Bystander gets his wife and hinself to relative safety then comes back to engage thug. He is under no legal requirement to do so but did it anyway. Moral obligation? How would the popo and a jury most likely see it in your area? I know the last question would be dependent on the individuals involved so there is no way of knowing for sure.
The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."
How that would be interpreted here would depend on the county prosecutor. There is a duty to retreat if possible and that the other bystanders did not attempt to do so when possible might have a bearing on a decision. More probable for charges is the CCW carrier came back after having reached a position of relative safety.
I'm with the above poster- my family or those accompanying me first and others a distant fourth. I'll sleep poorly if someone else got hurt but I wouldn't sleep at all if mine were hurt. Unless there were words threatening harm to others with actions to back them up, I would not have gone as far as the person in the video went. There did not appear to be any threatening action and it is very likely some charge would be brought against me. Even if successful, court action would bankrupt me and the mental anguish during the trial would not be a positive to my family. Protecting my family includes financially and mentally in addition to physically.
The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."
He forgot the safety. He’d likely have insisted here at the Fire that he had it down to a reflex, so he’d never fail to disengage it if he ever found himself in a shootout.
People, don’t buy handguns with thumb safeties for defensive carry. In the age of the striker fired auto pistol, it’s an unnecessary handicap that can get you killed.
As a house gun, or a car gun, that's not so much of an issue. The difference is that, when carried on the body, the idea is that it can be drawn at the moment of an attack, in which case it must be a reflexive disengagement of the thumb safety if you have one, which is an added level of complexity to what you want to be a reflexive action (decreasing the likelihood of success).
When kept as a house gun, it's very unlikely that it will need to be a reflex action, since it's generally grabbed when a suspicious sound is heard (breaking glass, or banging on the door), at which point the safety can be deliberately disengaged (while keeping the trigger finger outside the trigger guard) just as you might, for example, deliberately pump your shotgun under the same circumstance (while keeping your trigger finger outside the trigger guard). Similarly with glove compartment carry.
But on the person, the idea is that you're prepared for a quick draw and fire in an almost reflexive manner. The fewer components of that reflexive combination of simultaneous actions, the greater is the likelihood of a successful outcome.
The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."
There's a pretty good example used in west coast LEO training about an off-duty LASO deputy standing in a bank line somewhere in So Cal with his little daughter when a robbery occurs. Deputy steps in, engages the bad guy in a gunfight and saves the day. Downside is his 5 or 6 year-old daughter is killed by a stray round from the robber's gun. Not a good outcome.
Nothing immoral about staying out of something and being a good witness unless things go really sideways and you HAVE to act. Bob
There does not have to be a legal requirement to shoot but only a legal justification to do so. Imminent danger to life or the lives of other or preventing a felony involving danger to life meets the legal justification. There is no such thing as a moral obligation to stop a person from stealing money.
While I applaud the guy for being somewhat smart, I think he was an idiot to engage the way he did. The robbery was going down and the robber appeared to just want the money. When CCW guy finally makes his move, he has the big dude moving past him and the cashier is still by the robber and there are bystanders near and behind CCW guy. If robber decides to take a shot or shots, the hero is unnecessarily risking the lives of other people. (Let's face it, he's not that good so as to guaranty a one shot stop. He forgot the safety and gave the bad guy the opportunity to make the first move against him or another bystander. He got lucky that the robber decided to bail rather than start shooting.) It’s great that CCW guy got his person of interest to safety before he engaged, but he didn’t seem to be too concerned about the others.
I totally get shooting if it is an active shooter scenario or it looks like the bad guy is about to start killing people, but this does not appear to be the case. The robber is not in control, as he lets people walk in and around him the entire time. He is focused on the money.
CCW guy could have followed the robber outside the place if he wanted to be a hero and challenged him there.
The guy wasn't in the Cop business. His gun was to protect himself and loved ones. The fact that he was the only one packing doesn't make him responsible for everybody's safety.
I don't wear a badge anymore. Unless I feel someone is about to die, I'm strictly an observer. If, on the other hand, I or my family or a fellow innocent is in immediate danger, I'll take action.
It can be argued that the presence of a firearm is in and of itself a deadly threat, but the gun isn't an animate object. It won't kill me unless the perp does the shooting. I'm willing to risk my neck for a bit to determine if the scrote appears deadly earnest, or just wants to make a buck and escape.
