daedalus wrote: If he had only been armed, this would have never happened.
^ I don't even know what side that's arguing for in this context.
It's arguing that a member of the public who was legally allowed to carry a weapon shot a criminal rather than a criminal shooting an innocent member of the public.
I drove past a place today where a few years back a man had been gunned down while at work having cooperated with a criminal. There's no guarantee that a criminal with a gun is going to let you live if you cooperate, a lot of them are on drugs to begin with.
Mr. Burning wrote: A family member, with a microphone shoved in their face just after a death? I can kind of dig what she is saying in that context.
The family asked the interview not to be put out for broadcast. I guess Fox 10 didn't want a more reasoned and rational response.
No one died.
Over here in our corner of the Communist Paradise of Europe, we had a case where a robber armed with a shotgun tried to rob a family restaurant. The owner and his son in law put up a fight and managed to disarm and apprehend the robber. During the fight, the restaurant owner received a gunshot wound in the leg and the robber was a bit banged up by virtue of being repeatedly hit by punches and kicks. The robber then sued the restaurant owner and his family for assault claiming that they had used excessive force to apprehend him!
Mr. Burning wrote: A family member, with a microphone shoved in their face just after a death? I can kind of dig what she is saying in that context.
The family asked the interview not to be put out for broadcast. I guess Fox 10 didn't want a more reasoned and rational response.
I think the parents made that request (and we don't hear them), and the voice we heard is an unidentified family member via a phone interview (no microphone shoved in her face).
The good news is, the perp, once his bond is revoked, will be able to get the help his family believes he needs yet did not provide.
So the lady defending the suspect can comment at length that the customer who intervened should have just walked away and left the employees at gun point. But she can't talk about the suspect because she is only hearing things second hand.....
Never underestimate the power of parents to look past what their kids do. We had a rape near here and the suspect's parents said "That hoochy shouldnt have been drunk" That man did the right thing, saved peoples lives from some idiot. I just dont like the mom saying "The gun wasnt pointed at him. He should have walked away" Do I even need to say what is wrong with that statement? Also, a Dollar Store? C'mon kid. That is just pathetic.
Ahahaha. That's rich. He should have minded his own business? Right lady, maybe ol'scum for brains there shouldn't have pulled a gun on a Quickie Mart clerk instead? If he'd just stayed home and minded his own business he wouldn't be nursing a bullet wound right now.
This is a perfect example of why it is important to allow people to carry. I'm sure some crazy liberals will twist this story around, but it is what it is. Hats off to the good Samaritan.
Good Samaritan is an idiot IMO. If he wanted to use his gun-powers for good, then he should join the police force. What he did put himself and everybody else at more risk by making a bad situation even more volatile.
I carry to protect me, myself, and mine. I don't carry to be a vigilante and stop crime wherever I see it. Unless I am directly being threatened and in harms way, there is no conceivable reason to draw and try to get the drop on a bad guy robbing a place. Stay low, don't draw attention to yourself, let the bad guy get his money and leave. If there is no mediate threat to me there is no reason whatsoever to draw. Instead of a robbery with a gun pointed at somebody you now have a shootout with one or two (or maybe more if he has buddies outside) people discharging weapons in the store.
I carry to protect my life and the lives of my family. I don't carry to protect your money.
d-usa wrote: Good Samaritan is an idiot IMO. If he wanted to use his gun-powers for good, then he should join the police force. What he did put himself and everybody else at more risk by making a bad situation even more volatile.
I'll note that the police on the scene did a great job of protecting the shop employees.
d-usa wrote: Good Samaritan is an idiot IMO. If he wanted to use his gun-powers for good, then he should join the police force. What he did put himself and everybody else at more risk by making a bad situation even more volatile.
I carry to protect me, myself, and mine. I don't carry to be a vigilante and stop crime wherever I see it. Unless I am directly being threatened and in harms way, there is no conceivable reason to draw and try to get the drop on a bad guy robbing a place. Stay low, don't draw attention to yourself, let the bad guy get his money and leave. If there is no mediate threat to me there is no reason whatsoever to draw. Instead of a robbery with a gun pointed at somebody you now have a shootout with one or two (or maybe more if he has buddies outside) people discharging weapons in the store.
I carry to protect my life and the lives of my family. I don't carry to protect your money.
d-usa wrote: Good Samaritan is an idiot IMO. If he wanted to use his gun-powers for good, then he should join the police force. What he did put himself and everybody else at more risk by making a bad situation even more volatile.
I'll note that the police on the scene did a great job of protecting the shop employees.
Oh wait....
Way to completely miss the point, but that can be expected.
d-usa wrote: Good Samaritan is an idiot IMO. If he wanted to use his gun-powers for good, then he should join the police force. What he did put himself and everybody else at more risk by making a bad situation even more volatile.
I carry to protect me, myself, and mine. I don't carry to be a vigilante and stop crime wherever I see it. Unless I am directly being threatened and in harms way, there is no conceivable reason to draw and try to get the drop on a bad guy robbing a place. Stay low, don't draw attention to yourself, let the bad guy get his money and leave. If there is no mediate threat to me there is no reason whatsoever to draw. Instead of a robbery with a gun pointed at somebody you now have a shootout with one or two (or maybe more if he has buddies outside) people discharging weapons in the store.
I carry to protect my life and the lives of my family. I don't carry to protect your money.
But I'm a crazy liberal I guess.
Who said anything about protecting the money? Robberies like these have escalated into homicides, even when the employees have been compliant. It is true that he had absolutely no obligation to intervene, but I'm glad that he did. So are the employees that were being held at gun point.
d-usa wrote: Good Samaritan is an idiot IMO. If he wanted to use his gun-powers for good, then he should join the police force. What he did put himself and everybody else at more risk by making a bad situation even more volatile.
I carry to protect me, myself, and mine. I don't carry to be a vigilante and stop crime wherever I see it. Unless I am directly being threatened and in harms way, there is no conceivable reason to draw and try to get the drop on a bad guy robbing a place. Stay low, don't draw attention to yourself, let the bad guy get his money and leave. If there is no mediate threat to me there is no reason whatsoever to draw. Instead of a robbery with a gun pointed at somebody you now have a shootout with one or two (or maybe more if he has buddies outside) people discharging weapons in the store.
I carry to protect my life and the lives of my family. I don't carry to protect your money.
But I'm a crazy liberal I guess.
Who said anything about protecting the money? Robberies like these have escalated into homicides, even when the employees have been compliant. It is true that he had absolutely no obligation to intervene, but I'm glad that he did. So are the employees that were being held at gun point.
Robberies escalating into homicides is actually not as common as you think.
Eh I'd rather see a shot perp then anything else no matter who's shooting him. Being able to use force to defend the lives of others is just part of being a reasonable human being.
Kanluwen wrote: Robberies escalating into homicides is actually not as common as you think.
