The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 12, 2009, 05:04 PM   #101
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,982
This bears repeating: If you're thinking of posting "screw the law, do it anyway" posts, don't bother, because you probably won't be around TFL long enough to read any replies.

Just a word to the wise from your friendly forum moderator.

I'm tempted to close the thread at this point, because really, what remains to be said that hasn't been said already? But we'll leave it open a bit longer. Please re-read hogdogs' excellent post #100 -- and carefully consider what it means -- before you post.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 06:00 PM   #102
RAHatto
Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2005
Location: Liberty, SC
Posts: 84
I stopped an armed robbery...sort of

When I was 17 yrs 185 lbs a friend and I were working at a pizza joint and we saw some numb nuts "hiding" behind a paper box until all the customers walked out of the gas station.
He walked in with the gun out and pointed. We had the store call 911 and hid by the door behind a car till he ran out with a small bag of cash.
We chased him quietly behind the store and group tackled him when he stopped to take of the mask and store his gun in his belt. He didn't see us coming and did not even know who we were until my boy took off his belt and hog tied him (he was 5'10 and 250lbs). The store owner came out the back door with the phone and stood on the BG's gun till the cops came. He was a 14 yr old little brother of a friend of ours.
If that happened now I would call the cops and stay the hell in the pizza place, or at most I would go out our back door and hide in a spot around the building to get another/better description and direction of travel.
A CCW wont make me a crime fighter, and age has burned the worlds cruel truth that I will probably never get another dumb luck day again.
If someone comes into a store I'm in and shows intent, capability and opportunity I will put them down the first chance I have the tactical high ground but until then it will stay in the holster.
__________________
Rick
If you are Always looking at the big picture, you are Never concentrating on your front sight post.
RAHatto is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 06:57 PM   #103
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,021
OOPS

I've been referring to Utah.

This happened in Idaho.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 07:21 PM   #104
flyguyskt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2009
Posts: 116
just for clarification AGAIN...im not saying he was right in brandishing a firearm...i would not have chosen this method...Personally i would have apprehended him using other means and probably would be facing assault charges instead! cuzz hey thats what america is about right guilty until PROVEN innocent, or wait i mean ahhh ya!

not saying it was legal what he did...
What i AM saying is that its sad that you are all blaming the guy who was TRYING to do the right thing and no one here has spoken up and said good for that slimy dirtbag for stealing a bag from a defenseless homeless person!

OUR United States of America once was founded and based upon doing THE RIGHT THING...not anymore because of turn the other cheakers and tree huggers who would soil themselves at first sight of a "bad situation".

MLEAKE: again i appreciate your contribution to this fine yet confused country but how can you say trying to do the right thing should be punishable by laws? how many bombs have you dropped on bad people for breaking OUR laws in their own countries? ALL in the name of what is MORALLY right...not legally right.

AGAIN: never would i suggest breaking gun laws because THAT my friends is what has gotten us where we are today. but do what you feel is right in your HEART and you should not be punished when your life comes to an end. Im not religious but somehow we will all answer somewhere.

LOVE you all and hope none of us ever have to be in a situation where WE feel the need to unconceal our weapon.
flyguyskt is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 07:58 PM   #105
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
What I am saying...

... is not that people should just watch bad things happen.

However, in many if not most cases the best thing to do is call 911. Unless imminent harm to an innocent will occur if immediate action isn't taken, there is no pressing need for physical engagement in an event where we may not know all pertinent facts.

How do I know the homeless guy isn't yelling that some guy took his bag because he's mad the guy wouldn't give him some change?

How do I know the guy who's shoving the woman didn't just get attacked by her? (Note: buddy of mine was a bouncer in Daytona; he ko'ed a woman once, because she came at him with a folding knife. It would have been easy for bystanders to fail to notice her attack with that knife; imagine if Samaritan #1 had seen THIS from the wrong angle...)

