A Starrville, Texas pastor armed with a pistol cornered a man who was hiding in a church bathroom after being chased by police. Instead of surrendering, the suspect attacked the man of God, disarming and then killing him. The bad guy then shot two others while making his escape. Cops later picked up the suspect Mytrez Deunte Woolen, 21 and charged him accordingly.
There certainly are lessons here for concealed carriers. First off, bad guys don’t schedule their attacks. Cops say Mr. Woolen led authorities on a two-hour long pursuit the night before and eluded capture not far from the church. Mr. Woolen made his way into the church at some point and hid in the bathroom.
Furthermore, a good guy’s firearm isn’t a magic talisman. In fact, for some bad guys, it probably isn’t their first rodeo being on the business end of a gun. A failure of a good guy to act decisively may actually embolden a violent criminal to escalate their attack. In other words, hesitation can kill.
Local police say the church was mostly empty at the time of the shooting.
A pastor was killed and two people were injured after a shooting at an East Texas church on Sunday, authorities said.
The Smith County Sheriff’s Office said they responded to a shooting at Starrville Methodist Church, about 15 miles northeast of Tyler, at around 9:20 a.m. Arriving deputies found two people shot.
According to the department, there were no services at the time of the shooting.
Smith County Sheriff Larry Smith said the suspected shooter had been involved in a pursuit on Saturday night that lasted about two hours. Smith did not say why authorities were chasing him.
On Sunday morning, the pastor of Starrville Methodist Church confronted the suspect who apparently hid in the church’s bathroom, according to Smith.
The sheriff said the pastor drew his gun and ordered the suspect to stop but the suspect was able to disarm him. The pastor and another person were then shot before the suspect allegedly stole the pastor’s vehicle and fled the scene, Smith said. A third person was injured in a fall.
Carrying a pistol every day is the first step towards tipping the scales in your favor against a violent criminal. However, the gun is only part of the personal defense equation. Learn from this tragedy to help ensure something like this never happens to you.
In this instance, you call the cops and tell the miscreant to stay right where he is. If he comes out of the bathroom, kill him.
Spot on……. if you find yourself in a situation, you may have to shoot. Other than that, it is the job of LE to detain the perp.
You can’t shoot the guy when he comes out of the bathroom. You could shoot if he tries to take your gun.
It seems most American gun owners do not know what self defense is. That can get you killed or sent to prison for murder.
In Texas, if he’s on private property without the owner’s permission, he’s dead meat. But SuperExpert doesn’t know that.
According to Texas law, no. And since this was a church, it is probably going to be more nuanced than that. If this was YOUR property, they’d have to be attempting to commit arson, breaking and entering in to a dwelling or grand theft auto. After dark, criminal mischief counts to. Simple trespassing absolutely does not avail you of using lethal force against a person in ANY state. Wouldn’t even matter if the person had to climb a fence to get on your property. Trespass is not sufficient legal cause in any state to use lethal force, even if the person refuses to leave (many states allow you to use escalating force to remove someone trespassing. So you could push, shove, or drag the person off your property in many states if they refused to leave. If they fought back, you could hit them. If they escalated force, so could you). But you can’t just jump to lethal force, or even in most states point guns at people for simply being on your property. Sure this guy was IN the church, not just on the property.
But here is the thing, unless the pastor OWNED the church, it isn’t HIS private property. So a good chance the guy having snuck or broken in, even after dark, likely wouldn’t automatically make shooting him legal.
Absolutely. There has to be a credible threat first unless it’s someone that doesn’t belong in your house. Depending on your state, their presence alone can be considered a threat, and you could even shoot them in the back.
You can’t shoot the guy when he comes out of the bathroom.
Try reading the actual story as reported THEN respond… The bad guy was DISCOVERED in the bathroom of a LOCKED church WITH the church bank bag… He did NOT just happen to stop in to take a piss….
Depending on your state and local prosecutor, this situation — wanting to be able to used deadly force against a man in a bathroom — could easily be a gray area if not flat-out clearly illegal.
If the church was open to the public at the time that the pastor encountered the man in the bathroom, that could (should?) easily remove default self-defense (e.g. Castle Doctrine) from the table. Why? While it may be reasonable to assume that a home invader breaking into an occupied home is a credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the home’s occupants, it is not reasonable to assume that a person in what is essentially a public bathroom is a credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm to someone else in or near the bathroom.