Seeing as I gave no statistical breakdown I'm curious as to how you arrived at your statement. But just out of curiosity I thought I would look at Google. All from the first page, and all within less than three months. The other results being a few Police Department links, and one about the MA kid who murdered and raped his teacher (robbery because he took her underwear).
Nonsense. You should always trust to the benevolence of a poor victim of the oppressive system who's been forced to hold people at gunpoint during the commission of a crime. He means you no harm.
Seaward wrote: Nonsense. You should always trust to the benevolence of a poor victim of the oppressive system who's been forced to hold people at gunpoint during the commission of a crime. He means you no harm.
I'm sure that he just had it for his own protection from the un-armed employees.
Kanluwen wrote: Robberies escalating into homicides is actually not as common as you think.
Seeing as I gave no statistical breakdown I'm curious as to how you arrived at your statement. But just out of curiosity I thought I would look at Google. All from the first page, and all within less than three months. The other results being a few Police Department links, and one about the MA kid who murdered and raped his teacher (robbery because he took her underwear).
Kanluwen wrote: Robberies escalating into homicides is actually not as common as you think.
Seeing as I gave no statistical breakdown I'm curious as to how you arrived at your statement. But just out of curiosity I thought I would look at Google. All from the first page, and all within less than three months. The other results being a few Police Department links, and one about the MA kid who murdered and raped his teacher (robbery because he took her underwear).
Still, if people are happy to walk away and leave others to their fate I guess that is a matter between them and their conscience.
I like how your articles don't actually present the same situation as the one in the OP.
Article #1: A robbery committed in a public place is a bit different than that which occurs in a storefront setting. I'm not seeing any motive or other details on the case itself in that article so it's a bit hard to really comment.
Article #2: The homicide occurred when the restaurant manager not only confronted the suspect, but when they chased the fleeing suspect. A lot of establishments/businesses actually tell their employees not to do that and to call the police.
Article #3: Again, this is a different style of robbery. You have what amounts to a "honeypot" where a woman lures a mark to a hotel with promises of sex. The woman will then have her accomplices waiting either inside of the hotel room or outside of it to enter when she signals and then strongarm the victim. The goal in a robbery like this is to not just essentially have a robbery but have a form of blackmail against the victim, who usually is targeted because of the fact that they are married.
Article #4: This is actually an interesting one to read. I can't make any real commentary as it would be a "what if" scenario. Three guys tried to rob an off-duty Sheriff's Deputy who was jogging with another individual and got shot in the process. The second degree murder charge seems a bit much given that the deputy and his friend were unharmed, but it might have something to do with intent and the fact that there was a weapon used in the attempted robbery.
Article #5: Similar to article #1, you have a robbery/homicide in a public place where a victim seemingly refuses to surrender anything and what amounts to a "frustrated" robber then deciding to commit murder. That kind of thing is not necessarily the rule of thumb when dealing with robberies.
Article #6: Hard to really comment on given the poor writing in the article. From what it sounds like, homicide was unintentional and the two who committed it attempted to resuscitate the victim.
Your unlinked story about the MA kid who murdered and raped his teacher is also a poor example of a robbery because it was apparently, y'know...a rape/homicide.
Generally when you see a robbery of a commercial location where there are multiple people present, you will not see deaths unless there is some unpredictable element about the robber. Things like past convictions, drug abuse, or affiliations to gang members all immediately spring to mind as some of those elements.
Was there a threat to the Good Samaritans life that I missed before he drew his gun?
So you should just say feth off to the other people? Just mind your own business?
Like I said, I carry to protect myself and mine. Not to be the police for other people. Especially if it is a simple robbery. There is a reason why stores have a policy not to confront the bad guy and to comply, because 99.9% of robberies end without anybody getting shot.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy that.
I do. Maybe it's different for people that are trained to actively shoot it out with a bad guy.
i'm sorry but holding up a store and aiming to shoot someone completely negates the whole "good kid" story. You are just mad he got shot before he could shoot someone else.
Frazzled wrote: This is blocked. is there a text or summary of it?
On the CHL front, the wife was taught generally not to interfere but to be a good witness as there are a variety of factors in play.
That is indeed what most classes teach, and it represents probably at least a strong plurality, if not the majority, of concealed carry holders' opinions on the matter.
I think it's situational, though. While I can buy into the sentiment that if you're too naive to protect yourself, it's not my job as Joe Citizen to do it for you, I also don't think it's morally acceptable to stand by if you were at, say, Newtown when that went down.
kronk wrote: We should all take this man's lead and clean up our towns.
Shoot all law breakers. Speeders, prostitutes, people that tear the tags off mattresses...
Whoah, let's not be too hasty Kronk. Prostitutes provide a wide range of services that keep the local economy running. What we need to do is get rid of the middleman, i.e. the pimp.
d-usa wrote: Robberies in 2012: 354,522
3 month average (to match your google search): 88,630
Your average robbery-escalation-to-murder rate:0.006769678%
Still, if people are happy to start a shootout and put others at risk I guess that is a matter between them and their conscience...
And people wonder why people say "lie, lies, and damned statistics" You methodology (comparing a small sample with a deliberately larger comparitor) is flawed to say the least. But then again you think that anyone wanting to use a gun for good should be a cop. Maybe after my trip to the gym last night I should become an athlete. I did make my own coffee too, so an athlete barista. Hmmm, I also drove my wife to work; so athlete, barista, chauffeur for my career path then
I missed the news about the shoot out. Could you please point it out for me?
kronk wrote: We should all take this man's lead and clean up our towns.
Shoot all law breakers. Speeders, prostitutes, people that tear the tags off mattresses...
Whoah, let's not be too hasty Kronk. Prostitutes provide a wide range of services that keep the local economy running. What we need to do is get rid of the middleman, i.e. the pimp.
FINE! *scratches off items 7 - 14 from To-Do list*
Kanluwen wrote: I like how your articles don't actually present the same situation as the one in the OP.
Article #1: A robbery committed in a public place is a bit different than that which occurs in a storefront setting. I'm not seeing any motive or other details on the case itself in that article so it's a bit hard to really comment.
Article #2: The homicide occurred when the restaurant manager not only confronted the suspect, but when they chased the fleeing suspect. A lot of establishments/businesses actually tell their employees not to do that and to call the police.
Article #3: Again, this is a different style of robbery. You have what amounts to a "honeypot" where a woman lures a mark to a hotel with promises of sex. The woman will then have her accomplices waiting either inside of the hotel room or outside of it to enter when she signals and then strongarm the victim. The goal in a robbery like this is to not just essentially have a robbery but have a form of blackmail against the victim, who usually is targeted because of the fact that they are married.
Article #4: This is actually an interesting one to read. I can't make any real commentary as it would be a "what if" scenario. Three guys tried to rob an off-duty Sheriff's Deputy who was jogging with another individual and got shot in the process. The second degree murder charge seems a bit much given that the deputy and his friend were unharmed, but it might have something to do with intent and the fact that there was a weapon used in the attempted robbery.