There does not have to be a legal requirement to shoot but only a legal justification to do so. Imminent danger to life or the lives of other or preventing a felony involving danger to life meets the legal justification. There is no such thing as a moral obligation to stop a person from stealing money.
While I applaud the guy for being somewhat smart, I think he was an idiot to engage the way he did. The robbery was going down and the robber appeared to just want the money. When CCW guy finally makes his move, he has the big dude moving past him and the cashier is still by the robber and there are bystanders near and behind CCW guy. If robber decides to take a shot or shots, the hero is unnecessarily risking the lives of other people. (Let's face it, he's not that good so as to guaranty a one shot stop. He forgot the safety and gave the bad guy the opportunity to make the first move against him or another bystander. He got lucky that the robber decided to bail rather than start shooting.) It’s great that CCW guy got his person of interest to safety before he engaged, but he didn’t seem to be too concerned about the others.
I totally get shooting if it is an active shooter scenario or it looks like the bad guy is about to start killing people, but this does not appear to be the case. The robber is not in control, as he lets people walk in and around him the entire time. He is focused on the money.
CCW guy could have followed the robber outside the place if he wanted to be a hero and challenged him there.
It's a hard decision. I would tend to agree with you in this case,especially having the ability to see the mistakes made and know how bad it could have gone. At the same time it would be horrible if I just stood there and the perp killed somebody as he was leaving. Even if you were to shoot the perp there's a good chance he might return fire killing you or some innocent person. If you were close enough,would you go for a head shot to keep the perp from returning fire, or stick to center mass knowing the increased difficulty with adrenaline going full blast?
One would need to assess the likely hood and risk of a shooting.
In this case, the good guy (non leo) is the one that started the gunfire in a situation with bystanders. Was it a good call? Didn't seem to be, but who can be sure from a video.
Seeing what I saw, a savvy plainclothes cop may have decoded to bide his time and not start the action at that time. But, I ain't a cop, and can't say for sure. I am sure that the better trained officers get some instruction on situations like this.
A robbery as compared to an incident here shooting is occuring. This is probably as close to a shooting as one could come, and could have easily become a shooting by the bad guy. But, the good guy started the gunfire.
It is a great example to start a discission. In many states he clearly was ok to do what he did. Not sure there would be a definitive answer.
The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."
The 'morality ' aspect. If you can get your family to safety, and you could do something about it,would you leave other innocents at the mercy of a gunman?
The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."
I see nothing wrong with that thought process.
“Young” guys questioning the ‘morality ‘ aspect?
Nope. Every single one was an old guy questioning my bravery and dedication to the cause. It was a off-duty concealed carry class and I facilitated it for a few hundred people. It got a little heated a few times.
The 'morality ' aspect. If you can get your family to safety, and you could do something about it,would you leave other innocents at the mercy of a gunman?
I wouldn’t. Especially not that one. It’s pretty clear cut and that guy would be easy.
The 'morality ' aspect. If you can get your family to safety, and you could do something about it,would you leave other innocents at the mercy of a gunman?
The 'morality ' aspect. If you can get your family to safety, and you could do something about it,would you leave other innocents at the mercy of a gunman?
Of course not, once my family was out of play. I
I don't mind George placing George in harm's way, but I'm not risking my wife/son for strangers.
The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."
I see nothing wrong with that thought process.
“Young” guys questioning the ‘morality ‘ aspect?
Nope. Every single one was an old guy questioning my bravery and dedication to the cause. It was a off-duty concealed carry class and I facilitated it for a few hundred people. It got a little heated a few times.
Interesting.
I would think it's a given, especially for older/experienced guys, to realize that our choices shouldn't impact family unless absolutely necessary.
I think it’s a generational difference. The older guys see it as a calling and their identity is wrapped up in being the “sheepdog”. And another generation sees it as a career, with clearly defined on-off duty parts of their lives.
An armed robbery is absolutely a shooting thing. The question is if you’re willing to do the shooting in this armed robbery.
Yep. Armed Robbery is a justification to use deadly force in TX. I still would have moved my Family out of harms way first before engaging the shooter, though.
The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."
I'd sleep damn well myself.
I owe nothing to no one but my family. My primary is get/keep them safe. Once that's done, if I reengage and am killed, I've failed my family.