If the church was not open to the public at the time that the pastor encountered the man in the bathroom, I can picture some jurisdictions and prosecutors deciding that deadly force was not legally justified even in that situation.
Then we have the whole mano-a-mano thing where some/many jurisdictions only allow an “average male” (whatever that means) to engage another “average male” in hand-to-hand combat — thus forbidding immediate deployment of deadly force (e.g. firearms) — when the other “average male” does not have any visible weapons in hand.
Thank you for illustrating the point of my questions.
I think you take things too literal and are a keyboard commando. Go back into hiding Chief.
New month, new avatar, eh Montana?
If he has to attack me before I can shoot him, then he attacked me. Only one story told, and it is mine.
Desperate criminal plus unprepared good guy equals one dead good guy… AND the criminal now gets to add felony murder to his list of accomplishments….
Don’t point a gun at another unless you have the wherewithal to pull the trigger.
Never flip someone off unless you’re prepared to fight, and never pull a gun unless you’re ready to use it.
You really need to think about it. If your not willing to kill to protect your own life. Then don’t carry a gun.
Btw
Because he wasn’t willing to take the shot. The criminal kill him and took his gun and then shot other people with it. This is an example of an irresponsible gun owner.
RIP sir. But you where wrong.
He might not have been justified in taking the shot when he first found the guy. If he was too close, the bad guy could have had control of the gun before the pastor could react — an inability to fire, not an unwillingness.
Most people don’t train or practice for guns at close proximity. The ’21 foot rule’ to put a knife in your gut also applies to the bad guy getting his hand on your gun. Don’t try to hold someone at gunpoint without distance or obstacles. That’s why police have the arrestees turn around and get on the ground before approaching to cuff — they’re slower to get to a dangerous position.
Awful lot we don’t know, here, this was 9:30 in the morning, could be he just arrived for work and went to take a piss and ran into a killer in the john, dead before he knew what was happening.
The left will say that this is why guns are bad and no one needs them. That he would still be alive if he didn’t have one. This is very short sighted.
If the pastor didn’t do what he did, the bad guy might have never been caught. He sacrificed himself to stop this guy in a valiant effort to end any more destruction. This is an honorable and noble cause for any man of the cloth. He is to be held up in reverence for doing exactly what he was called to do: saving souls from evil.
If he were trying to counsel the perp, why did he need the gun? Even though many priests and ministers are tough as a gunny, most people do not think that when they see the collar.
Bad mistake, carrying a gun you don’t want to use to counsel someone having the worst day of his life(so far).
I see no indication that counseling was even a thing in this situation. Sometimes it becomes clear that there is no giving counsel. Pastors generally know this.
We must assume, at this point, the shooter was not armed when discovered (because we have no information to the contrary). So, let us think about what to do when faced with a similar situation: armed, but the “bad guy” isn’t. The bad guy, despite being held at gunpoint, attacks. What is the justification for shooting the attacker? Not the self-justification, but the one likely to survive a trial. (“Judged by twelve, rather than carried by six.” is just silly; the twelve are not on your side)
It is understandable to hesitate when confronted by an attacker:”This can’t be happening to me.” More so when you are holding a bad guy at gun point: “I can’t believe he is attacking an armed person.” In the situation reported, when does the armed citizen shoot? First twitch? First movement forward? Contact? When?
Not endorsing any course of action. Using this as a moment to consider and evaluate (personally, I had not thought about what to do if I faced an unarmed attacker who is held at gunpoint…just assumed the bad guy would fear the gun).
Too many people think the sound of racking a pump shotgun will scare away the bad guy. My question for anyone is how would one know what scares someone else just by looking at them? That’s like trying to know a persons prejudices based simply on their skin color. Then there are other variables like if they are not thinking normally for being high on drugs.
“My question for anyone is how would one know what scares someone else just by looking at them?”
A good question, but what does one do when the unarmed bad guy is not deterred, and decides to resist/attack?