Now, if I see a guy knock a little old lady off her walker and take her purse, then I'm probably chasing him down unless she's obviously injured and in need of immediate attention. Then again, depending on her age and health, it might be wiser to assume she's hurt, and stay with her until help arrives.

As far as your bomb-dropping analogy goes, that dropped bomb had BETTER be legally right, or the pilot is screwed. That's why we have laws of war, and rules of engagement - both to help us determine what targets are lawful, and to defend our actions after the fact if necessary. Intentionally attack a protected target, without legal justification, and now you're talking war crimes.

Note: If combatants are storing munitions at a hospital or mosque, or actively engaging friendlies from same, that "protected target" may well be declared a legal target. Status changes with changing conditions, not unlike in regular life.

BTW, three subjects I have had a LOT of training in are Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC), CJCS Standing (and theater-specific) Rules of Engagement (ROE), and target identification.

Note: in addition to flying planes, I was also a Ship's Weapons Coordinator and a Tactical Action Officer (the Navy makes pilots do disassociated tours as ship's company, to round us out or make us appreciate the surface navy.) From that perspective, there would be few feelings worse than realizing the aircraft one had thought to be an enemy fighter inbound for an anti-ship cruise missile attack, and had ordered shot down by SAM's, was actually an airliner. Target identification is crucial; see "Vincennes."

To put it into EOD perspective: Would you find it prudent to go straight at a device without first setting a perimeter, looking for a second device, identifying persons in area and watching for a possible remote detonation setup? Would you use a rifle to blow a small device without first making sure there weren't larger, secondary devices likely to be tripped by the induced detonation? I'm guessing your answer would be no, you'd want to know the situation first...

To go back to street scenarios:

I would put it to you that I would feel more endangered by a guy who draws a weapon without full possession of facts than by a purse (or duffel) snatcher. I might (and probably would) find the snatcher to be slimier, but the guy with the gun is by far the more dangerous.

Samaritan #1 got very lucky. He didn't have to shoot a petty thief, so he's not facing truly serious charges. He also didn't get shot by Samaritan #2, which was also very lucky - for both Samaritans. Potential worst cases here were really, really bad.

If Samaritan #1 had not drawn a gun, worst case would have been that a dude would have run away with a stolen duffel.

These are not remotely comparable. Drawing his weapon without need and without a full picture was not the right thing to do, it was reckless. It also happened to be illegal.
MLeake is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 08:18 PM   #106
flyguyskt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2009
Posts: 116
just for the record i support our troops...ive been one

my question about the bombs and war were from the position that: do you think the IRAQI government thought it was LEGAL for us to bomb them?

we as a USA people are biased to the belief that WE ARE MORALLY correct and justified in helping those who cant help themselves...you are dropping bombs for what reason? because people of Iraq could not fight back against tyrannical leadership. period? so why not just go and call the police(NATO) and then supply them with a description of the bad guys?

WHY NOT> because WE are a NATION of strong people with....wait for it....wait for it....MORALS and we help those whom can't help themselves.

I already said he went to far but you fail to understand he was doing a MORALLY correct thing.
flyguyskt is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 08:29 PM   #107
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
It is not morally correct...

... to pull a firearm over petty theft. So no, he wasn't morally correct. Nor was he legally correct.

A father who uses corporal punishment (IE a spanking) to correct unacceptable behavior by a child may be morally correct. If his paddle of choice is an axe handle, he isn't morally correct and he's legally in serious trouble.

With regard to Iraq, a UN resolution authorized the use of force. So did an act of Congress. Current operations are done with the approval of the present Iraqi government.

Legality isn't a problem. Morality depends on your perspective. Whether it will all turn out to have been worthwhile is something to be determined down the road.
MLeake is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 11:38 PM   #108
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Flyguy,

You claimed that the USA was founded on doing the right thing™. This isn't true, it was founded on the idea of the rule of law -- that laws are supposed to apply equally to all and not exempt the rich, the well-connected and the "King's family". Doing the right thing (whatever that may be) was and is based on morality and ethical conduct.