Not saying I wouldn't but certainly would not say I absolutely would. If shooting starts before family can get clear, then getting involved is a no brainer.
Another consideration. As a civilian if I step in and take him on and no shots have been fired. That gets him to shoot I could be held liable for someone being shot in the resultant [bleep]. Again, I've failed my family if I am sued and impoverished by some f'ing lawyer after the fact.
My wife knows the drill and she would have been so out of there on her own that I would not have had to worry about her. But, I am not seeing anything there that makes me see an imminent need to deal with him inside at the precise second CCW guy decided to go for it.
ETA: If CCW guy saw something indicating that the bad guy was escalating or about to take hostages or shoot somebody, I would understand it.
My wife knows the drill and she would have been so out of there on her own that I would not have had to worry about her. But, I am not seeing anything there that makes me see an imminent need to deal with him inside at the precise second CCW guy decided to go for it.
ETA: If CCW guy saw something indicating that the bad guy was escalating or about to take hostages or shoot somebody, I would understand it.
The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."
I'd sleep damn well myself.
I owe nothing to no one but my family. My primary is get/keep them safe. Once that's done, if I reengage and am killed, I've failed my family.
Not saying I wouldn't but certainly would not say I absolutely would. If shooting starts before family can get clear, then getting involved is a no brainer.
Another consideration. As a civilian if I step in and take him on and no shots have been fired. That gets him to shoot I could be held liable for someone being shot in the resultant [bleep]. Again, I've failed my family if I am sued and impoverished by some f'ing lawyer after the fact.
Agreed. Ohio lost "stand your ground" at the poles a few years ago. With family in range of gunfire, if things go wrong, and with other options like retreat available, it would not be wise to reingage with the robber, unless the threat came to me or mine, directly. And since the CCW carrier had lots of time to creep forward, why did he not check his weapon? Mine has a hot chamber indicator, I can see and touch, the safety should have been a no-brainer to check if he uses a safety. Clearly he did not practice deployment from the manner of how he carries.
I am just not a sheepdog. My family first, always, then unless there appears there will be a blood bath, I'm not going to get involved to save the store's money.
I don't think I would start a shooting if I was fairly sure there wouldn't be one unless I did. On the other hand,under some circumstances I wouldn't want to give a guy the choice to either shoot me or not.
I don't think anyone would know what they would do until it happens, but I'm not the guy who thinks I have to kill the bad guy.I think some situations might call for action and some for discretion. I'm the guy who would consider shooting, while also considering that a lot of things could go wrong. The last thing I would ever want would be to cause the bad guy to shoot someone else while trying to shoot me.
The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."
Agree 100%. I used to be a Deputy Sheriff in Texas...the operative phrase is “used to be”. I have a retired peace officer concealed carry permit, but I am not a Peace Officer any more and I should not act like one. My obligation is to first keep my family safe. If I got them out of harm’s way and went back in to engage the shooter or shooters, I have reescalated the confrontation between me and the bad guys. I don’t believe a jury would accept that course of action from me
I am just not a sheepdog. My family first, always, then unless there appears there will be a blood bath, I'm not going to get involved to save the store's money.
Yep... What little that guy got out of the register isn't worth my life or anyone else's. Unless I was completely convinced he was in fact going to kill someone, I would just let it go down, and report what I saw. I'm not a cop, and my first duty is to my family; and since I'm the provider, that means I need to keep myself alive.
If I became convinced he was going to shoot someone, then I would step in.
For the guys saying that he’d intervene if they thought he would actually shoot someone...
What thing would happen to convince you of that? Because he’s already brought a gun into the store and pointed it at people. The next step seems to be mirder, at which point it’s a little late to be wondering if he’s gonna shoot someone.
For the guys saying that he’d intervene if they thought he would actually shoot someone...
What thing would happen to convince you of that? Because he’s already brought a gun into the store and pointed it at people. The next step seems to be mirder, at which point it’s a little late to be wondering if he’s gonna shoot someone.
Well there's really no way to definitively know. The VAST majority of armed robberies happen without a shot fired, so it's more about probability. But demeanor and body language can tell you a lot. There certainly are no guarantees either way.
Well there's really no way to definitively know. The VAST majority of armed robberies happen without a shot fired, so it's more about probability. But demeanor and body language can tell you a lot. There certainly are no guarantees either way.