You need time to react — to recognize that the bad guy has transitioned to a threat and to decide to pull the trigger. That time is bought by creating distance or placing obstacles in the path. With practice, someone can have a very high chance of taking your gun if you let them get within arm’s reach. His hand can be on the gun and redirecting the muzzle before you realize what’s going on. Throw in a punch to your face, and you’re trying to figure out what that uncommon stimulus is and forgetting to fight for the gun.
If the bad guy is unarmed, knows that you’re armed, and comes at you anyway, you can assume that either he has a weapon you didn’t notice, or he’s coming to take your weapon and use on you. That’s ability, opportunity, and intent, and that gives you authority to use lethal force.
“If the bad guy is unarmed, knows that you’re armed, and comes at you anyway, you can assume that either he has a weapon you didn’t notice, or he’s coming to take your weapon and use on you. That’s ability, opportunity, and intent, and that gives you authority to use lethal force.”
Everywhere? All the time? Kryptonite to homicide charges? It’s the knowing that makes all the difference.
That is something that many people (including cops) have been struggling with for as long as there have been bad guys.
Maybe a good place to start would be with recognizing that ‘unarmed’ doesn’t necessarily mean not having a gun. FBI stats are so often used in arguing with anti-gunners. I think it might be time to truly understand what those numbers actually mean. Across the board by everyone.
That’s why you’ve racked a round into the chamber.
If you weren’t willing to shoot, you shouldn’t have got the gun out. Which brings the whole routine of racking the slide for intimidation back into question. Scaring somebody isn’t the point; defending yourself is.
“If you weren’t willing to shoot, you shouldn’t have got the gun out. ”
Can’t argue with that, but knowing the possible consequences of shooting an unarmed person because of “reasonable belief” is not a trivial matter.
For what it’s worth, here’s my mental model of the scenario: The goblin gets one step.
If I’ve got him at gunpoint and he takes just one deliberate step toward me and my gun, that means he intends to kill me, and I shoot. Similarly, if I tell him to keep his hands visible and he doesn’t, he gets shot. Both of these simple plans are likely to keep me alive *and* offer a solid self-defense rationale for when I have to talk to potentially hostile people in the legal system.
If the goblin runs away, that’s a great result; the police can chase him.
As others here have said, keeping adequate space and visibility between myself and the goblin is critical. He’ll make the first move (if there is one), so I have to give myself time and space to react. We don’t have any information about the fatal encounter, so it’s impossible to say for sure, but I suspect that our unfortunate pastor either forgot to do that or was unable to do so; he might have been surprised in a confined space and had no real chance.
“For what it’s worth, here’s my mental model of the scenario: The goblin gets one step.”
Your comment seems a reasonable pre-assessment. Will it stand up in court? Should that be any consideration for planning?
Will it stand up in court? Should that be any consideration for planning
Wow, you are arguing a Liberal prosecutors opening statement… In my world that case would never see a court room… Asshole (who, unbeknownst to me, is already running from LE) breaks into my home/business/church/car or whatever, attempts to steal my money/property or whatever and when confronted makes an aggressive move toward me after being warned not to…. THAT is a classic justifiable shooting under FL law, and YES I can LIVE quite comfortably with it, knowing that I gave the aforementioned asshole a CHOICE and HE made the wrong one… You need to work on your conflicted SJW conscience, lest you wind up in the same position as the recently departed reverend… I’m really tired of this conversation so go ahead and do your “yeah but” or “what if” and move on….
“Wow, you are arguing a Liberal prosecutors opening statement…”
Of course I am. It is the “Liberal prosecutors” case that must be countered. If my comments cause any readers to stop and think, “Crap. Hadn’t thought of that.”, the purpose is served.
Don’t make the mistake that explaining something, or even adopting the adversary’s position to test an idea is equivalent to endorsement. “The enemy gets a vote.” (“To know your enemy, you must become your enemy.”)
When a professor, or teacher, kept quizzing you, “Are you sure?”, did you automatically presume you must be wrong? Or, rather, that the teacher/professor was challenging your certainty to see of you had confidence in your answer?
As I noted in the original comment, I am not “taking sides”, nor recommending an action (other than analysis and evaluation). Being a 2A absolutist doesn’t mean being a cardboard cutout.
Choot him! I believe in this case that the pastor was an older gentleman and the perp was a young strong dude. That is disparity of force. If somebody who is stronger than you attacks you you can shoot them.