Article #5: Similar to article #1, you have a robbery/homicide in a public place where a victim seemingly refuses to surrender anything and what amounts to a "frustrated" robber then deciding to commit murder. That kind of thing is not necessarily the rule of thumb when dealing with robberies.
Article #6: Hard to really comment on given the poor writing in the article. From what it sounds like, homicide was unintentional and the two who committed it attempted to resuscitate the victim.
Your unlinked story about the MA kid who murdered and raped his teacher is also a poor example of a robbery because it was apparently, y'know...a rape/homicide.
Generally when you see a robbery of a commercial location where there are multiple people present, you will not see deaths unless there is some unpredictable element about the robber. Things like past convictions, drug abuse, or affiliations to gang members all immediately spring to mind as some of those elements.
Which is why it was unlinked, and it was solely mentioned in the interests of disclosure. But please feel free to keep missing the point
So those examples are robberies that escalated into homicides, just like I stated they were. Glad to know that we're on the same page with that.
And the individual who intervened (or the employees) would have prior knowledge of convictions, drug abuse, gang affiliations, substance abuse, and/or mental state. Maybe they should have given the suspect a questionnaire to fill out asking those questions first
Frazzled wrote: This is blocked. is there a text or summary of it?
On the CHL front, the wife was taught generally not to interfere but to be a good witness as there are a variety of factors in play.
That is indeed what most classes teach, and it represents probably at least a strong plurality, if not the majority, of concealed carry holders' opinions on the matter.
I think it's situational, though. While I can buy into the sentiment that if you're too naive to protect yourself, it's not my job as Joe Citizen to do it for you, I also don't think it's morally acceptable to stand by if you were at, say, Newtown when that went down.
But that is an entirely different situation to the robbery of a store, would you not agree?
Stores generally have insurance in place to cover losses incurred by robberies--provided the police sign off that it was actually a robbery and not just staff members stealing or other "cost of operating" losses.
I won't say that I'm sad to see that this individual got shot committing a crime, but I think holding it up as what all concealed carry holders should do in a situation is a bit naive.
Frazzled wrote: This is blocked. is there a text or summary of it?
On the CHL front, the wife was taught generally not to interfere but to be a good witness as there are a variety of factors in play.
That is indeed what most classes teach, and it represents probably at least a strong plurality, if not the majority, of concealed carry holders' opinions on the matter.
I think it's situational, though. While I can buy into the sentiment that if you're too naive to protect yourself, it's not my job as Joe Citizen to do it for you, I also don't think it's morally acceptable to stand by if you were at, say, Newtown when that went down.
1. Again I need a summary of the incident. 2. For mass shootings much of the advice boils down to: Get the out or hide and barricade. If you have a good shot take it but don't go looking for it. 3. As someone noted it is very situational. If its a store robbery: where are you? Is there a way out? How many BGs are there? How do you know there are only X BGs there? Lots of variables and I am not saying what you should or shouldn't do. but yes robbing a store like a 7/11 lots of chances the robbie will be shot. A store owner I used to frequent in Cali was killed in a robbery like that.
d-usa wrote: Robberies in 2012: 354,522
3 month average (to match your google search): 88,630
Your average robbery-escalation-to-murder rate:0.006769678%
Still, if people are happy to start a shootout and put others at risk I guess that is a matter between them and their conscience...
And people wonder why people say "lie, lies, and damned statistics" You methodology (comparing a small sample with a deliberately larger comparitor) is flawed to say the least.
You are the one that said robberies-turned-homicides are common, then you provided 6 stories over a 3 month period to back up your point. If that is all you can find with the number of actual robberies in the US over a 3 month period then you don't really have any sort of point. If even 1% of robberies turn into homicides then we should have 295 stories every single month where a simple robbery became a homicide. If you can find those stories to backup your point then more power do you.
But then again you think that anyone wanting to use a gun for good should be a cop. Maybe after my trip to the gym last night I should become an athlete. I did make my own coffee too, so an athlete barista. Hmmm, I also drove my wife to work; so athlete, barista, chauffeur for my career path then
If you want to compete against other people and beat them, then maybe you should become an athlete.
If you want to make coffee for other people, then maybe you should become a barista.
If you want to drive other people to work, then maybe you should become a chauffeur.
If you want to shoot bad guys for a living that rob a place and have done nothing to pose an actual threat to you, then maybe you should become a cop.
I missed the news about the shoot out. Could you please point it out for me?
I missed the news about the robber confronting and threatening the good samaritan before the good samaritan decided to become involved and put his own safety at risk. Could you please point it out for me?
Which is why it was unlinked, and it was solely mentioned in the interests of disclosure. But please feel free to keep missing the point
So those examples are robberies that escalated into homicides, just like I stated they were. Glad to know that we're on the same page with that.
And the individual who intervened (or the employees) would have prior knowledge of convictions, drug abuse, gang affiliations, substance abuse, and/or mental state. Maybe they should have given the suspect a questionnaire to fill out asking those questions first
I think you were the one who missed the point, DC.
You cannot just throw a slew of links out there as examples of "robberies escalating into homicides" without actually looking at the context. The majority of the robberies that you linked were not the same situation as a shop/commercial establishment being robbed. The only one which was remotely close was the hotel restaurant robbery, where it actually seems that the homicide occurred only after the employee tried to chase down the suspects.
I think instead of pulling his gun he should have pulled his cell phone and called the police... if his first reaction was to pull his gun out and ask questions later... he'll be more trouble then good.
I'd imagine that he does a fair amount of gun range shooting but what if he would have hit one of the employees with his FIVE round burst? I'd imagine that this was one bad shot away from a tragedy.
Then again, all we have is the news article to go by and the interview... but it was still a VERY risky move.
In 2010 we had 14,748 murders and non-negligent homicides.
In 2010 we had 367,832 robberies.
So if every single murder started out as a robbery we end up with 4% or robberies turning into murder. 4% IF every single homicide that year started out as a robbery.
In 2010 we had 14,748 murders and non-negligent homicides.
In 2010 we had 367,832 robberies.
So if every single murder started out as a robbery we end up with 4% or robberies turning into murder. 4% IF every single homicide that year started out as a robbery.
Yeah I get that...
Don't mind me, I just thought I read somewhere that there was a significant connection between homicides and robberies. But, I was looking at it the wrong way....
Don't mind me, I just thought I read somewhere that there was a significant connection between homicides and robberies. But, I was looking at it the wrong way....
It is a kinda/sorta thing. It depends on the circumstances of the robbery and a slew of factors regarding the victim/offender. Things like relationships between the victim and offender, value of items stolen, cooperativeness of the victim, where the robbery occurs, etc etc.
d-usa wrote: You are the one that said robberies-turned-homicides are common, then you provided 6 stories over a 3 month period to back up your point. If that is all you can find with the number of actual robberies in the US over a 3 month period then you don't really have any sort of point. If even 1% of robberies turn into homicides then we should have 295 stories every single month where a simple robbery became a homicide. If you can find those stories to backup your point then more power do you.