In this case, the "right thing" to do would have been to stop and apprehend a petty thief from getting away with another person's property.¹ But using a firearm in a "threatening manner" risks turning the situation into a homicide. The constitution says no cruel or unusual punishments for crimes - so if CCW #1 had actually used his gun the courts would have deemed it excessive force and unlawful homicide.²

Of course, if CCW #1 had given chase and then been confronted with the thief pulling out a knife, then the situation changes somewhat.³

You ask "what harm was done" by CCW #1's actions. In this case, fortunately, no harm was done. But he displayed a woeful lack of good judgement and also ignorance of the laws under which he should be operating. THIS incident resulted in no harm, but what about the next time? Giving him an "attaboy" medal just reinforces the bad behavior. If the next incident involves a less compliant thief, what then? The gun goes off in a struggle and someone gets hurt needlessly (a bystander perhaps). That's the essential HARM -- CCW#1 failed to adhere to the law regarding apprehending petty criminals.

The law would be equally harsh if a couple of citizens wielding baseball bats confronted him and "prodded" him with the bats (a.k.a. deadly weapons). And while we all might like to "slap the snot out of" a common thief, beating him when he stops resisting is illegal.

Mind you, I'm just as disgusted with laws that prevent citizens from being able to defend themselves. I'm also disgusted with lawyers who argue that his client received "excessive force" because he was bruised up trying to resist apprehension. Then there are court and legal rules that prevent juries from hearing all the evidence or deciding on anything but what the law says, instead of judging whether the law was appropriately applied.

But I still think CCW #1 was wrong and should face some kind of punishment. And I've previously indicated one possible solution. Others suggest harsher penalties. In any event, the man has no one to blame but himself.

¹ Apprehending by physically grabbing a fleeing thief is typically legal. Most state laws permit using only that force which is necessary to restrain him if he resists.
² And rightfully so. The state is not allowed to use capital punishment for misdemeanors, even after exhaustive legal reviews and arguments. Nor should anyone be executed for a minor crime. That makes the presence of the firearm wholly inappropriate.
³ And only somewhat. Unlike a LEO, a citizen has no legal duty to catch the thief. If said thief turns with a knife while still backing away or saying "don't come after me", the citizen can end his pursuit. Only if the thief tries to attack could the citizen resort to deadly force.
Don't even get me started on the apparent average IQ of a lot of juries.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 11:39 PM   #109
eclipsetactical
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Location: Fox Hole, KY
Posts: 125
Vanya....About KY Law...Sorry Took So Long For ME to Get To You

Here are my exact sources. The Gill case pertains to the stopping a felony part only there is a completely different KY criminal code that allows you to shoot and kill a fleeing felon in the state of KY.

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)


Sources Stated.....Not much arguing you can do with that. Gotta understand we are a Commonwealth and alot of things are different here with law than in non-commonwealth states.
eclipsetactical is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 11:58 PM   #110
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,982
Quote:
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)
Kentucky citizens -- along with all other US citizens -- are legally bound to follow the rules set forth in TN v. Garner (1985), a much stricter standard than the state law. Garner does allow the use of deadly force against fleeing felons in some very narrow circumstances.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 06:54 AM   #111
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)
Shows up here and there complete with "indeed." The cited references do not lead anywhere today.

Here are the relevant sections of current Kentucky statutes:

Quote:
431.005 Arrest by peace officers -- By private persons.

(6) A private person may make an arrest when a felony has been committed in fact and he has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed it.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/krs/431-00/005.PDF
Quote:
503.090 Use of physical force in law enforcement.

The use of physical force, including deadly physical force, by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant is preventing the escape of an arrested person and when the force could justifiably have been used to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard or other person authorized to act as a peace officer is justified in using any force, including deadly force, which he believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of a person from jail, prison, or other institution for the detention of persons charged with or convicted of a crime.