“If somebody who is stronger than you attacks you you can shoot them.”
Sounds good…but is it? What does local law state? What is simply obvious to POTG may not fit the legal environment. How much consideration of “subject held at gunpoint by armed citizen” is given by the “average” gun owner?
We are very familiar with the scenarios of armed attackers, but how much time is spent analyzing the unarmed attacker (unrestrained), and the unarmed attacker who is resisting detainment by the armed citizen? Should there be any attention paid at all? Do we have, or even need, training in unarmed attacker scenarios? Live training? Video and text training? Anecdotal?
Justification: The bad guy, despite being held at gunpoint, attacks. Bad guy made his choice. Hesitation on the part of the pastor sealed his fate.
“Hesitation on the part of the pastor sealed his fate.”
Hesitation to do what? Shoot an unarmed person? Run away? Negotiate? What is the justifiable action? “I was afraid that the unarmed attacker might kill a person holding a gun”? Maybe, but what is more likely the outcome after the fact?
You have every right to kill an invader. I don’t care where the defender is. His home, his car, his place of work or worship. A criminal running away has no right to hide anywhere. Since when do you have to be stabbed, or raped first? Before you can shoot to defend yourself?
“Since when do you have to be stabbed, or raped first? Before you can shoot to defend yourself?”
That is the thrust of the entire proposition. Not knowing those answers before encountering the situation seems a bit irresponsible.
Failing to respond as “You” put it: The bad guy, despite being held at gunpoint, attacks. The fact that the “Attacker” was unarmed is irrelevant.
“The fact that the “Attacker” was unarmed is irrelevant.”
Possibly, but where? When? Irrelevant to what, to whom? Thinking if bravado were a successful defense to a homicide charge, such would be widely known in the jurisdiction where the incident happened.
@ Sam I am “what is more likely the outcome after the fact”? Better to be alive and find out rather being than Dead. Life is full of choices, consequences and some times regrets. Better to make choices with consequences/regrets you can Live with. Because being Dead is just being Dead.
“Because being Dead is just being Dead.”
Yes, and until the death penalty is banned in every state, one can be “right” and end up “dead” right. Thinking things through, prior to the need, is not wasted time….nor a commentary on the size of trouser mice. Just observe, consider, evaluate, decide. Are you going to shoot in response to any movement at all? What constitutes a threatening move? Do you shoot at the beginning of what one thinks is a threatening move, or after some sort of undefined element of proof the unarmed attacker is threatening? Twitch, or two twitches? Maybe three?
Look up Massad Ayoob and what he says about disparity of force. You can shoot an unarmed attacker who is more capable than you. Bigger and stronger or trained in martial arts. There’s your justification.
“You can shoot an unarmed attacker who is more capable than you.”
Anywhere in the nation?
Massad is an expert witness, but not an attorney, and certainly not a practicing self-defense attorney in every state. (I respect Massad’s insights, and read his articles regularly).
The scenario presented by the article posted is not just “shoot/don’t shoot”, but an analysis and evaluation of the scenario in its entirety. “How does one hold a suspect at gun point?” “How close does one stand?” “How does one keep distance and control?” “What if the suspect simply walks away?” “What if the suspect orally threatens you, but makes no move to do so?” And so on.
just assumed the bad guy would fear the gun).
ASSUME nothing, the guy broke the law when he entered a LOCKED church and attempted to rob it (possession of churches bank bag) previous issues not withstanding… Point the weapon tell him to stop if he advances his intent is clear and self defense is authorized by law…. Too late for the Preacher but could be a valuable life lesson to those in doubt….
“ASSUME nothing, the guy broke the law…”
Doesn’t matter (except in Texas). Point being, what is the justifiable action in the case of an unarmed bad guy faced with an armed citizen? Shoot? Run? What are the likely outcomes? Are you prepared, either way?
As a matter of fact I am… And Texas is not the only state with stand your ground laws (breaking the law is STILL breaking the law NEARLY everywhere)… If the “bad guy” runs, call the cops, do NOT shoot an unarmed “fleeing” individual in the back, he is not an immediate threat to you.. If the “bad guy” is compliant call the cops, do NOT shoot an unarmed man doing what he is told, he is not an immediate threat to you… If the “bad guy” chooses to take his chances by attempting to disarm you SHOOT him, justifiable because he is either hiding a weapon (knife, club, whatever) OR crazy and an obvious immediate threat to you and anyone around you… Either way none of MY personal solutions end in ME running anywhere.. If the “12” must get involved I have insurance to cover the best available defense.. Class dismissed.