What I in fact said was;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Who said anything about protecting the money? Robberies like these have escalated into homicides, even when the employees have been compliant. It is true that he had absolutely no obligation to intervene, but I'm glad that he did. So are the employees that were being held at gun point.
At your convenience I'll let you point out where exactly I said that it was "common". What I did do was back up my statement that these robberies can escalate into homicides.
d-usa wrote: If you want to compete against other people and beat them, then maybe you should become an athlete.
If you want to make coffee for other people, then maybe you should become a barista.
If you want to drive other people to work, then maybe you should become a chauffeur.
If you want to shoot bad guys for a living that rob a place and have done nothing to pose an actual threat to you, then maybe you should become a cop.
Who said that the Samaritan wanted to shoot "bad guys for a living", except you?
d-usa wrote: I missed the news about the robber confronting and threatening the good samaritan before the good samaritan decided to become involved and put his own safety at risk. Could you please point it out for me?
I missed the point where I claimed that the Samaritan was threatened before he became involved.
You seem to be making a habit of attributing arguments to me which I have not made. If you want to strawman please do so, I'll know not to respond so you can continue to make up your own arguments to counter.
Kanluwen wrote: You cannot just throw a slew of links out there as examples of "robberies escalating into homicides" without actually looking at the context. The majority of the robberies that you linked were not the same situation as a shop/commercial establishment being robbed. The only one which was remotely close was the hotel restaurant robbery, where it actually seems that the homicide occurred only after the employee tried to chase down the suspects.
And yet those links were actually of robberies that escalated into homicides, just like I had mentioned. Just because you want to shift the goalposts from "robbery becoming homicide" to "robbery of a retail establishment becoming a homicide" does not mean that those robberies did not become homicides.
Kanluwen wrote: You cannot just throw a slew of links out there as examples of "robberies escalating into homicides" without actually looking at the context. The majority of the robberies that you linked were not the same situation as a shop/commercial establishment being robbed. The only one which was remotely close was the hotel restaurant robbery, where it actually seems that the homicide occurred only after the employee tried to chase down the suspects.
And yet those links were actually of robberies that escalated into homicides, just like I had mentioned. Just because you want to shift the goalposts from "robbery becoming homicide" to "robbery of a retail establishment becoming a homicide" does not mean that those robberies did not become homicides.
YOU are the one who made the statement of "robberies like these have escalated into homicides".
YOU are the one who then provided six links, of which only ONE(the robbery of a hotel restaurant) actually is remotely comparable to the circumstances of the case which occurred in the OP.
The case in the OP is about "robbery of a retail establishment". It's not about "robbery in the middle of a street", "robbery of a man lured to a hotel room with promises of sex", "robbery on a jogging path", or the "robbery of a home".
So don't try and play this as me shifting the goalposts, Dreadclaw.
Kanluwen wrote: YOU are the one who made the statement of "robberies like these have escalated into homicides".
YOU are the one who then provided six links, of which only ONE(the robbery of a hotel restaurant) actually is remotely comparable to the circumstances of the case which occurred in the OP.
The case in the OP is about "robbery of a retail establishment". It's not about "robbery in the middle of a street", "robbery of a man lured to a hotel room with promises of sex", "robbery on a jogging path", or the "robbery of a home".
So don't try and play this as me shifting the goalposts, Dreadclaw.
Robberies like these meaning ones where a firearm was used? Or where a weapon was used? Or robberies like these meaning retail establishments? Or was the fact that I later clarified that I was not limiting myself to retail premises not sufficiently clear for YOU
I am responsible for what I say. Not what YOU think I say. Ok? r
d-usa wrote: Still, if people are happy to start a shootout and put others at risk I guess that is a matter between them and their conscience...
Aren't they already at risk?
Are you more at risk being a customer in a store that is being robber, where the robber is interacting with the clerk and you are on the ground in an aisle away from the action, or pulling a gun and drawing on the robber and escalating the situation without knowing if there are other robbers in the store?
Corpsesarefun wrote: Has the meaning of the phrase "good Samaritan" changed recently?
so when an enraged, multiple felon, has a gun pointed at your head, and those of your co workers (which is what the situation was when this good smaritan walked in) and someone saves you from this felon,
that person is not a good samaritan?
so he has to wait till AFTER you are shot/robbed lying dead/bloody on the side of the road before he can help you and be a good samaritan?
I know the parable of the good samaritan literally does have him only help the traveller after he is beaten... but the pricipal extends to preventing that man from being beaten/robbed/killed in the first place as well... not just helping pick up the broken peices.
Why is it that when a CCW holder prevents a potential mass murder (more then 3 people were under the gun in this scenerio, so all could have been shot and killed had this man not intervened) its downplayed so very much by anti gunners and certain media outlets I wonder...
cant have all the examples of how guns save lifes matter now can we...
d-usa wrote: Still, if people are happy to start a shootout and put others at risk I guess that is a matter between them and their conscience...
Aren't they already at risk?
Are you more at risk being a customer in a store that is being robber, where the robber is interacting with the clerk and you are on the ground in an aisle away from the action, or pulling a gun and drawing on the robber and escalating the situation without knowing if there are other robbers in the store?
With that logic why even carry a gun? You're at less of a risk if you just comply with a mugger than pulling out your firearm and escalating a situation without knowing if there are other muggers around.
I guess I am just wired differently than most. I see this and see a guy who saw innocent people put on their knees and a gun held to their heads. The guy pulled his legally carried gun out and tried to stop the perp from what ever the perp was going to do next. Perp turned towards him and got shot before the perp could fire.
I strongly believe one should do his best to help others in need. Whether it is stopping at an accident and applying first aid before an ambulance gets there, or stopping a rape/mugging/robbery/beating before a cop gets there. Just pass on by or passively watch or call for help an wait just isn't in me.
In this particular case, the shooter sees a gun pointed at the shop employees, who have been forced to their knees. He has no idea of the real intent of the perp, whether the perp will shoot or beat the employees. He just knows they are on their knees and being held at gunpoint. He knows he has a weapon which will likely enable him to stop the perp from injuring innocents. And he was right. No innocents were hurt.
The guy did not want to 'shoot bad guys for a living'. Any argument to the contrary is just stupid. Saying he should have been a cop to do so adds to the stupidity of the argument. He had two choices, do nothing or do something. He chose to do something. Something legal. Something that worked.
'He could have shot the employees with a bad shot and therefore should have done nothing' is speculative at best, and the actual end result was different, no employees hurt.
d-usa wrote: Still, if people are happy to start a shootout and put others at risk I guess that is a matter between them and their conscience...
Aren't they already at risk?
Are you more at risk being a customer in a store that is being robber, where the robber is interacting with the clerk and you are on the ground in an aisle away from the action, or pulling a gun and drawing on the robber and escalating the situation without knowing if there are other robbers in the store?
With that logic why even carry a gun?