The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when: (a) The defendant, in effecting the arrest, is authorized to act as a peace officer; and (b) The arrest is for a felony involving the use or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or serious physical injury; and (c) The defendant believes that the person to be arrested is likely to endanger human life unless apprehended without delay.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/503-00/090.PDF
No apparent justification for a civilian using deadly force, but I do no know what constitutes being "authorized to act as a peace officer."

This appears cosistent with Garner (lay opinion), which was argued more than five decades after Gill v. Commonwealth.

Last edited by OldMarksman; August 13, 2009 at 07:00 AM.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 08:17 AM   #112
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
All of this consternation seems to come from those who are now armed as they go about their daily lives when they hadn't been previously, most of the time simply because it's now legal for them to do so, and being gun enthusiasts they seize the opportunity.

But adding a firearm into how one relates to the events and circumstances around them on the mundane daily routine of their lives complicates the issues and adds risks both legal and physical, because carrying a gun has a lot more gravity than many realize at first. If this thread has any value it's probably in revealing just how vague and situational the rules are, and just how uncertain and unpredictable the effects of inserting a gun into situations otherwise avoided would be- the possibility of serious criminal charges and the potential to really harm someone are amplified 100 times with the presence of a gun that's brought forth; the gamble made 100 more times more expensive if the possession of a gun acted as an incentive to get involved in the first place, and none of those effects are predictable. Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot.

I don't think it's prudent for average civilians to CC unless there's a specific threat or probable specific threat they're going to encounter; otherwise a CCW permit shouldn't change how one goes about their daily routines or how they would act in an unforeseen situation.
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 09:40 AM   #113
Erik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
This particular incident illustrated two points as I see it:

1. To intervene or not

2. How to intervene

---

I'm pro intervention, most of the time. In all times were intervention occurs, it should be done in a reasonable and prudent manner. In this instance, there's plenty of unreasonable and imprudent behavior to go around.

---

Never, ever pass yourself off as the police when you are not. It can, will and should trigger legal troubles in many locals; even in conservative Idaho, as it turns out.
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective
Erik is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 10:03 AM   #114
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot.
Not too good an analogy, because you have some control over the situation--unlike rolling the dice. The key is to know what you are doing, something that the birds in this story did not.

And if you need one and do not have it, you have rolled snake eyes.

Quote:
I don't think it's prudent for average civilians to CC unless there's a specific threat or probable specific threat they're going to encounter;
Cannot agree. If there's a "specific threat or probable specific threat" that one is "going to encounter" (and I cannot fathom just how one might know that), the proper strategy is avoidance. Otherwise one is looking for trouble. Not wise at all.

I live adjacent to a city that has the second highest murder rate in the country; police are dispatched to crime scenes are prioritized, with calls regarding gunshots sometimes being answered four hours after the fact. Parole officers calling 911 are put on hold, and not infrequently.

We are surrounded on two sides by meth country. Meth addicts and producers are bad people--I'd trade them for radical jihadists.

And the two most heavily trafficked drug arteries in these United States converge here.

I think that not carrying is imprudent.

The likelihood that I will ever have to produce a weapon is remote, and the likelihood that I would ever have to fire it is less than remote. But the potential consequences of needing one and not having it are extremely severe.

Quote:
... otherwise a CCW permit shouldn't change how one goes about their daily routines or how they would act in an unforeseen situation.
Agree, if you drop the word "otherwise."

The best way to survive a violent encounter is nonattendance. Some time ago, a licensed carrier was asked by another, a retired LEO, whether he carried all the time; the answer was "yes". The other follow said he only carried when he was going somewhere where he though he might need the gun. The retired LEO said he never goes anywhere he thinks he might need it.

And frankly, there is nowhere that one can be assured of being safe. The perps have wheels, and will go where the money and the victims are.

