Analyzing the NYC Hallway Shooting: When Self-Defense Turns Into Murder
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Criminal Defense Attorneys, Marc J. Victor and Andy Marcantel delve deep with their expert legal analysis and dissect an incident that started off as a self-defense case that quickly turned into murder.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTENT CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT MAY BE HARMFUL OR TRAUMATIZING TO SOME AUDIENCES!
Attorneys On Retainer ► bit.ly/AOR-Sel...
Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm ► bit.ly/Attorne...
3185 South Price Road
Chandler, Arizona 85248
866-404-5112
Or email us at Contact@AttorneysOnRetainer.us
--------
Viewing this brief legal information does not create an Attorney/Client relationship and is not legal advice. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation. This is intended only as a general overview of one legal topic.
Shortly after this incident, he fled the scene and police put an apb out on him for 2 counts of murder. A few hours later, he was gunned down by police.
Very sad story. I feel for the guy - he was probably scared, frustrated, and justifiably angry. Maybe he thought he couldn't let someone get away with threatening him with a pair of scissors in his own building like that. This is the kind of toxic thinking about carrying a gun that good firearms training is supposed to cover. You MUST be willing to back down if there's no imminent deadly threat to you or anyone else. If the jerk threatens you and then walks away, you have to let him walk away. Mr. Pass could have gone home alive that night if he'd been willing to do that.
@samadams8355 HIS building? It's everyone who lives in the apartment's building. Using a firearm isn't to assert power over someone, it's a saving grace you keep in your back pocket until you absolutely need it. He felt power when he pulled out the gun, and thought that was his last chance to use it before the guy walked away.
Source ?
@@rodrigorodriguez2299 Active self defense and Google
@@samadams8355he’s a cold blooded murderer lol
Great analysis, guys. Can I suggest that you PLEASE allow the full video to play before you do your breakdowns, though? Sitting around for 15 min just to finally see the total situation is frustrating. Show the clip, then come back and do your breakdowns and analysis. Please and thank you.
High Praise for the taking time to do this. As an AOR member myself, I would love to see more videos like this. The comments at the end clarifying what would be covered under AOR is helpful.
This is why you cant go talking sideways to people you dont know! You never know how far they're willing to take it.
I'm not an attorney but this is 100% a "plea deal" case at best. The attorney is simply there to ensure that the client doesnt go to prison for the rest of their life. If he gets 10 years with the possibility of parole in 7 years, his attorney did an amazing job.
The window of opportunity where he was able to defend himself was gone. The second shots on both men is definitely execution style. It's slim to none that a judge is going to allow self defense to be argued in this case. It's not a good faith argument that it's self defense.
I imagine the upstairs family will turn the music down now.
Hot headed, anger got to him. There's no peace maker anymore. And what I mean is that somebody gotta be the bigger person to defuse the situation.
If you carry a gun you have to be the one with a cooler head and walk away.
I'm 63, can't even do one push up anymore. even without a weapon that guy is lethal force.
I liked Mr. Victor's approach. It's never about a single story of what actually happened, but about all the possible things that could have happened and looked like the video (and how the range of possibility shrinks as the video progresses). It's an interesting glimpse into how people like him approach cases, and a testament to due process rather than deciding which is guilty (or even thinking in such simplistic terms).
Your videos on this type of topic are so much better than other channels. Others always seam so off base on their judgement.
That situation went from something that could be defended to bad real quick.
"21 Foot Rule", as has been used by many Law Enforcement agencies and police, is a recognized and trained to distance "rule" when confronting a person with an edged weapon and demonstrating the aggression indicating he is willing to use it. If the aggressive person continues to be aggressive while wielding the edged weapon, the shooting can be justified. If he retreats, that is a different scenario entirely.
The aggressor with the scissors retreated and was shot in the back, he actually was leaving the scene. The execution shot to him and the kid blow any case of possible S.D.
That was a weird way to hold the scissors.
Appreciate what your firm does both in content and the AOR program. It is refreshing to see integrity in a law firm and in the program. Many foolish people have joined the USCCA thinking they will be defended no matter what and you have documented it cannot be so. But clearly even AOR has limits as you stated definitively yet you start with the assumption one is innocent until facts belie it.
I just purchase USCCA. Is it fake?