When they pull out a deadly weapon and use it to commit a felony, that’s all the body language needed.
For the guys saying that he’d intervene if they thought he would actually shoot someone...
What thing would happen to convince you of that? Because he’s already brought a gun into the store and pointed it at people. The next step seems to be mirder, at which point it’s a little late to be wondering if he’s gonna shoot someone.
Spot-on. Lots of folks carry a crystal ball so they can see into the future and know what the bad guy is going to do.
Well there's really no way to definitively know. The VAST majority of armed robberies happen without a shot fired, so it's more about probability. But demeanor and body language can tell you a lot. There certainly are no guarantees either way.
When they pull out a deadly weapon and use it to commit a felony, that’s all the body language needed.
For the guys saying that he’d intervene if they thought he would actually shoot someone...
What thing would happen to convince you of that? Because he’s already brought a gun into the store and pointed it at people. The next step seems to be mirder, at which point it’s a little late to be wondering if he’s gonna shoot someone.
Spot-on. Lots of folks carry a crystal ball so they can see into the future and know what the bad guy is going to do.
Well there's really no way to definitively know. The VAST majority of armed robberies happen without a shot fired, so it's more about probability. But demeanor and body language can tell you a lot. There certainly are no guarantees either way.
When they pull out a deadly weapon and use it to commit a felony, that’s all the body language needed.
For you fellas in the "once my family is out, it's not my problem" crowd, I just can't agree with you. Yes, first and foremost I'm getting my family to safety. After that, I'm doing what I can if it is a situation where I am able to do so. I couldn't live with myself if someone else was killed and I didn't do anything to stop it. Once that guy pulled the weapon I'd have no problem popping him. I'm sure as hell not going to try and read his body language and guess what his actions will be after he's already pulled the gun.
My boys both work at the local grocery store and sure would hope that someone would do the same for them in a similar situation.
For you fellas in the "once my family is out, it's not my problem" crowd, I just can't agree with you. Yes, first and foremost I'm getting my family to safety. After that, I'm doing what I can if it is a situation where I am able to do so. I couldn't live with myself if someone else was killed and I didn't do anything to stop it. Once that guy pulled the weapon I'd have no problem popping him. I'm sure as hell not going to try and read his body language and guess what his actions will be after he's already pulled the gun.
My boys both work at the local grocery store and sure would hope that someone would do the same for them in a similar situation.
Well there's really no way to definitively know. The VAST majority of armed robberies happen without a shot fired, so it's more about probability. But demeanor and body language can tell you a lot. There certainly are no guarantees either way.
Demeanor and body language.... Like when he shouts and points a gun at you?
For you fellas in the "once my family is out, it's not my problem" crowd, I just can't agree with you. Yes, first and foremost I'm getting my family to safety. After that, I'm doing what I can if it is a situation where I am able to do so. I couldn't live with myself if someone else was killed and I didn't do anything to stop it. Once that guy pulled the weapon I'd have no problem popping him. I'm sure as hell not going to try and read his body language and guess what his actions will be after he's already pulled the gun.
My boys both work at the local grocery store and sure would hope that someone would do the same for them in a similar situation.
I am an old guy and I agree with Blue. However I must add that anyone who has a safety on a self defense pistol ( unless all you ever use is a 1911) is foolish.
Well there's really no way to definitively know. The VAST majority of armed robberies happen without a shot fired, so it's more about probability. But demeanor and body language can tell you a lot. There certainly are no guarantees either way.
When they pull out a deadly weapon and use it to commit a felony, that’s all the body language needed.
My family comes first. If my wife and the girls are with me as soon as they are out of harms way I may get involved, or I may remain and become a professional witness
If it's just me and the girls. Well, I'm with blue, I'm gonna feel terrible, but I'll feel terrible while holding my girls
I totally get the"I would hope someone would intervene if my loved one was there mentality. I would hope so too
But, how do I care for an 18 month old and 3 year old and engage the badguy
Well there's really no way to definitively know. The VAST majority of armed robberies happen without a shot fired, so it's more about probability. But demeanor and body language can tell you a lot. There certainly are no guarantees either way.
When they pull out a deadly weapon and use it to commit a felony, that’s all the body language needed.
Okay then...you're good to go.
Exactly what body language are you looking for?