Like I said in my first response. It is to protect me, myself, and mine. It's not to protect you, or the house down the street, or a clerk, or a business. The risk is quite a bit different when I am the one being mugged compared to simply being in a store that is being robbed.
Even if I am the one being mugged drawing the gun isn't always the best option. If the guy got the drop on me and is standing in front of you with the gun out and his finger on the trigger I would consider that my change of pulling on him and neutralizing him is not exactly that great. Legally carrying a gun is one thing, legally defending yourself is one thing, knowing when you should use it or not use it is another.
You're at less of a risk if you just comply with a mugger than pulling out your firearm and escalating a situation without knowing if there are other muggers around.
Sometimes, yes. Even with carrying I often have a cheap wallet with a couple old credit cards and some cash in it. Sometimes it would be better to hand that over than it would be to try to defend yourself.
Situational awareness also helps. If you are walking through a deserted parking lot and you notice that there are three people slowly surrounding you and you can see tells that they are armed, then it might be better to try to get away from that situation (by finding another group of people, leaving the area, entering an occupied area, etc..). If you know these people are there, because you paid attention to your surroundings, then you might determine that compliance carries the least risk. If you have been paying attention and are pretty certain that the guy is alone, then your risk assessment might be different.
And again, it is a completely different story when I am forced to defend myself vs trying to defend somebody else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I guess I am just wired differently than most. I see this and see a guy who saw innocent people put on their knees and a gun held to their heads. The guy pulled his legally carried gun out and tried to stop the perp from what ever the perp was going to do next. Perp turned towards him and got shot before the perp could fire.
I strongly believe one should do his best to help others in need. Whether it is stopping at an accident and applying first aid before an ambulance gets there, or stopping a rape/mugging/robbery/beating before a cop gets there. Just pass on by or passively watch or call for help an wait just isn't in me.
What is your background? That would probably influence how you approach something.
I routinely apply first aid, stop at accidents, and do other stuff that is usually covered by Good Samaritan statues. My background is in EMS and Fire Rescue, and one of the things that is drilled into us is scene safety. If the scene is not safe for us, then we can't help. Becoming another victim doesn't help the first one.
In this particular case, the shooter sees a gun pointed at the shop employees, who have been forced to their knees. He has no idea of the real intent of the perp, whether the perp will shoot or beat the employees. He just knows they are on their knees and being held at gunpoint. He knows he has a weapon which will likely enable him to stop the perp from injuring innocents. And he was right. No innocents were hurt.
Statistically speaking, the likelihood of nothing happening is far greater than anybody getting hurt. He got lucky.
The guy did not want to 'shoot bad guys for a living'. Any argument to the contrary is just stupid. Saying he should have been a cop to do so adds to the stupidity of the argument.
And saying that you should live with your conciense if you choose not to fire your gun at somebody after escalating a situation that most likely wouldn't have resulted in violence is stupid as well.
He had two choices, do nothing or do something.
He mad lots more than two. He could have called 911, he could have drawn and be ready to defend himself in case the robber comes towards him, take pictures of the situation, record it, memorize what is happening to be a good witness.
He chose to do something. Something legal. Something that worked.
It was legal, he got lucky that it worked, it was stupid IMO.
'He could have shot the employees with a bad shot and therefore should have done nothing' is speculative at best,
You know what else is speculative at best?
He has no idea of the real intent of the perp, whether the perp will shoot or beat the employees.
Same as the whole "robberies result in homicides" thing.
and the actual end result was different, no employees hurt.
And if the bad guy got his money and ran away, then no employees would have been hurt either. Which is the reason why almost every store has a policy to comply.
That kid is worthless anyway. I don't give a rats ass what anyone else thinks. My background and training would have me stopping him too. If someone I know is getting attacked I hope its not one of you (softer) types in the area.
In 2010 we had 14,748 murders and non-negligent homicides.
In 2010 we had 367,832 robberies.
So if every single murder started out as a robbery we end up with 4% or robberies turning into murder. 4% IF every single homicide that year started out as a robbery.
Theres a logical fallacy in your argument here... Contrary to popular belief, despite what Hollywood might have lead you to believe, shooting someone DOESN'T automatically kill them, a death would have to be involved in order for the crime to thus be labeled a "homicide". In other words, your "scientific"/"statistical" analysis of the situation is wrong.
I will say that New Jersey actually has a serious issue with this sort of escalation... well... killings in general really, specifically in Newark and Camden, where homicide has become a thing to do when you're bored.
And if the bad guy got his money and ran away, then no employees would have been hurt either. Which is the reason why almost every store has a policy to comply.
and if he had shot the people he had his gun pointed at while they were on their knees, they would be dead...
every store has a comply policy, yet not everyone who complies lives.
you seem very willing to bet the lives of three people on this felon executing a rational, non violent, ending to this scenario, despite him acting in an irrational and violent way.
had he shot all these people, would be droning on and on about how guns are bad and should be banned because they never save anyone and just do nothing but KILL KILL KILL. that the perp having a gun made it inevitablet that he would kill, because guns are bad, and people who have them want to kill. Because guns are bad.
yet....
every time someone saves people with the aid of gun, your crowd complains that they never saved anyone at all.
fact is, this good samaritan saved multiple people, and no one died, even the perp, despite being shot 5 times.
only difference between what happened, and what you say should have happened, is that in one scneario, the perp gets away, with stolen money, and is FREE TO ENDAGER MORE LIVES. robbing and pointing guns at people untill he does shoot someone..
The Samaritan didn't "save" anybody, since there is zero evidence that anybody would have been hurt if he didn't intervene.
The rest of the "your crowd complains when bad guys get dropped with guns" post is wasted on me, since I already mentioned that I carry myself. I have zero problems defending myself and mine, and will waste a fool that threatens my family.
I just disagree that's carrying a gun makes it a smart thing to try and defend others. It's for my protection, not yours.
I just disagree that's carrying a gun makes it a smart thing to try and defend others. It's for my protection, not yours.
well the pricipal that you dont have to stick your neck out for others, and that you dont HAVE to help if you are in a similar situation, is... ok to me, not what I would do, but hey, different strokes.
but that's what a good samaritain is... someone who sticks his neck out for a stranger... maybe some draw the line at risking a hurt back pushing people out of the snow, some draw it at risking being shot.
what I took from it, was that you were claiming this man was:
A. not a good samaritan (he is... sticking your neck out for people is basically the definition of good samaritain)
B. didnt help anyone ( he did... these people had a gun to their head, they could very well have been killed, even if he didnt save them, he could have saved the next people who would have been robbed and or shot, or the next, and so on)
how can we prove anyone can save anyone from being shot then? if the only "proof" they were going to be shot, is a bullet riddled corpse? sorry for thinking you are anti gun for that, but its the same trope I keep hearing from that crowd.
if you, or I, was the one with the gun pointed at our head, would we want someone to help us?
How about we both back off a little. D-USA is espousing the actual recommended course by many instructors. Others would take a shot as it meets criteria if the conditions were right. Its an issue of great debate on firearms sites and can be highly fact pattern specific.