@@YASAJTV It’s not fake, just limited because it is an insurance based coverage and insurance cannot cover a criminal act. The AOR channel has a number of examples of where insurance denies funding a self defense based on the determination of the underwriters. But in my comment I am referring to people who sign up for any program thinking they will be defended no matter what. Since you are a member take advantage of the training offered. It will help you avoid using deadly force unless absolutely necessary.
@@YASAJTV USCCA is dishonest and will not cover you. I dropped them like a hot rock years ago. The best program out there is Attorneys On Retainer.
This is why if you live in New York you just call the cops and you don't go talk to your neighbor. Anyone will be armed at any time nowadays. It's not your job to force compliance with a noise ordinance. That's the job of the police. You pay tax dollars. Use them.
Exactly.
If you called NYPD with a noise complaint they’d laugh you off the phone.
They barely show up to the scene of actual emergencies-even sometimes ones that are happening right in front of the precinct-nothing is coming out of a noise complaint.
Very interesting analysis. I,'m glad you stopped the video to discuss each condition, before continuing. This way it is possible to learn from each step, before one's own bias takes control of the thinking process.
Thanks for your analysis guys. Difficult topics, but appreciate your comments and analysis. Very educational and insightful.
Murder
3:16 4:00 5:55 7:30 8:25 10:25 13:40 15:25 16:15 17:10 19:15
Gentlemen, what if the large man with the scissors was saying “I’ll go get my gun and we’ll see what’s up then” or something along those lines. A verbal threat of grabbing a close by firearm. Is that within reason for self defense or is it still murder?
Mere words with no immediate threat. Still murder.
The last two shots and the callous demeanor just screams 1st dagree homicide
I lived in NYC for many years before I escaped. While this shoot is marred, and the shooter screwed up after the first shot, the duty to retreat in an apartment building is difficult, to say the least. An aggressive assailant WILL chase you up, or down, the stairs. I know that city too well for my taste.
The police will even harass a uniformed security officer for fun in NYC. Everyone has a right to a fair trial, but the fact is that NOT ALL TRIALS ARE FAIR.
Mr. Pass(s) appears to have had encounters with these neighbors before. At the end, however, HE BECAME WHAT HE WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST. After this disaster, Mr. Pass committed the desperate act of charging at the NYPD, which is infamous for shooting anyone they want because THEY CAN.
It breaks my heart that Mr. Pass took the only way out that he could see because he became the thug he didn't want to be.
Marc and Anthony, I'm glad you showed us this video, and analyzed it so excellently... but it was a downer.
As a defacto analysis as a simple investigator, if an intruder RETREATS FROM YOUR HOUSE, in many states injuring, or killing an escaping intruder can land you a felony murder charge. This case fell under that when Mr. Pass shot the man after the threat was neutralized.
Brilliant video review
The Coup de Grace was too much...
First thoughts - as of (02:18) in this video (I paused it shortly after to comment) (Also, I'm not a lawyer by any means, but I have received a good bit of training and education... and this is not from being in the "heat of the moment" and certainly having the ability to think as clearly as possible while writing this... so.... )
-- The "Tueller drill" immediately comes to mind.... which is a demonstration drill that shows that (on **average**) anyone within a 21-foot range who has a knife or other edged/pointed weapon is within immediate striking distance and an immediate potential threat to someone who has immediate access to a firearm in a holster similar to what a typical police officer uses. This means that if the potential assailant is already "brandishing" an edged weapon at that (21-foot) distance, he or she (average individual) is capable of closing that distance in the same amount of time that it would take that officer to draw and fire a shot at the assailant. Unfortunately, because the assailant gets to the officer in that amount of time, a capable (average) assailant could be landing a potential death blow at the same time that the officer is firing a potentially lethal shot into the assailant. So at 21 feet (on average) someone defending him or herself would be more than justified in drawing the weapon. And given the threatening manner of the man in the white shirt, the clear disparity of force (three opponents, with one being overwhelmingly larger and more powerful), I would say that you have most assuredly have Ability, Opportunity, and Intent CLEARLY covered, I would certainly be in fear for my life at this point, and I believe to be more than justified to take immediate action to gain some kind of distance to (a) avoid the immediate threat of attack from the "knife" (or whatever the man has), (b) to be able to draw a pistol with less chance of the assailant hindering my draw, or trying to take the firearm from me, and then I'd try to fire as quick of a first shot as I could to stop his apparent attack. If he backed away fast enough (as I would hope he would) hopefully I wouldn't have to fire the first shot... but if he didn't immediately back away, and I did HAVE TO shoot, how many follow-up shots would be determined by how he instantaneously reacted, and if I thought that he was still a lethal threat....