If someone is brandishing a firearm with their finger on the trigger they’ll get at least one shot off if you wait for them to act before you react.
For you fellas in the "once my family is out, it's not my problem" crowd, I just can't agree with you. Yes, first and foremost I'm getting my family to safety. After that, I'm doing what I can if it is a situation where I am able to do so. I couldn't live with myself if someone else was killed and I didn't do anything to stop it. Once that guy pulled the weapon I'd have no problem popping him. I'm sure as hell not going to try and read his body language and guess what his actions will be after he's already pulled the gun.
My boys both work at the local grocery store and sure would hope that someone would do the same for them in a similar situation.
You walk back into the fray.
No shots fired yet.
You engage the guy. He fires back and kills the young girl who was frozen with fear and didn't leave.
So, now, her blood is on whose hands? Reality is, you have just escalated a situation and that escalation resulted in an innocent dying. Think you aren't in for a crapload of trouble? Legal, financial and mental?
My family comes first. If my wife and the girls are with me as soon as they are out of harms way I may get involved, or I may remain and become a professional witness
If it's just me and the girls. Well, I'm with blue, I'm gonna feel terrible, but I'll feel terrible while holding my girls
I totally get the"I would hope someone would intervene if my loved one was there mentality. I would hope so too
But, how do I care for an 18 month old and 3 year old and engage the badguy
Or, how do you care for an 18 month old and 3 year old if you are dead??
It might help to know the law, is it a stand your ground state or a duty to retreat state.
In this case I’m not sure it would matter. The test is are you are other in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death. Their were others that we’re definately in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death.
My family comes first. If my wife and the girls are with me as soon as they are out of harms way I may get involved, or I may remain and become a professional witness
If it's just me and the girls. Well, I'm with blue, I'm gonna feel terrible, but I'll feel terrible while holding my girls
I totally get the"I would hope someone would intervene if my loved one was there mentality. I would hope so too
But, how do I care for an 18 month old and 3 year old and engage the badguy
And that is why a standard answer can't be given that would apply to every situation. I was answering for me in that situation. That's why I said "I'm doing what I can if it is a situation where I am able to do so." If I was in your shoes, I certainly wouldn't leave my small children outside while I ran back inside. In the end, I would do everything I could based upon the situation.
You engage the guy. He fires back and kills the young girl who was frozen with fear and didn't leave.
So, now, her blood is on whose hands? Reality is, you have just escalated a situation and that escalation resulted in an innocent dying. Think you aren't in for a crapload of trouble? Legal, financial and mental?
That's on him, and he escalated the situation by producing a gun. You're making an assumption that he wouldn't have fired the gun regardless of anything you did. If a bad guy produces a gun, I'm sure as hell not going to wait for him to fire first. With that said, It IS my responsibility to make sure that I have a clear line of sight to him and beyond him.
In the situation you describe, he's the one in "a crapload of trouble". We can play this game all day long. What if you didn't fire and someone startled him and he fires shooting an innocent and you didn't take him out before he did so? What if he just decides to start shooting? What if he trips and the gun goes off and hits an innocent?
Truth is, you can arm-chair QB it all you want with what if this and what if that. Yes, there are things that could happen as a result of you shooting first just as much as there could be for not shooting first. What can a reasonable person do in that situation to stop the threat? Have you been training? Do you have a clear line of sight? Are you in a position to do something? I train and prepare so that if I'm in that situation, I'm as prepared as possible to stop it. Once my family is safe, and I'm able to do something about it, I will. That's just me. There could just as easily be a situation where I can't do anything about it.
In Oklahoma we are only legal to defend ourselves and family outside of our homes and business, we are not cops.
And since we put a business owner in prison for life for coming back inside his pharmacy after shooting the armed robber, finding him moving and shooting him again, I'll keep my family safe and let the cops do their thing.
Now if I'm in a situation where I'm the only one who could prevent the loss of innocent life, I would have to respond the best I could but make no mistake, once my family and I were safe and I chose to go back into harms way, the DA is the one who will decide where I retire to...
The way the law is written in Kalifornia you'd have a right to defend. I wouldn't because it's not interpreted the way it's written. Besides, if some Johnny-come-lately gunslinger shows up, YOU could be mistaken for the bad guy. Money is just "things". No life endangered till the lead starts flying.