He has no duty to do anything. he might do something if conditions were right. None of us were there so don't know what we would do.
OK thats not correct. I am certain I would follow whatever course resulted in the highest chance that the wife would make me a dozen double chocolate coated cake balls...
chocolate or strawberry cake
mix in frosting to make a cake frosting goo. form into balls.
pour melted Hershey bars on them. Maybe some more frosting, then pour another layer of melted Hershey on them.
sprinkle a little extra tidbits if desired.
Watch Frazzled flip cars to get one, and time the call to the ambulance due to sugar shock.
I just disagree that's carrying a gun makes it a smart thing to try and defend others. It's for my protection, not yours.
While in general I agree with this line of thinking it can become morally objectionable NOT to intervene, even if still legally risky, depending on circumstances. I'd say that if guy A has a person on his knees with a gun to his head, particularly after having led the worker from point A to someplace else (a less visible spot, i presume) it will not be to dispense a soothing shoulder massage and a freakin cookie.
CptJake wrote:I guess I am just wired differently than most. I see this and see a guy who saw innocent people put on their knees and a gun held to their heads. The guy pulled his legally carried gun out and tried to stop the perp from what ever the perp was going to do next. Perp turned towards him and got shot before the perp could fire.
I strongly believe one should do his best to help others in need. Whether it is stopping at an accident and applying first aid before an ambulance gets there, or stopping a rape/mugging/robbery/beating before a cop gets there. Just pass on by or passively watch or call for help an wait just isn't in me.
In this particular case, the shooter sees a gun pointed at the shop employees, who have been forced to their knees. He has no idea of the real intent of the perp, whether the perp will shoot or beat the employees. He just knows they are on their knees and being held at gunpoint. He knows he has a weapon which will likely enable him to stop the perp from injuring innocents. And he was right. No innocents were hurt.
The guy did not want to 'shoot bad guys for a living'. Any argument to the contrary is just stupid. Saying he should have been a cop to do so adds to the stupidity of the argument. He had two choices, do nothing or do something. He chose to do something. Something legal. Something that worked.
'He could have shot the employees with a bad shot and therefore should have done nothing' is speculative at best, and the actual end result was different, no employees hurt.
I think I actually agree with CptJake just about 100% here, which is probably a first.
I just disagree that's carrying a gun makes it a smart thing to try and defend others. It's for my protection, not yours.
While in general I agree with this line of thinking it can become morally objectionable NOT to intervene, even if still legally risky, depending on circumstances. I'd say that if guy A has a person on his knees with a gun to his head, particularly after having led the worker from point A to someplace else (a less visible spot, i presume) it will not be to dispense a soothing shoulder massage and a freakin cookie.
Per the interview with the concerned citizen, the robber led one employee from point A to a safe/cash register. It's a bit shaky as the CC states that he saw the robber walk the employee from being grouped with the other employees and then goes to immediately saying that he saw the employee on his knees with a gun to his head.
Not saying that the CC went and just decided to hare in there, but the MO for some robberies like this where the robbers do not generally commit homicides is to do something similar. After they single an employee out and get what they want, they threaten the employee to the point of terror and then the robber makes their escape.
One thing that makes me, from an investigative viewpoint, think that it was not a case where the employees were in immediate danger?
The CC claims that the suspect was wearing a mask and gloves, along with a jacket. It suggests that the suspect was trying to avoid being recognizable by having layers of clothing that are easily disposed of/dumped, which is a bit more common in robberies where the robber does not also engage in homicides.
Please bear in mind that this speculation is just that: speculation. I do not have all the facts of the case nor a comprehensive profile of this particular robbery suspect to go off of. I am going off of what are effectively "general profiles" that I have encountered in the course of having to look at crimes and the behavior associated with particular types of criminals
One thing that makes me, from an investigative viewpoint, think that it was not a case where the employees were in immediate danger?
really... you dont consider felon with a gun pointed at them as "immediate danger"?
seriously?
these guys never "plan" on killing anyone, but they do, and Ill bet mr perp wasn't exactly keeping his finger off the trigger.
Even if he doesnt kill them, all he has to do is injure these people, or traumatize them enough and they are scarred for life.
even if the perp did get away with no CC hero to swoop in and stop him, what about NEXT time, and the next time, you really think this guy waving guns around will never result in someone innocent being hurt?
Kanluwen wrote: The CC claims that the suspect was wearing a mask and gloves, along with a jacket. It suggests that the suspect was trying to avoid being recognizable by having layers of clothing that are easily disposed of/dumped, which is a bit more common in robberies where the robber does not also engage in homicides.
Please bear in mind that this speculation is just that: speculation. I do not have all the facts of the case nor a comprehensive profile of this particular robbery suspect to go off of. I am going off of what are effectively "general profiles" that I have encountered in the course of having to look at crimes and the behavior associated with particular types of criminals
And how many people who kill others and plan on getting away with it wear no disguise? The mask, gloves, and jacket pretty much describes the uniform of every terrorist in the Troubles - especially when they were planting bombs and shooting people. Wearing something to conceal your identity during the commission of a crime with a weapon doesn't mean you aren't going to kill someone. It just means that you want to make it more difficult to ID you later.
I just disagree that's carrying a gun makes it a smart thing to try and defend others. It's for my protection, not yours.
While in general I agree with this line of thinking it can become morally objectionable NOT to intervene, even if still legally risky, depending on circumstances. I'd say that if guy A has a person on his knees with a gun to his head, particularly after having led the worker from point A to someplace else (a less visible spot, i presume) it will not be to dispense a soothing shoulder massage and a freakin cookie.
Good shoot as far as I am concerned.
Morally objectionable? No way. You have no duty. Being a good witness is enough.
If someone WASN'T armed would he have a moral duty? Hardly.
One thing that makes me, from an investigative viewpoint, think that it was not a case where the employees were in immediate danger?
really... you dont consider felon with a gun pointed at them as "immediate danger"?
seriously?
these guys never "plan" on killing anyone, but they do, and Ill bet mr perp wasn't exactly keeping his finger off the trigger.
Even if he doesnt kill them, all he has to do is injure these people, or traumatize them enough and they are scarred for life.
even if the perp did get away with no CC hero to swoop in and stop him, what about NEXT time, and the next time, you really think this guy waving guns around will never result in someone innocent being hurt?
Easy sauce is correct. When you have customers in an execution position, odds are not low that that is what is going to happen.
I'm with CptJake... As a military man, my brain is wired slightly differently to other people.
That being said, if I were in that situation, and I didn't feel that I had a 110% clear shot at resolving the situation, I wouldn't take that shot.
The thing about this whole situation that is actually quite hilarious is the "victim's" family... he was a good kid in the wrong crowd? you are absolutely flying rodent gak crazy if you believe that. There's evidence that it was not his first robbery, AND the previous robbery was more peaceful than that Dollar Store... AND, who the feth robs a Dollar Store!? Seriously!? I mean, was he just getting some practice in...some good "reps" like a guy at the gym doing bench? Before he moves up in the world and tries a bank? Feth me, but I think that whole family should be looked at for mental health issues if they honestly believe that.