- I don't understand this "proportionate force" "requirement". Is this codified law as written by legislatures, or is this more of "case law"/precedence? I'm certainly not a lawyer and haven't had a chance to read every line of every state's laws, but I hope that this isn't actually codified law, just something that would be thought of as a consideration to ensure that your actions are more likely to be thought of by the jury as being "reasonable". You have a right to defend yourself against a lethal threat as well as actions that can cause serious injury or grave bodily harm. If someone has a knife, they are capable of killing you or causing serious injury or grave bodily harm. Same thing for a blunt weapon, as well as an attacker's "fists hands or feet". Dead is dead. Paralyzed is paralyzed... etc Each weapon is JUST AS POTENTIALLY CAPABLE of causing serious injury or death as any other weapon. It might be harder to argue in court, but even if the man in the white shirt didn't have a weapon in his hands, there is already a strong case for taking immediate action at this point just based off of the actions of the man in the white shirt and the other two with him. (Supposition) The woman and the other individual could have been acting to distract the man making the complaint, and then be in a position to back-up the man in the white shirt as he made his initial attack. One blow with a closed fist could kill. One shove down the stairs could kill, and in my mind, that's the biggest threat absent of the knife/scissors or whatever the man in the white shirt has in his hand.
- I don't think that it's ever a good idea to say something like, "Hey, I have a gun", until after you are forced to actually draw it. Advertising it in advance can possibly invite an immediate attack, and at that distance. Once he knows that you have a gun, if he's trying to attack first, and/or prevent you from drawing, I don't like the odds on being able to still properly use it if needed. Also, while saying that you have a gun, could "diffuse" the situation... at that moment. But then what would happen if, even if you never pulled the firearm, what if the person left and then called the police and said that you threatened him with a gun? Absence of the video footage, it's your word against his. You could get into serious trouble for threatening someone with a gun, even if you never pulled it.... (I know of an incident at a truck stop a few years ago where something similar happened... and the person who was initially threatened, who never pulled out his gun, ended up in jail/prison for quite some time, before the felony charges were cleared. He lost a lot of money in legal fees, and lost his job in the process.)
- When did this "duty to retreat" requirement get codified?
- First MAJOR issue with the "self-defense" no longer appearing to be self-defense was at 8:13 in this video when it looked like he activated an aiming laser on the man's back and fired at the man in the white shirt as he was turning around and walking away.... THAT being said, I can't see everything that the other man was doing as the big man passed in front of him, but since the laser was on the initial aggressor, in the absence of other evidence, I'd say that he PROBABLY wasn't a threat... but what did the "defender" see? The next question (I'm paused at 8:17), why does the second man appear to possibly attack the "defender" (man with the gun)? If I had been in his position seconds before that, I can't imagine moving in reaction to that gunshot in a way that would have me "stumbling" in the direction of the guy with the gun.... and had I been the guy with the gun, and someone's coming towards me like that, I can't imagine that I wouldn't see that as a potential threat.... IF the previous shot had been justified (I don't see it at this point as justifiable, but let's pretend that it was, just for the sake of arguement), I would like to think that I would have tried to back up to gain distance, and give more time to assess the situation (potential threat) before firing another shot.....
- Just because he's on the ground, it happened so fast that, I don't think that you can honestly say that he wasn't still a potential threat (assuming that the first shot at/into the second man was believed to be and was able to be argued to be justified). (what's the object on the ground by the 2nd man's right shoulder? Was he carrying/brandishing a weapon as well?
- Good points about prior knowledge.
- After that, there's no justification for shooting additional shots. What about calls to 911? Why did he head to the elevator like that?
- If I was a juror, with what I'm seeing there, I don't know how I wouldn't find him guilty of "murder" (of some sort, or other similar charge).... but I'd be curious, and open to hear what his defense attorney would argue.... if it made it to court.
If the kid felt he was in danger, wouldn't he create distance?
There's no such thing as self defense in NY.
It’s called murder!!!