Probably not, but I live there and I've seen it too many times where the good guy engages the bad guy and they get accolades on Facebook and Craigslist, but is fired if they work there. That guy in the video is taking a heck of a chance ramping up the situation not only for himself, but all the people behind him as well. I sure wish that we could get the rest of the story in these cases. We hear about the crime and maybe the court case if they are caught and the crime was heinous, but never what happens to the good guy. Wisconsin has the Castle Doctrine, but this shooter was not in his home and only defending the store's property. That is a real stretch for the CCW shooter in the video for discharging his handgun.
We had a case here in Florida last year where a guy was stealing a shopping cart full of diapers from a Walmart and the security guy was after him. A CCW holder shot the thief out in the parking lot and he is the one who turned into the bad guy. State laws sure vary from one another. A friend of mine from up state New York didn't bring any handgun down here for the winter just because he had to drive through some of those liberal loving unfriendly gun states on the way.
Probably not, but I live there and I've seen it too many times where the good guy engages the bad guy and they get accolades on Facebook and Craigslist, but is fired if they work there. That guy in the video is taking a heck of a chance ramping up the situation not only for himself, but all the people behind him as well. I sure wish that we could get the rest of the story in these cases. We hear about the crime and maybe the court case if they are caught and the crime was heinous, but never what happens to the good guy. Wisconsin has the Castle Doctrine, but this shooter was not in his home and only defending the store's property. That is a real stretch for the CCW shooter in the video for discharging his handgun.
We had a case here in Florida last year where a guy was stealing a shopping cart full of diapers from a Walmart and the security guy was after him. A CCW holder shot the thief out in the parking lot and he is the one who turned into the bad guy. State laws sure vary from one another. A friend of mine from up state New York didn't bring any handgun down here for the winter just because he had to drive through some of those liberal loving unfriendly gun states on the way.
He wasn’t defending the stories property, he was defending everyone in that store that were being robbed at gun point. The prep could have shot someone at any time without provocation.
Probably would attempt to take him out....provided that my family is safe and the shot could be taken without unduly jeopardizing others.. If he is armed and threatening....he is a definite threat. Waiting “until” he starts firing....will likely be “too late” for someone. I would have difficulty dealing with the knowledge that, my inaction caused someone ( man, woman, or child) to be injured or killed! memtb
I am just not a sheepdog. My family first, always, then unless there appears there will be a blood bath, I'm not going to get involved to save the store's money.
No sheepdog here either. Once my family is safe, I am a primarily porcupine.
"Would I do it?" depends on a lot of variables. The only true answer is "possibly".
The thing that stands out as ironic to me in this thread is the number of us who seem to assume that the worst that might happen to them is they might get themselves killed. I think the possibility of saddling your family with the care of a cripple or existing in poverty should also enter into the plan.
Probably would attempt to take him out....provided that my family is safe and the shot could be taken without unduly jeopardizing others.. If he is armed and threatening....he is a definite threat. Waiting “until” he starts firing....will likely be “too late” for someone. I would have difficulty dealing with the knowledge that, my inaction caused someone ( man, woman, or child) to be injured or killed! memtb
It could go either way. You could just as easily make him start shooting and kill someone,even if you hit him with the first shot. There's no way to know what to do and you would just have to use your best judgement at that time.
I guess for me it would depend a lot on how aggressive the guy seemed and how he handled his gun. You might not be able to tell anything at all about what the guy might or might not do,and you might be totally wrong. If I was really close and he turned his attention away,I would likely go for a head shot. You would also have to be conscious of what was on the other side of him in the direction you were shooting. Under some circumstances I would definitely shoot,and under some I might not be able to shoot without escalating the threat.
I am just not a sheepdog. My family first, always, then unless there appears there will be a blood bath, I'm not going to get involved to save the store's money.
No sheepdog here either. Once my family is safe, I am a primarily porcupine.
"Would I do it?" depends on a lot of variables. The only true answer is "possibly".
The thing that stands out as ironic to me in this thread is the number of us who seem to assume that the worst that might happen to them is they might get themselves killed. I think the possibility of saddling your family with the care of a cripple or existing in poverty should also enter into the plan.
Thanks FreeMe for pointing out that getting killed isn’t necessarily the most heinous thing that could happen to you. Yeah, dying would suck but so would existing on machines to help you breath, or perhaps lose everything you’ve worked your whole life for by losing a civil suit.