I tend to agree with your scenarios, up until the shot is fired.
Without a declaration by the bad guy of intent to disarm and kill you, it is impossible to know if the attack is merely to knock you aside to provide an escape route, or an attempt to provide time to do you grievous harm/death. “Might”, “may”, “cudda” is all speculation, and one then depends on juries to decide that reasonable people shoot unarmed people “just in case”.
Not endorsing anything other than review and re-evaluation of the possible outcomes. Being “right” and being “legal” are entirely different universes. The axiom says no plan survives contact with the enemy. The other axiom says the plan is nothing, but planning is everything.
Without a declaration by the bad guy of intent to disarm and kill you, it is impossible to know if the attack is merely to knock you aside to provide an escape route,
At that point it does not matter what HIS intent is/was, My intent is to thwart ANY aggressive move on his part in my direction… He has/had a choice, I made mine when I initiated the encounter with my firearm in hand… You do whatever you feel necessary and I will do the same at 71 AND having survived a number of hazardous lifestyle choices I’m not going to let some punk ass junkie take me out because I second guessed myself….
At the point in time when the bad guy charges, the good guy does not have the luxury of time to discuss the bad guys intentions. It is reasonable to conclude that the bad guy is indeed a threat or else why would he charge. If the bad guy was to follow instructions, the there would be no need for the shooting. In the heat of the moment when a bad guy is charging how the good guy can be expected to think about all the possibilities and make a decision. There just is not time.
“In the heat of the moment when a bad guy is charging how the good guy can be expected to think about all the possibilities and make a decision.”
This is a classic conundrum. Unfortunately, it comes under the heading, “What would a reasonable person do?” The answer to that is wholly in the hands of a prosecutor, and maybe a jury. Do not think for a moment that juries are made up of what one would consider a reasonable person.
Which is part of the reason for posing all the questions.
Sam I Am, disparity of force would allow the pastor to shoot the younger, stronger attacker. If the pastor was blocking the only exit to the bathroom and had his gun trained on the bad guy and the bad guy did not surrender but moved toward the pastor then he should have shot him.
“Sam I Am, disparity of force would allow the pastor to shoot the younger, stronger attacker.”
What, exactly, is “disparity of force”, and who determines the degree of disparity that automatically justifies shooting an attacker? (hint: the jury) Are those the same standards in every jurisdiction? Should a gun owner know those answers before the issue is at hand?
The very, “if” you offer is the point of my questions. How many “ifs” are/can be involved in such situations? Should a gun owner have taken any time at all to think about those “ifs”?
I’ve said this over and over to people through the years…….I will never hesitate to shoot the bad guy, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 !
but sam says the dozen is agin’ ya. safe to assume the six is not. so there.
you just gonna take your chances with a verdict and self preservation?
I guess this might be the best option then……a choice weapon!
https://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/military_jokes_2008121901323.asp
That was clever !
@ Sam I AM……Thanks
“@ Sam I AM……Thanks”
De Natured.
@ Sam I AM….1685, in the meaning defined at “transitive sense” …….Alex, for $500 what is Denatured?
“…….Alex, for $500 what is Denatured?”
C’mon, man. Don’t pick on me because I can’t spell “De nada”.
First thing is, shoot the mofo. Second, construct the story justifying the shooting of the mofo. Last thing, be the one who goes home alive.
Lessons from my father many many many decades ago. If you carry a firearm Be Prepared to use it…If you draw a firearm on an attacker…Use It…When you Use It shoot to Kill…In that way You survive and don’t worry about the Attacker because they made their Choice. Hesitation…Can get you injured or as we see in this situation Killed.
I am not going to monday morning quarterback this one because there is only one witness and he isn’t talking without an attorney.
What he said ☝️
Let’s see…Perp murders one and wounds two. Now “What He Said” somehow is going to hold water? Lucky you were not there nordneg he’d probably smoked you too because you’ll buy anything.
