# Good Samaritan shot for stopping to help



## Foxbat (Jun 11, 2010)

*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 (Jun 11, 2010)

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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Another point for the 'not stopping to help' catagory


----------



## 8jimi8 (Jun 11, 2010)

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 (Jun 11, 2010)

jtpaintball70 said:


> Another point for the 'not stopping to help' catagory



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


----------



## mycrofft (Jun 11, 2010)

*Scene safety.*

Scenes are chaotic.


----------



## rhan101277 (Jun 11, 2010)

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 (Jun 11, 2010)

jtpaintball70 said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Sasha said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

jtpaintball70 said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

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 (Jun 11, 2010)

spinnakr said:


> 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*
> 
> ...


 

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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

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 (Jun 12, 2010)

reaper said:


> 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 (Jun 12, 2010)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> 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 (Jun 12, 2010)

jtpaintball70 said:


> 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 (Jun 12, 2010)

spinnakr said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## spinnakr (Jun 12, 2010)

FLEMTP said:


> 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...
> 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.


_(emphasis changed)_

A rose by any other name.

I'm not saying you incapacitate him and then shoot him again.  My point is, shooting someone in the hand to knock away the gun is NOT shooting to eliminate the threat.  Nor is that easily defensible in court.  If a police officer or lawyer asks you what you were aiming for and you reply "his hand," then the question is raised whether you needed the weapon in the first place.

Likewise, when a police officer discharges his weapon, there is no intent to wound.  There is an intent to, as you said, eliminate the threat - or, in hillbilly laymans terms, shoot to kill.  I apologize for dumbing down my statement - but given the condition of American education, I hope you'll agree it's an understandable thing to do.  And for the record, I have never met a single police officer or soldier who termed it "shoot to eliminate the thread" - they all use the more commonplace "shoot to kill."

I understand the need to be careful with wording, particularly in court or when giving a statement.  However, this is neither the place nor the time to discuss this:  it's a thread about a possible good Samaritan being shot, NOT a thread about proper CCW terminology.


----------



## Sasha (Jun 12, 2010)

reaper said:


> Uhh umm!



Hush you. I stopped picking up hitchikers when you asked me to, and none of the people I ever picked up flagged me down screaming covered in blood, which obviously means that someone tried to hurt them, and I doubt they'd have issue with hurting me to continue hurting them.


----------



## firecoins (Jun 12, 2010)

FLEMTP said:


> *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!
> 
> ...


I think most people would not have the time to make decision whether it would be to kill or not to kill.  They would simply fire whatever will be will be.  What you tell the police afterwards is a different story.


----------



## Flight-LP (Jun 12, 2010)

firecoins said:


> I think most people would not have the time to make decision whether it would be to kill or not to kill.  They would simply fire whatever will be will be.  What you tell the police afterwards is a different story.



Hence why most citizens have no business carrying a firearm.................


----------



## firecoins (Jun 12, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> Hence why most citizens have no business carrying a firearm.................



Same argument could be made for cops.  I doubt they make much of distinction in a split second.  I am told average patrol cops in the UK don't carry guns.


----------



## FLEMTP (Jun 12, 2010)

spinnakr said:


> _(emphasis changed)_
> 
> A rose by any other name.
> 
> ...



If you cant use the "proper CCW terminology" now.. how can you expect to use it when the time comes?

You shoot to stop the threat. I dont know anyone out there that has a clue about guns that would even think that aiming for the hand is even an option. Stop taking your firearms training from the movies and TV, and get yourself into a real firearms self defense class. Your comments and statements here have made it very clear you have no real world firearms training... or you didnt bother to listen when you did take it.


----------



## FLEMTP (Jun 12, 2010)

firecoins said:


> I think most people would not have the time to make decision whether it would be to kill or not to kill.  They would simply fire whatever will be will be.  What you tell the police afterwards is a different story.





Flight-LP said:


> Hence why most citizens have no business carrying a firearm.................



You dont make a decision to kill or not to kill when you draw and use a weapon. If you feel that you or another person is in immediate danger of sustaining great bodily harm or being killed as a result of someone else, then you are using deadly force to stop the threat. I dont know how many times I need to say this and reiterate this fact. YOU DO NOT MAKE A DECISION TO KILL OR NOT TO KILL.

You shoot to stop the threat.

If they die as a result of their injuries, then they die. If they do not, then they do not. Either way the end result is that you stopped the threat.

And please forgive me for being reasonable and bringing the constitution into this Flight-LP, but if you read it, under the Bill of rights, it spells out clearly that any citizen has business carrying a firearm should they so desire to.

in fact, let me quote it for you, just in case you have never read it or dont care to:



> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



it doesnt say anything about "most citizens"



			
				firecoins said:
			
		

> Same argument could be made for cops. I doubt they make much of distinction in a split second. I am told average patrol cops in the UK don't carry guns.



The UK also has one of the highest levels of gun related crime in Europe...cuz we all know how well THAT gun ban worked


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 12, 2010)

DO NOT turn this thread into another debate about firearms!


----------



## firecoins (Jun 13, 2010)

FLEMTP said:


> The UK also has one of the highest levels of gun related crime in Europe...cuz we all know how well THAT gun ban worked



compare that with the US.  Much much much much much lower.  Not even close.


----------



## EMT012 (Jun 13, 2010)

Foxbat said:


> *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.
> 
> ...



Very sad and another reminder to just how violent the world is nowdays!!