Unless the guy leaving said im going to get my gun he is in trouble.
This is horrible.
The shooter murdered the two men.
All parties are at fault.
The shooter shouldn't have gone upstairs to confront anyone about the noise complaints.
He should've complained to the management of the building and allowed the team to intervene.
He should've never shot the man and his stepson.
Once the man started running away, he should've left and reported him to the police and to the management of the building.
The woman upstairs shouldn't have left her apartment to talk to the shooter.
She should've stayed in her apartment.
The husband shouldn't have threatened the shooter with a scissor.
He should've told his wife to come into the house.
The stepson is truly a victim because he didn't do anything to the shooter.
I hade a neighbor who was very noisy and out of control I went to speak to her politely and she just exploded and was rude and made threats so I stepped away and went home and realized that people who make noise are just entitled scum and I just called management and security and let them deal with it as a CCW carrier I didn’t want to put myself in a bad situation.
Wait a minute, so if it's a screwed up bad shoot you will not represent the person even though they are a member of AOR???
that guy was itching for confrontation just to pull his gun.
That last shot....appears to be murder.
Would a police officer be required to back away or "escalate" through the various levels of force if a large, aggressive man rapidly approached him, stood mere inches from the officer, and put scissors to his throat?
yeah the only person who could possibly not be convicted here for this shooting was if the person was a cop
This guy waited for the perfect time to draw his firearm and when that time presents its self you cannot delay. So if he had shot right after he pulled the gun it most likely could have been defended as defense?
I would love to learn more your law firm and what you have
At 12:17 , your answer is: low impulse control
Tough case.
This is in NYC. Does the guy with the gun have a license for the gun,? Does he have a concealed weapon permit. Other wise it is a felony. This is a complicated situation.
If the first shot can be covered under self defense and the second shot was execution style can you argue that he died from the first shot and the second shot was shooting a dead man?
It's not legal to shoot a person who cannot reasonably be considered an imminent deadly threat to you, even if they threatened you previously. If he had already sustained a fatal injury, that would hurt the shooter's case, not help it. You can, in fact, see the wounded man moving slightly before the last shot is fired, but he's on the ground with his face and back away from the shooter.
@@samadams8355 why would it hurt his case? While it may be criminal how can it be murder if he already sustained a fatal wound?
@@yossistein7327 Think a little bit. That man was no threat to the shooter at that point, but he fired a round (or two?) into him at point blank range anyway, clearly with the intent of finishing him off.
@@yossistein7327 if I shoot a man who is lying on his deathbed, can I plead not guilty because he was dying anyway?
@@samadams8355 I agree just trying to find an argument for him. Not trying to defend his actions just trying to minimize the severity.
As a firearms instructor this is one of those topics that people sometimes have a hard time understanding.
I am very curious how aor works when the member is in another state from y'all?
Hello and thank you for your videos. I appreciate learning about the differences between insurance based programs, and yours. And, maybe I have not paid good enough attention. Could you expand or re-explain concerning when your program would be not applicable, or, partially applicable to a member. I think that was alluded to during your theorizing about the incident you analyze here. What is the break point of losing member benefits. I am not an AOR member (yet?). And I am not planning to be in a situation that I am asking about! :)
Thanks for your comment! As an Attorneys On Retainer Member, you are covered as long as:
1. You are charged with a felony.
2. You can argue reasonably and in good faith that you acted in self-defense.
3. You are a member of the program before the self-defense incident occurs.
You can check out our coverage comparison chart on our website here as well: attorneysonretainer.us/aor-difference/
Here is a video going into further detail about the Attorneys On Retainer Program: th-cam.com/video/B0oO-uisRoo/w-d-xo.html/
If you have any further questions you can check out our FAQ section on our website here: attorneysonretainer.us/faqs/
If you still have questions about the program, feel free to call us at 866-404-5112 or email us at Contact@AttorneysOnRetainer.us.
Understood, 1000 thanks!
No lawyer could defend this in open court.
No legal guns in Brooklyn. Everyone’s guilty
He didn't call to render aid .
Where is the beginning of the video which shows the full escalation?
My analysis? A cleaning of the gene pool on both sides.