I also wonder about the caliber of the CCW carriers pistol... to hit a bad guy 5 times and NOT kill him?? I hope he had a .22 or something small like that... I mean, only way I can see a .40 or .45 doing that is if you winged the guy 5 times.
Without judging who's right and wrong, I have to say that it's rather interesting to see posters who are usually in favour of small government and "mind yourself" policies argue in favour of outside intervention, while posters who are usually in favour of (relatively) more government involvement and social safety nets are arguing that one should mind oneself. Did someone play a reverse direction UNO card or something?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's clear it was a 9mm Parabellum. So more or less a mouse fart compared to a proper caliber like .45 ACP or .357 Magnum
Stand in front of one and say that.
I have a wall of 9mms, .45ACP and .44 special/Mag. I like the .45ACP but I can put 4 rounds into you at 7 yards with a 9mm with a carry pistol. try that with a .45ACP.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Without judging who's right and wrong, I have to say that it's rather interesting to see posters who are usually in favour of small government and "mind yourself" policies argue in favour of outside intervention, while posters who are usually in favour of (relatively) more government involvement and social safety nets are arguing that one should mind oneself. Did someone play a reverse direction UNO card or something?
Wanting small government does not translate to 'mind yourself'. It translates to 'don't rely on the gov't to do things you can and should do for yourself and others'. In this case, rather than rely on the police who were not present, the shooter found himself in the position where he could act and believed it to be the correct thing to do. That isn't 'outside intervention', that was a guy on the scene not waiting for 'outside intervention'.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's clear it was a 9mm Parabellum. So more or less a mouse fart compared to a proper caliber like .45 ACP or .357 Magnum
Stand in front of one and say that.
I have a wall of 9mms, .45ACP and .44 special/Mag. I like the .45ACP but I can put 4 rounds into you at 7 yards with a 9mm with a carry pistol. try that with a .45ACP.
4 rounds at 7 yards with a .45? Man sized target? Frazz maybe you're going blind in your old age but that's not exactly difficult. If you can't dump a magazine into a man sized target at 10 yards with your sidearm... I worry for you.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's clear it was a 9mm Parabellum. So more or less a mouse fart compared to a proper caliber like .45 ACP or .357 Magnum
Stand in front of one and say that.
I have a wall of 9mms, .45ACP and .44 special/Mag. I like the .45ACP but I can put 4 rounds into you at 7 yards with a 9mm with a carry pistol. try that with a .45ACP.
4 rounds at 7 yards with a .45? Man sized target? Frazz maybe you're going blind in your old age but that's not exactly difficult. If you can't dump a magazine into a man sized target at 10 yards with your sidearm... I worry for you.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's clear it was a 9mm Parabellum. So more or less a mouse fart compared to a proper caliber like .45 ACP or .357 Magnum
Stand in front of one and say that.
I have a wall of 9mms, .45ACP and .44 special/Mag. I like the .45ACP but I can put 4 rounds into you at 7 yards with a 9mm with a carry pistol. try that with a .45ACP.
4 rounds at 7 yards with a .45? Man sized target? Frazz maybe you're going blind in your old age but that's not exactly difficult. If you can't dump a magazine into a man sized target at 10 yards with your sidearm... I worry for you.
4 rounds in a 6in diameter plate size.
Right. That is not exactly difficult shooting Frazz. Albeit I carry a full size 1911 cause Murrica.
You keep moving goal posts adding the time, I'd like to see four round in a second though, but four rounds rapid into a six inch disk at 7 yards? fething hell man.
Also being better then the average police officer is not exactly a mark of distinction for an individual in the same country as the LAPD and NYPD.
Im happy if i can keep my groupings at 7 yards to 3-4 inches when I take my time. I'm pretty positive I couldn't kepe them in 6 inches within a second.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: You keep moving goal posts adding the time, I'd like to see four round in a second though, but four rounds rapid into a six inch disk at 7 yards? fething hell man.
Also being better then the average police officer is not exactly a mark of distinction for an individual in the same country as the LAPD and NYPD.
Sorry I thought I put the time in the original post. my bad.
For the record, I do see guys with 4 rounds from a .45ACP in 1 second at that distance. But those are competition guns and they are way better than poor me.
With a carry sized piece I'm probably 3 rounds in same because that 6.5 lb trigger slows me up.
Whayts fun though is scenarios where you're arms length. Thats pretty much as fast as you can pull the trigger. BANG BANG BANG BANG!
Frazzled wrote: Sorry I thought I put the time in the original post. my bad.
For the record, I do see guys with 4 rounds from a .45ACP in 1 second at that distance. But those are competition guns and they are way better than poor me.
With a carry sized piece I'm probably 3 rounds in same because that 6.5 lb trigger slows me up.
Whayts fun though is scenarios where you're arms length. Thats pretty much as fast as you can pull the trigger. BANG BANG BANG BANG!
ToddG doing a Bill Drill in 1.98 with a stock (other than sights, I believe) HK45.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's clear it was a 9mm Parabellum. So more or less a mouse fart compared to a proper caliber like .45 ACP or .357 Magnum
Honestly, the calibre isn't anywhere near as important in self-defense as the placement and control. You can call the 9mm a mouse fart all you like, but it's still going to blow through your sinus cavity and ruin your day in a hurry. Center mass, the .45 is definitely going to make a difference. But I'd rather use a calibre that I can consistently hit a small (head-sized) target with at 7 yards.
Frazzled wrote:Its not difficult with an ACP? Have you tried it or are you just full of gak?
4 rounds 1 second 6 in target .45 ACP 7 yards
EDIT: if so you're WAY better than your average police officer.
I *am* way better than your average police officer, and I'm not confident that I could do this consistently.
Well, back when I was shooting the regularly I think I could pull off one good shoot a second MAXIMUM. The blast would send that pistol over my head and the 13ish lb trigger pull was too much to be faster.
d-usa,
Without being able to read everything you've posted(gotta get to work!) you have missed one key thing regarding whether to engage, or not to.
Perception. The citizen who engaged the robber describes how he viewed the situation, guy had an employee on his knees with a gun to his head. In my eyes, without being there, that is an immediate threat to life. If he felt the same way, he had every right and reason to engage.
What I have read so far of your posts regarding this situation, I have agreed with. In the end its all about perception.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's clear it was a 9mm Parabellum. So more or less a mouse fart compared to a proper caliber like .45 ACP or .357 Magnum
Honestly, the calibre isn't anywhere near as important in self-defense as the placement and control. You can call the 9mm a mouse fart all you like, but it's still going to blow through your sinus cavity and ruin your day in a hurry. Center mass, the .45 is definitely going to make a difference. But I'd rather use a calibre that I can consistently hit a small (head-sized) target with at 7 yards.