With regards to the 'Use of Deadly Force'... and 'Use of Force'.... CHECK YOUR LOCAL LAWS!!!


----------



## Flight-LP (Jun 13, 2010)

FLEMTP said:


> And please forgive me for being reasonable and bringing the constitution into this Flight-LP, but if you read it, under the Bill of rights, it spells out clearly that any citizen has business carrying a firearm should they so desire to.
> 
> in fact, let me quote it for you, just in case you have never read it or dont care to:
> 
> ...



I am well versed in what the United States Constitution states (which is capitalized by the way, if you're going to drop that card, at least respect it enough to spell it correctly). The problem with its application today though is the massive change in society as a whole. The basic ethical and religious beliefs that were held to the highest standard back in the late 18th century are long gone, replaced by self perceived importance on one's individuality and their particular wants versus their actual needs and the needs of society. Back then, men were molded into a role of responsibility having respect for the institutions in place that directed society's acceptable norms. There was none of this "I can't handle this stressful situation, so I am going to be a selfish immature a** and start killing people".

Just as we are responsible for the current state of EMS, we are also collectively responsible for the current state of society as a whole. Plain and simple....................

Europe is a whole different ballgame on all levels. Sorry to say, but there is a lot we could learn from our friends across the pond.


----------



## spinnakr (Jun 13, 2010)

spinnakr said:


> this is neither the place nor the time to discuss this:  it's a thread about a possible good Samaritan being shot, NOT a thread about proper CCW terminology.



I say again:  let's get back on topic.  Start a new thread if you want to argue about this.  I would be very glad to address the personal...  attacks you've levied at me, but this is NOT the place to do it.  And, furthermore, we've been warned by a mod.

I, for one, am immensely saddened to hear that an innocent bystander was shot and killed by someone who is obviously at least a little deranged.


----------



## atropine (Jun 13, 2010)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> 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?



Keep driving, I got to get to the river.


----------



## firecoins (Jun 13, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> Back then, men were molded into a role of responsibility having respect for the institutions in place that directed society's acceptable norms. There was none of this "I can't handle this stressful situation, so I am going to be a selfish immature a** and start killing people".


First of all the respect had for institutions included starting the Revolutionary war tgo overthrow some instituional norms. They sarted a government that protected individual liberties unlike anywhere else in the world. And So Much for respect of institutions.  

Second Its hard to go on a killing spree with a Musket.  However people did get selfish and kill people back in the 18th century. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1749650/the_explanation_of_the_famous_duel.html


----------



## FLEMTP (Jun 13, 2010)

firecoins said:


> First of all the respect had for institutions included starting the Revolutionary war tgo overthrow some instituional norms. They sarted a government that protected individual liberties unlike anywhere else in the world. And So Much for respect of institutions.
> 
> Second Its hard to go on a killing spree with a Musket.  However people did get selfish and kill people back in the 18th century. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1749650/the_explanation_of_the_famous_duel.html



Hey.. just a suggestion.. you should change your avatar to a picture of BHO or Pelosi maybe.. at least warn people you're a liberal so we know to completely ignore anything that comes out of your mouth.. although, I should have seen that coming, with you being from NY and all...


----------



## Cory (Jun 14, 2010)

FLEMTP said:


> Hey.. just a suggestion.. you should change your avatar to a picture of BHO or Pelosi maybe.. at least warn people you're a liberal so we know to completely ignore anything that comes out of your mouth.. although, I should have seen that coming, with you being from NY and all...



And this has come to a whole new level of hilarity.:lol::lol::lol:

I can't even believe you just said that...


----------



## firecoins (Jun 14, 2010)

FLEMTP said:


> Hey.. just a suggestion.. you should change your avatar to a picture of BHO or Pelosi maybe.. at least warn people you're a liberal so we know to completely ignore anything that comes out of your mouth.. although, I should have seen that coming, with you being from NY and all...


So you say stupid things, get called on it and you shouldn't listen to me.  Right.  Got you.  

Protecting individual rights is not cause Pelosi champions. But of course, it takes research to know that.  Some of us who respect indivual rights do not respect the instituion that Pelosi leads so much. 

Gun rights are good but its been shown over and over again that guns get in the wrong hands. A little protection might be warrented. 


Do all stupid peopel live in the South?  Or should I just ignore the usual sterotypes?  I hope your gun safety is better than your words. You just shot yourself in the foot.


----------



## firetender (Jun 14, 2010)

spinnakr said:


> "*shoot to eliminate the thread*" - they all use the more commonplace "shoot to kill."
> 
> I understand the need to be careful with wording...



Didn't anybody frisk this guy before they let him in here?


----------



## Trayos (Jun 14, 2010)

I think the bigger problem lies with not realizing scene safety- the news report says a neighbor came out and exchanged fire with the killer, should have raised some red flags.
While I don't know exactly how the gunman managed to get close enough to shoot the driver at "point blank range", I think that she probably had several seconds to drive away- even though she might not have been able to help the victim.
If there is a loaded gun involved, I don't want to be. As cold as it sounds, I can drive away, call 911 from a distance, and hope that the victim isn't killed in the meantime. I cant do much good if I'm shot as well, and it might actually make the situation worse for others (if you already shot and killed somebody, then you are much more likely to continue, since you already ignored your inhibitions).
Then again, I wasn't there, and hopefully wont have to make that choice in my own life.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 14, 2010)

And that's enough of this one.


----------