Please critique James Reeves' video from yesterday equating you guys with any other insurer??? and his pinned comment about insurer accountability?? Seems like he didn't add much new to the debate but is trying to defend insurers with a vague notion of their liability for 'bad faith damages' if they don't provide the coverage they promise. Obviously he is biased toward his employer US Law Shield but would love to see you guys break this down as it seems he is just muddying the waters, thanks!
Bkm bummer
The little fella would have gone to prison anyway.
He was holding the gun like a Cowboy? Lol
Ok, I'll say it for you, a Thug. He was holding the gun like a Thug.
Duty to retreat regular force deadly force. Maybe stay in your lane and you won't get shot.
Sounds like the guy had major mental emotional problems
I have a question: do you have to prove it was a justified shooting or does the state have to prove it was unjustified?
Letter of the law may vary from one jurisdiction to another. Practically, you have to convince the jury that you acted in self defense.
The state always carries the burden of proof, but as an affirmative defense, a claim of justification requires you to admit that you did the thing you are accused of doing, but that you were justified in doing so. You are entitled to the presumption of justification/reasonableness, but these are rebuttable presumptions, and unless you present evidence in favor of your argument, it's not going to be that high a bar for the prosecution to clear.
This is self defense. The second shot was to completely stop him. THIS IS NOT MURDER. The table attorneys are NYC stupid.
It could be self defense, maybe. Imagine that short guy was a cop, would the cop be justified to draw aim his gun even after the scissor armed man partly walked away? But the finishing execution shots absolutely inexcusable.
Only in NYC 😂
Handling a firearm isn't rocket science. You don't really need training.
Yes you do. Anyone who actually shoots will tell you that and there's more to shooting than putting rounds on paper. Shooting a gun well takes training. Fighting with a gun takes even more.
You really do need training and practice. As Bill Jordan said, "There is No Second Place Winner in a Gunfight."
I think if this man had been properly trained in firearms handling, he would have realized when it wasn't appropriate to shoot.
@@samadams8355 -- You folks pile on with the "training." The "thing" is that when you even think about using a firearm in public, you do the "thought self training" as to where and where you will produce the gun and just how much you would shoot.
In this case, some "training" says that once your fire one shot, keep shooting. Other "training" says, fire and get the hell out. This guy fired, waited, and fired again.
@@GilmerJohn You can "think" all you want, but until you translate those thoughts into real world experience, I can promise you that you will not react the way you think you will in your head. There's a reason police and military practice stress inoculation and don't just say "here's a gun, just think real hard about how you'll use it."
White shirt is exhibiting typical Northeast US behavior.
Room temperature 🌡️ challenge can be surprising some times!
Police routinely execute opponents in a shootout at least before body cams but they still turn them of before the Ku de Gra is administered.
Sorry but sometimes it's better to just call the cops.. back in the eighties I lived in a duplex. We had a middle eastern tenant that moved in next door... One night about 3:00 a.m. music was just blasting... I decided to just go knock on his door and ask him to turn it down as it was 3:00 after knocking a while I knocked a little louder because he wasn't responding over the noise level probably couldn't hear me Knocking... He finally shut the music off and came to the door I asked him please could you turn the music down it's 3:00 with that he said what music? I said you were just playing loud music you shut it off now thank you please keep it off it's 3:00 with that he started yelling that my kids make noise during the day... Then he started rolling up his sleeves saying he wanted to fight me even though I was a lot bigger younger and stronger apparently he was under the influence of some type of drug... I told him I was going to call the police since he wanted trouble.... I did call in the police arrived told me that I should have called them and not dealt with him directly...I told them that I wasn't expecting trouble I just thought I'd knock on the door and ask nicely and he would turn it down... The cops did not bother to go ring his doorbell and talk to him! Unbelievable!
Well he must have seen the cop car out the window because the next day when my wife and I returned home he was standing on the front steps with his hands together in a praying fashion asking me to forgive him please please forgive me please please forgive me! I fell in no problem I forgive you the shake my hand and we can be friends and he did.. but again probably the best thing would be to call the police in the first place
Excellent analysis. If I was on the jury I would have given this guy a pass, until the last shot where it was clearly NOT self defense. Before that I slightly disagree that the second person shot was hard to defend... the aggressor came at the shooter aggressively and with a weapon, and the second person was with the aggressor, so in my mind the discrepancy of force makes that legally and morally defensible... (up until the last 30 seconds)
Stay away from blacks with tempers😊