Last edited by OldMarksman; August 13, 2009 at 10:40 AM. Reason: typo
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 10:25 AM   #115
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by eclipsetactical
Here are my exact sources. The Gill case pertains to the stopping a felony part only there is a completely different KY criminal code that allows you to shoot and kill a fleeing felon in the state of KY.

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Sources Stated.....Not much arguing you can do with that.
Sigh. The technical term for the passage above is "an unreferenced quotation," not a "source."

The passage above is all over the internet, quoted (mostly) by others who want to interpret it as you do. None of them cite the source, either.

Doing your homework for you... It's from a very short 1994 article, "Citizens' Arrest," by David C. Grossack.

So... how valid is an opinion from a 15-year-old article, based on a nearly 80-year-old court case, which, as Pax and Oldmarksman point out (and as I did in my post above), is well and truly superseded by Tenn. v. Garner (1985).

Umm... not very valid, IMO.

And as I wrote in my earlier post, Gill v. Commonwealth speaks more to the issue of aiding and abetting than to that of citizens' arrest: in this case, "taking affirmative steps" to prevent a felony comes under the heading of not "aiding and abetting," which would make one an accessory, rather than imposing some sort of obligation to intervene directly -- the point being that if you have knowledge of an impending crime, you're obliged to report it. Not reporting it makes you an accessory before the fact.

Quote:
Gotta understand we are a Commonwealth and alot of things are different here with law than in non-commonwealth states.
Would you care to elaborate?

__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

Last edited by Vanya; August 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM. Reason: punctuation
Vanya is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 10:55 AM   #116
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Quote:
Gotta understand we are a Commonwealth and alot of things are different here with law than in non-commonwealth states.
Would you care to elaborate?
Here's something on it:

Quote:
In 1785, district residents of Kentucky County began petitioning the Virginia legislature for statehood. They wished the County to be recognized as a "free and independent state, to be known by the name of the 'Commonwealth' of Kentucky." On June 4th, 1792, Kentucky County, Virginia became officially the "Commonwealth of Kentucky."

When Kentucky joined the Union, the terms "commonwealth" and "state" were recognized by the U.S. government as being synonymous. There are four states in the United States that are titled commonwealths: Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The designation is an elected title deemed by the states' legislatures. To be a commonwealth rather than a state grants no differences legally or economically.
http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/kycommonwealth.htm

Back to the point: one more time, everyone who carries a gun in Kentucky, and everyone who anticipates doing so, should read and study The Tactical Kentucky Concealed Carry Manual by Nick C. Thompson, as his or her bible, chapter and verse.

The question of shooting fleeing felons is addressed in it.

Here's the link again:


http://www.kentucky-concealed.com:/I...20Homicide.pdf
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 10:57 AM   #117
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,000
Thanks, OldMarksman.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 03:15 PM   #118
M1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 2000
Posts: 4,055
Quote:
What i AM saying is that its sad that you are all blaming the guy who was TRYING to do the right thing and no one here has spoken up and said good for that slimy dirtbag for stealing a bag from a defenseless homeless person!
The problem is that in most such situations you simply don't know what the right thing is, as has been shown in this situation. And your good intentions won't necessarily keep you out of prison if you mistakenly violate the law.

Suppose you are parking your car in the strip mall when the door to one of the shop bangs open. Out runs a man, running as hard as he can. A couple seconds later, another man comes running out after the first, with a gun in his hand.

What have you just seen? Two robbers leaving the store? A robber being chased by the store owner? A jealous husband chasing his wife's boyfriend? An undercover officer chasing a wanted felon? You simply don't know. And if you don't know what is going on, you don't know what the right thing to do is.

Whether or not you feel our laws are just, the reality is that you place yourself in serious legal jeopardy by intervening.

You also place yourself in serious physical jeopardy as well. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you will prevail. Just because you are the good guy doesn't mean you will prevail. Just because you are the good guy doesn't mean that the responding officer won't think you are the assailant and fire on you before you realize he is screaming at you to put down your gun.

