and his arm fully extended and ready to shoot. If the whole thing took only 4 seconds then not much else could have happened. Based on the photo and the 4 seconds, I would say that our shooter was never in any real danger and that the situation did not meet the usual standard of "reasonably" believing his life to be in danger.

He could have hopped right back into that truck of his -- I'm guessing that closing the door and the window of the truck would have provided ample protection against a plastic garbage can lid. Or even a metal one.

It's certainly true that none of us knows how we would act in such a situation -- and if we think we do then we are kidding ourselves. It is also true that a person has the right to defend themselves. However, from what I see in this story, I don't think we are looking at a legitimate case of self-defense. And the little bit at the end of the story about how he tried to dial 911 six times but mis-dialed, so ended up calling his brother instead. Yeah, six attempts to dial a 3-digit number, couldn't do it; but just one attempt to dial a 7-digit number, no problem. And the end result is his brother is first to the scene.

Professional courtesy. That's why he was not charged. It reeks. IMO.

[Poll_Blind]

46. Yeah, "fishy" is the best word to describe what I see in the video.

  No backing away, no bent-arm with the gun. Dudeman had his day planned out pretty well from the looks of it.

  Wonder what Tett said. It wasn't nice, and I'm starting to suspect that it wasn't supposed ot be.

PB

[selador]

50. how many shootings have you witnessed

i've seen many

hint: generally speaking, people extend their arms forward towards the threat STRAIGHT

that's why weaver stance is inappropriate for deadly force training for 99% of gun owners. because in a stressful real world situation, gross motor skills erode, and a # of other things happen

people generally extend their arms forward towards the threat

[happyslug]

59. Remember the two second rule.

It takes you two seconds from seeing anything and reacting to what your see. When I was taking my Driver's exam 34 years ago. the State of Pennsylvania had pictures of how many cars lengths it took before you could stop at various speeds. It was useless guideline for you could NOT visualize how many cars lengths are between you and the car in front of you given the speed you were going (and that the car in front of you will also take a long while to stop).

In the 1980s most state's driving books adopted the two second rule. Basically you look at the car in front of you pass some landmark (a sign, a tree, a pothole etc) then count two seconds. If you passed that landmark BEFORE you counted to two, you were to close. If you counted to two and then passed the landmark, you were far enough behind the car in front of you to avoid an accident. The reason was simple, it takes two seconds from the time you see the need to hit the brakes to hit the brakes. The two second rule gave you that time.

Several years ago I read about a Police officer on trial for shooting a person whose gun was on his side but in his hand. The officer had shoot the holder on the grounds the Officer was afraid he would be killed. At Trial the Defense presented an expert wittiness who just did a demonstration. He had two guns, both with blanks, he then ask the guards in the Court room to hold one at him pointing straight at him. The wittiness had the other gun along his side, like the victim of the officer had had his. The wittiness told the Guard to pull the trigger as soon as the Guard saw the wittiness go for his gun. Remember both guns had blanks. The Wittiness then waited a few seconds and pulled his gun, firing his gun at the Guard before the Guard was even able to pull the trigger. It takes only about one second to pull a gun, but it takes two to decide to do so and pull the trigger. In this case the Wittiness's two second was over and done with as he went for his gun, but the Guard's two second was just starting. It takes about one second for an expert to clear and shoot his gun, thus the Guard was shoot with almost a second to spare.

That two second rule shows up in a lot of places, The US Army knows about it and trains its soldiers to react NOT to think about what to do. The Army keeps its soldiers doing the same things over and over so that it becomes automatic. A study (for the US Army) shows it takes 1000 repetition for the average soldiers to learn to do something automatically (i.e. don't think just do), 1300 to unlearn the wrong lesson and learn to correct lesson (i.e. train them to do it right the first time is quicker then re-training them if they learned it wrong). The Army does this to handle the two second rule, I always joke about the Infantry man in Vietnam who heard Mortar rounds coming in, he rolled out of bed and under his cot, as he was trained to do, without even waking up. He did as he had been trained, and might even have saved his life.

Now given these two elements of being human, the two seconds it takes to react, and the tendency to follow training, fully explains the action of the shooter. Most people learn how to handle weapons on a shooting range, where there are no open car doors to duck into. You shoot and shoot till it becomes second nature. This is how soldiers and the the police are taught. Thus once the pistol was in the shooter's hands, he was going to go as he had been trained, to shoot if attacked (Unless there is time to react, and four seconds is NOT enough time given the two second rule). People are not, and can not be trained, to duck into things NOT around when they are being trained. Thus the Car door is only an option if the shooter had time to think about what to do, and given the two second rule, four seconds is NOT enough time to think.

Basically, given how people are trained and the two second rule, this is self-defense, if the parties had more time to think about the situation (i.e. if the parties had been arguing and then the person shoot had left and came back, then you can have an argument that the Shooter had a duty to retreat), but from what I have read that was NOT the case, no one had sufficient time to avoid the altercation and that was the fault of the person who did the attack i.e. the person who was shot.

[Ordr]

68. Definitely self-defense. Good ruling by the judge.

[Blue_Tires]

71. either way it's a shame

i see things differently--two men who have known each other over 30 years cannot resolve a minor issue without things QUICKY devolving to violence...now one is dead...

[DiverDave]

78. Guy gets in his car, no one dead.

but, he did the "manly" thing...give me a break, he didn't have to shoot that guy.

All you gun nuts that say he HAD to shoot, well, I hope not to be around when you feel "threatened"

No way he was in deadly peril.

Oh, and I have owned guns and choose not to have them now. As I have kids in my house.

I am not getting into any flame wars with you, um, men...so spare us your outrage and "wisdom"