I do have to admit if it was summertime and I had my 380 I wouldn't be as quick to engage the shooter if not completely necessary.
That should be the same attitude with any handgun. You could easily have the same outcome from a 9mm or 45acp as from a 380. Handguns just aren't 100 percent reliable as man stoppers no matter what caliber. Yea,I would always rather shoot the bad guy with the larger caliber,but even so it's not a 100% guarantee of putting him down before he can shoot back.
For you fellas in the "once my family is out, it's not my problem" crowd, I just can't agree with you. Yes, first and foremost I'm getting my family to safety. After that, I'm doing what I can if it is a situation where I am able to do so. I couldn't live with myself if someone else was killed and I didn't do anything to stop it. Once that guy pulled the weapon I'd have no problem popping him. I'm sure as hell not going to try and read his body language and guess what his actions will be after he's already pulled the gun.
My boys both work at the local grocery store and sure would hope that someone would do the same for them in a similar situation.
I ain't gonna die to save FredIII or Renegade50. I might help out after he flames them, maybe.
For you fellas in the "once my family is out, it's not my problem" crowd, I just can't agree with you. Yes, first and foremost I'm getting my family to safety. After that, I'm doing what I can if it is a situation where I am able to do so. I couldn't live with myself if someone else was killed and I didn't do anything to stop it. Once that guy pulled the weapon I'd have no problem popping him. I'm sure as hell not going to try and read his body language and guess what his actions will be after he's already pulled the gun.
My boys both work at the local grocery store and sure would hope that someone would do the same for them in a similar situation.
I ain't gonna die to save FredIII or Renegade50. I might help out after he flames them, maybe.
......A friend of mine from up state New York didn't bring any handgun down here for the winter just because he had to drive through some of those liberal loving unfriendly gun states on the way.
At one time I felt about like your friend. Anymore, their law ain't worth my life if I'm just passing through with no intent of stopping over. Been through Maryland a couple times without locking the handgun into a compartment or what ever stupid requirements they have. Just make sure I had enough gas before entering and hoped that nothing happened to cause me to have to stop.
The wife had to go to Cleveland clinic back years ago before I even had a WV permit. Wasn't going to that sh ithole without. First day there, after her test she was feeling pretty good and wanted to take a little drive so we did. Beautiful warm day out so we had the windows down. Black guy drives by us and screams "Get the f u c k of the east side!" The .357 got moved from under the driver seat to under my leg. I think he meant it more as a warning than a threat but we took his advice.
As for the original video question, I'd try to be a good witness once my wife was safe and may shoot if I thought he was about to. Our local county sheriff doesn't want anyone but cops to have a gun.
I don't remember the movie or even the actor (Clint Eastwood maybe?)
"You just shot an unarmed man."
"Well, he should have armed himself."
Kind of the way I feel about the bystanders, they should have armed themselves.
The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."
I am an old guy and I agree with Blue. However I must add that anyone who has a safety on a self defense pistol ( unless all you ever use is a 1911) is foolish.
I think that's just going too far.
Now I'll agree with you that most are better off choosing a pistol with no manual safety...But...
Seriously, if you can train yourself to not put your finger on the trigger before the gun is pointing down range during your draw, you can train yourself to take a safety off. If you're incapable of being trained how to operate a safety; then you ought not to be handling a firearm.
Now, if you're unwilling to truly put in the effort to learn how to properly operate a pistol equipped with a safety; then you have no business carrying it.
But to say it's foolish to choose a weapon that's equipped with a safety; that's just taking things to an unnecessary extreme.
He couldn't get his safety off or forgot he didn't have a round in the chamber.... hmmm.
Here I have the right to defend myself and my family. Going back to engage him after retreating to a safer area could go either way.
Here, if you go back to engage, you are then deemed the "aggressor"....
If he was alone, I could see that. I wonder about the duty to retreat when its a situation where you're protecting lives other than just your own.
One could maintain that he was working as best he could to manage the situation before engaging. The threat is still present for people other than the concealed carrier. In your state (Oregon?) are you not allowed to use deadly force in defense of others, only yourself?
That's a conundrum I've never thought about...I've never lived in a state with a duty to retreat (even CA doesn't have a duty to retreat).