I'm not saying that you should never intervene. But you darn sure better understand the true risks going in. Lots of folks on the net seem to bang their chest and think they are John Wayne.

There is no way in heck I'm going to draw a gun to prevent some punk from stealing a homeless guy's duffel bag. That is both illegal and unwise.
M1911 is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 03:45 PM   #119
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,021
Post #118

Very well put!
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 03:58 PM   #120
m&p45acp10+1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,310
Do you realy know the situation?

I posted about how I intervened in subduing a mugger.
I also have a memory from my teens that makes me think twice about getting involved if I do not fully know what has happened.
When I was 12 I was with my cousin and my uncle at a Taco Bell going through the drive thru. We saw 2 men slam a woman onto the hood of a car and it appeared that they were tring to force her into the car. She was screaming, kicking, and fighting. She was screaming for help. My uncle grabbed the shotgun from the rack in the truck and stepped out and chambered a round and yelled at the guys to let her go. Next thing we knew there were cops everywhere. We had a lot of guns trained on us.
Turns out the two guys were undercover cops making a drug buy. They were arresting the woman for selling meth, and the other cops were closing in. My aunt picked up me and my cousin from the jail. They booked my uncle on a charge of asauting a police officer. The charge was later dropped in court. It cost him a lot of money for bail, and an attorney.
Sometimes things are not what they appear to be. Make sure you know what is going on. It can save you a lot of grief, money, and possibly your life.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.
m&p45acp10+1 is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 07:23 PM   #121
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
OldMarksman:

I wrote: "Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot."

You wrote: "Not too good an analogy, because you have some control over the situation--unlike rolling the dice. The key is to know what you are doing, something that the birds in this story did not."

Almost all of the discourse in this thread is an argument about what civil or criminal laws might jump up and bite the butt of someone who inserts himself and his gun into a situation, and there's no consensus- the laws are different everywhere and interpreted differently in the same jurisdiction. Unless you can get a DA to stand there while you plan your moves and okay them, you're depending on him or her to see it as you do after it's done which is a gamble regardless of how clearly you think you understand the law and if you don't see that it is, you're naive. Pulling your gun is a gamble that you'll get away with it, and if you lose, you lose big, and if you hurt someone and it's made to look like you were wrong (and there will be people who will pursue that outcome because they hate it that "civilians" can carry), then buhbye, I hope there's an early release where you're going. In short, it's a perfect analogy.

OldMarksman: "I live adjacent to a city that has the second highest murder rate in the country; police are dispatched to crime scenes are prioritized, with calls regarding gunshots sometimes being answered four hours after the fact. Parole officers calling 911 are put on hold, and not infrequently.

We are surrounded on two sides by meth country. Meth addicts and producers are bad people--I'd trade them for radical jihadists.

And the two most heavily trafficked drug arteries in these United States converge here."


... then you wrote this:

"The best way to survive a violent encounter is nonattendance"

How does living where you do fit with "non-attendance"? And if "... there is nowhere that one can be assured of being safe", then how is it you go anywhere, if avoidance is your scheme?

If you think that "... never goes anywhere he thinks he might need it" is a workable rule and follow it, then why is it you carry a gun at all, since you'll never go anywhere you'll need one?

Tell ya what- you carry your gun when and wherever you want, following whatever rationalizations you have pro or con; and I'll do the same. That could be said to everyone who has posted here. Some of us won't get into a situation like the OP described, and some of us will. Some of us will enter a situation with guns blazing and come out heros, some of us will enter with guns blazing and come out indicted. Some of us won't get involved with anything other than a direct attack on themselves, or on those they love while they're standing next to them, others will intrude on any situation because they are convinced they can make it come out in favor their sense of what are truth, justice and the American way. Some of us will feel enabled, entitled, enfranchised to act like cops, and some of us don't think a gun in their pocket is the same as a badge in their pocket with agreement on that point being prevalent in the DA's office. My point is that before anyone resorts to ccw, they ought to, for their own good, objectively consider what the potential outcomes might be. That's all. If one of the Rambos out there puts a hole in anything precious to me, I'll do everything I am able to do to get them incarcerated, no matter how hard they plead that "they were only trying to help".
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 07:37 PM   #122
Holman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 282
MYOB (Mind Your Own Business) call 911 let the Police handle it.
__________________
"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