Wow, the pastor drew on him but the bad guy was able to disarm him. Sounds like the pastor didn’t do much in training because that was a HUGE mistake.
He broke in & had the church’s bank bag? Hesitation cost the minister his life. And cost his 2 church member’s pain & suffering. Dunno what else to say…
What they’ll say is ….but he’s my bay’be, little Mytrez Deunte Woolen is a good boy, he’n din mean to du nuffin.
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/texas-pastor-killed-others-injured-135808697.html
Cops draw their guns but don’t shoot about a hundred times for every time they shoot. The expectation that the bad guy will be deterred is reasonably. It isn’t as common as it once was, but cops also get killed with their own gun or a gun taken from a fellow cop.
This is why cops are taught to keep their distance from the perp if they have their gun drawn. Often cops will work in teams with one or more cops with guns holstered handcuff or wrestle the suspect while other cops keep overwatch with guns drawn.
That gun isn’t a magic talisman that protects you. A gun just gives you options. You might not have the will to pull the trigger. The perp might move to quickly for you to pull the trigger.
In armchair hindsight I would have stepped out of the bathroom when I encountered the perp. I would have informed him that the cops were called while I kept watch on the door. I also would have informed him that attempting to exit towards me would be interpreted as an assault and would result in a deadly force response.
Mytrez Deunte Woolen? WTF? Whatever, I’m sure he was just turning his life around when he was attacked by the racist minister without provocation and had to defend himself. The poor child is now scarred for life. Let’s start some fires in Starrville to protest (and maybe grab a big screen TV or two).
That’s called “sarcasm.” Look it up.
Don’t need to. You made it pretty clear from the start.
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.
“When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.”
In an interview years later, Eli Wallach said he had no idea that line would be considered comedy, a laugh line.
T.R.A.I.N.I.N.G.
I noted in the story that the perp was treated for a gunshot wound to the hand.
We do not know what the pastor did as he was attacked.
He may have fired at the perp and hit without stopping him.
He may have frozen and not fired.
A firearm does not guarantee success but it is a necessity to have a good chance.
Glad I haven’t had to make those decisions as of yet.
We do not know what the pastor did as he was attacked.
He may have fired at the perp and hit without stopping him.
We DO know that the wound in assholes hand was NOT attributed to any actions by the Pastor per the LEO statement
I just read that update. Saying it was a burn and not related to thempastors actions.
Not what they said last night.
We still do not know the pastors actions in the struggle for the gun.
But we obviously assume.
Woolen was taken to a hospital in Tyler and quickly released for an injury to his left hand, the sheriff said. The sheriff initially said the victim had been shot in the hand, but later Sunday said he appeared to have a burn injury on his hand.
There does THAT help..
Why pull out your penis if your not going to use it.
Sam I Am going full keyboard lawyer here, as usual. Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. I wouldn’t take your legal advice or “what if” scenario paintings if you fucking paid me. Just log the fuck off dude.
“Sam I Am going full keyboard lawyer here, as usual. Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. I wouldn’t take your legal advice or “what if” scenario paintings if you fucking paid me. Just log the fuck off dude.”
Haven’t given any legal advice….at all. If a gun owner refuses to consider any tactic other than “shoot first, ask questions later because it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six, well…ok. I wouldn’t trust such a person with a firearm, but all I am presenting is, “know your limitations, physical and legal”.
If you, personally and individually, have nothing to learn from the experiences of others (original postings), and detest having your prejudices challenged, what is the point of logging on? My observation in the past was that you were/are better than this.
Guns don’t work if you don’t use the start switch! When in doubt better you than me!
The reason I wrote my book, “A Time To Kill: The Bible and Self-Defense” was to allow Christians and Jews to settle their minds on the question, “Is God alright with me blowing this guy away?”, BEFORE they get into a situation with a criminal. The book demonstrates that God commands that we defend the innocent, and that He blesses us for it.
A proper defensive mindset is absolutely necessary for anyone who considers taking up self-defense. This preacher didn’t have it.
Second, this is why we train church security TEAMS. Every time the church doors are open, there should be a team member there. Never, never, should the minister be forced to take the point. I tell my customers, “Buy one for yourself, your Sunday school teacher, your preacher, and the church library. Educate yourself so you don’t have to hesitate at the critical moment.”
Comments are closed.