This video has been making the rounds on the internet for a bit. Initially I saw some MEME’s of this guy but didn’t understand the context. The person is named Charles Sweeney.
Now I have seen the video and Wooo-Nelly! It’s a doozie!
2018 Video of Charles Sweeney discussing shooting
It is my understanding this is the home owner’s second self defense shooting. It is my understanding the first shooting was also ruled as justified. For those wondering what are the odds of this happening twice? I have an answer.
Looking at some out takes from previous interviews, it is obvious this man’s domicile is a dump. That is not hyperbole. Exterior images I have seen of this building look exactly like what an empty, abandoned home looks like. Including vines and weeds growing on the front door.
I believe transient, opportunity thieves are mistaking this home as empty. Such a miscalculation is a professional liability. But no risk, no reward as they say. And looking at the home owner’s disheveled appearance positively confirms what I have casually observed. There is an unpopular message in this statement about not looking like a victim or setting yourself up to attract predators. In America, you have the right to look and live like a hill-jack. But recognize decisions have consequences.
No, I’m not being fair. I am being honest. But this isn’t actually what I want to discuss about this video. Nor am I wanting to discuss his reckless comments, essentially on the record, without an attorney present. Fair to surmise, this video will live on for decades in every CCW training class demonstrating a “legal shoot” and a “bad mouth”.
What I wish to discuss is the actual comment that puts him in the most legal jeopardy. Shooting someone in the back. Untrained and inexperienced folks tend to see gunfights through the lens of Hollywood. But in actuality, an exchange of gunfire, especially with handguns, tends results in someone turning away from the gunfire.
2013 Video of Charles Sweeney discussing shooting
Sometimes it’s an involuntary ducking motion in response to the unexpected loud noise of the report. Other times it’s an actual sympathetic flinch to the sensation of bullets entering the subject’s body. And finally, it’s an attempt to run: flee the scene or get to over to return fire.
Here’s the crux of this guy’s problem: When describing shooting the perp in the back? Was it something that happened in a millisecond during contact? Or was it a deliberate attempt to, “down the running deer”?
Excluding obvious exceptions such as a firefight, where everyone is armed. And shooting someone in the back who is angling for a better position to attack you is not only justified, but obvious. The real determining factor if the second shot was justified is…time.
Was this a quick engagement? Pop-Pop? Or a coup-de-gras? Pop. 2 minutes. Pop. Likely the former. But the subject’s ignorance, lack of experience, unsophistication and frankly…
stupidity; has earned himself a civil suit. Possibly a grand jury indictment. And certainly the need to spend good money on an even better lawyer.
Disagree on the indictment? No way you say? Here’s how this really works. Prosecutor’s office 100% believes the shooting was legit. But the media gets a hold of it and makes it a circus? Guess what the prosector does? Gives it to the grand jury and let “the people” decide if charges should be filed.
Sometimes passing the buck is the best move politically.
Everything about this guy’s whole life is a walking, talking, living, breathing example of how you can’t save people from themselves.
“Shooting Guns & Having Fun”