Holman
Holman is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 08:07 PM   #123
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
If you think that "... never goes anywhere he thinks he might need it" is a workable rule and follow it, then why is it you carry a gun at all, since you'll never go anywhere you'll need one?
I prefer to phrase it as "Never go anywhere WITH a gun that you would not be willing to go WITHOUT a gun".

A gun is for freak, random, unpredictable, unavoidable, inescapable events. It is not a safety blanket to allow me passage through otherwise impassible places.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 08:49 PM   #124
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Pulling your gun is a gamble that you'll get away with it, and if you lose, you lose big, and if you hurt someone and it's made to look like you were wrong (and there will be people who will pursue that outcome because they hate it that "civilians" can carry), then buhbye, I hope there's an early release where you're going. In short, it's a perfect analogy.
That's focusing on whether the production of the weapon is justifiable. I think it's highly likely that if I pull a gun, the act will be lawful. So a better way to put it is probably "pulling a gun is an immediately necessary act to counter imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm." Or if you prefer, if I do not pull the gun, I'll lose big.

I have a friend who is a former policeman. His attitude is that his gun will come out only if and when he is "about to die." That expresses my attitude fairly closely.

Quote:
Some of us won't get involved with anything other than a direct attack on themselves, or on those they love while they're standing next to them, others will intrude on any situation because they are convinced they can make it come out in favor their sense of what are truth, justice and the American way.
I stand with the former.

Quote:
Some of us will feel enabled, entitled, enfranchised to act like cops, and some of us don't think a gun in their pocket is the same as a badge in their pocket with agreement on that point being prevalent in the DA's office.
I stand with the latter.

And I choose to not go somewhere with a gun if I would not go there without one.

But I carry one, and not only if "there's a specific threat or probable specific threat [that I am]... going to encounter."

Prudent, I think. Yes, there are risks involved in carrying one. I think they are outweighed by the risks that would be involved in not having one available.

It's a simple matter of managing risk. The first step is to identify the risks. The second is to analyze them-- assess the likelihood and potential consequences. The third is to evaluate alternative methods of handling the risks (accept them, mitigate them by various means). The last is to decide among the risk management alternatives.

For me, the decision is not to not carry. However, carrying will not change the way I act.

If there's a place I would not go otherwise, I won't go there. If there's "a specific threat or probable specific threat" that I might encounter I'll avoid it. And if I come upon an incident of violence involving someone else I'll use the telephone and nothing else, except under the most extenuating circumstances.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 14, 2009, 08:48 AM   #125
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
What worries me are those CCW-licensed folks who have taken their CC permit as a license to expand their role to include the functions of an armed police officer on behalf of others. The first post in this thread, for example. It's a blessing no shots were fired; were there to have been, and that's going to happen sometime, it could be immeasurably worse- if someone, directly involved or a bystander, gets hurt or killed wrongly by a CC licensed but inept and uninformed civilian "trying to help" it will be a huge tragedy on a number of levels, including the non-gun folks' attitudes about legal CC.

We don't need any more bad publicity, especially if it comes from "law-abiding gun owners", which now includes those licensed for CC. That phrase has always been the dividing line between us and the BG's; too many illegal incidents from our side of that line weakens that divide in the public's perception of us.
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?

Last edited by Uncle Billy; August 14, 2009 at 08:55 AM. Reason: Didn't sound right.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17164 seconds with 7 queries