Which would be the difference I suppose. I shoot center of mass like Momma Corps told me to. Missing head shots is easy, tearing bloody messy holes in vital organs is a more sure shot and easier to boot. At least as far as self defense goes. I know how the adrenaline dump works and I can't promise you I'd be able to hit headshots once the slight tremor sets in you know? gak's easy to compensate for in the rifle, but hand gun shooting? I dunno man. Especially since the goblin can and will be moving.
I also like how you got immediately butt hurt.
Range shooting hitting a head sized target at 7 yards? Come on man. Make it a challenge, can you regularly tag the T box on a man sized target at 7 yards?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's clear it was a 9mm Parabellum. So more or less a mouse fart compared to a proper caliber like .45 ACP or .357 Magnum
Honestly, the calibre isn't anywhere near as important in self-defense as the placement and control. You can call the 9mm a mouse fart all you like, but it's still going to blow through your sinus cavity and ruin your day in a hurry. Center mass, the .45 is definitely going to make a difference. But I'd rather use a calibre that I can consistently hit a small (head-sized) target with at 7 yards.
Which would be the difference I suppose. I shoot center of mass like Momma Corps told me to. Missing head shots is easy, tearing bloody messy holes in vital organs is a more sure shot and easier to boot. At least as far as self defense goes. I know how the adrenaline dump works and I can't promise you I'd be able to hit headshots once the slight tremor sets in you know? gak's easy to compensate for in the rifle, but hand gun shooting? I dunno man. Especially since the goblin can and will be moving.
I also like how you got immediately butt hurt.
Funny how, for all our perceived differences between the Army and the Corps, we all shoot the "same" as I also aim strictly center mass while actually practicing (if I'm just blowing off rounds because range time is running short, I'll start playing with headshots, but usually not), as the way you practice is the way you'll do it for real, if that need ever arises.
I do like how the "fact" that the good guy here claims to have carried for 4 or so years with no incident/reason to draw until this came up. I've seen numerous people in this post claiming that CCW holders are wannabe cops and whatnot. But, the fact is, if this guy has been carrying as long as he had without ever having the need to use it, doesnt paint me a picture of a John Wayne type figure who is strolling into town lookin for somethin to shoot.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's clear it was a 9mm Parabellum. So more or less a mouse fart compared to a proper caliber like .45 ACP or .357 Magnum
Honestly, the calibre isn't anywhere near as important in self-defense as the placement and control. You can call the 9mm a mouse fart all you like, but it's still going to blow through your sinus cavity and ruin your day in a hurry. Center mass, the .45 is definitely going to make a difference. But I'd rather use a calibre that I can consistently hit a small (head-sized) target with at 7 yards.
Which would be the difference I suppose. I shoot center of mass like Momma Corps told me to. Missing head shots is easy, tearing bloody messy holes in vital organs is a more sure shot and easier to boot. At least as far as self defense goes. I know how the adrenaline dump works and I can't promise you I'd be able to hit headshots once the slight tremor sets in you know? gak's easy to compensate for in the rifle, but hand gun shooting? I dunno man. Especially since the goblin can and will be moving.
I also like how you got immediately butt hurt.
Range shooting hitting a head sized target at 7 yards? Come on man. Make it a challenge, can you regularly tag the T box on a man sized target at 7 yards?
I'm honestly not sure what part you thought sounded butthurt, and I sincerely hope you didn't interpret my use of the infinitive "you" to mean you specifically. I have no intention of getting defensive (punny!) here, because everyone should shoot what and how they are comfortable with. I'm only offering a counterpoint.
Anyway, yeah, with a 9mm I'm not going to miss often at 7 yards.
Firehead158 wrote: Until you're actually trying to kill someone, while they are trying to kill you.
Bingo.
A lot of people haven't experienced trying to do tasks requiring manual dexterity under a true adrenaline dump.
That said, caliber wars are pretty pointless when you're using modern self-defense loads, but I also know better than to argue with a Marine about the .45 ACP.
I guess I am just wired differently than most. I see this and see a guy who saw innocent people put on their knees and a gun held to their heads. The guy pulled his legally carried gun out and tried to stop the perp from what ever the perp was going to do next. Perp turned towards him and got shot before the perp could fire.
I strongly believe one should do his best to help others in need. Whether it is stopping at an accident and applying first aid before an ambulance gets there, or stopping a rape/mugging/robbery/beating before a cop gets there. Just pass on by or passively watch or call for help an wait just isn't in me.
In this particular case, the shooter sees a gun pointed at the shop employees, who have been forced to their knees. He has no idea of the real intent of the perp, whether the perp will shoot or beat the employees. He just knows they are on their knees and being held at gunpoint. He knows he has a weapon which will likely enable him to stop the perp from injuring innocents. And he was right. No innocents were hurt.
The guy did not want to 'shoot bad guys for a living'. Any argument to the contrary is just stupid. Saying he should have been a cop to do so adds to the stupidity of the argument. He had two choices, do nothing or do something. He chose to do something. Something legal. Something that worked.
'He could have shot the employees with a bad shot and therefore should have done nothing' is speculative at best, and the actual end result was different, no employees hurt.
I find myself agreeing with the Capt. Cops are great at cleaning up, investigating and catching crooks. In the moment, one's self or one's fellow citizens are all you have. A bystander is of course not obligated to intervene, but if he is legally able to do so then he is permitted to do so, and IMHO, should be praised if he does so. There's clearly alot we don't know yet about the situation, caliber, etc, but we know the outcome. Bad guy down, no innocents hurt.
The perp was using a lethal weapon to threaten another person while committing a felony. As soon as he pulled that gun he is a fair target for a cop, security guard or good Samaritan. If a cop or security guard had done the shooting there would be no question as to whether it was the right course of action. This guy wasn't a cop or a guard, but he was legally allowed to own, carry and operate a firearm.
Interestingly, if his story is how it happened than it's even more legally clear because he announced himself and shot the perp when he was turning on him with a gun. He probably would have been legally safe anyway, but as soon as the perp turned on him with the gun, he was clear to take him down.
I have a very high regard for life and am truly glad the perp didn't die. However, he had it coming, and if he had been killed he would have only himself to blame. Anytime you pick up a gun to commit a crime, you put your life on the line.
I did find what the relative said unconscionable. She said the guy should have left the store, gotten in his car and driven away. No mention of calling the police?
Eilif wrote: I did find what the relative said unconscionable. She said the guy should have left the store, gotten in his car and driven away. No mention of calling the police?
I suspect it was a nicer way of saying what the usual response would be: "Snitches get stitches".
Eilif wrote: I did find what the relative said unconscionable. She said the guy should have left the store, gotten in his car and driven away. No mention of calling the police?
I suspect it was a nicer way of saying what the usual response would be: "Snitches get stitches".
I feel dirty just typing it.
I suspect you're right. On a deeper level, it's probably so ingrained that it never even occurred to her to suggest that someone should call the police. Some families are just that way.
out or hide and barricade. If you have a good shot take it but don't go looking for it. 
