Shooting Involving Open Carry Proponent

[MLeake]

markj, there is a huge difference between lawful open carry, and open carry combined with aggressive, stalker type behavior. You know that, but I guess you can't resist stirring the pot.

Edit: PK, it does look bad if the shooter hasn't contacted LE.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If Rogers had returned fire, resulting in injury or death, he could have ended up facing serious charges. Under Georgia law, it would have been very difficult for Rogers to plead self defense when he was the one instigating the confrontation.

Yes, in this particular scenario, it actually worked out well for him. However, looking at the video, I don't get the impression that a sudden, penetrating insight on Georgia self-defense law was what caused him not to shoot. I think your assessment concering firearms as magic talismans is probably on target.

I've done some goofy things in Force-on-Force training myself; but it still just amazes me to see someone who is in a gunfight and has been shot and has a gun on their hip, yet it never occurs to them to even put their hand on that gun. Also a good illustration of some of Cooper's points on mindset.

[old bear]

Mr. Rodgers forgot survival rule #1, Never start a fight you don't know you are going to win. I have no real idea of what happened that night, none of us do, as were not there when the fight happened, but from what little I do know I'm not feeling to sorry for Mr. Rodgers right now.

[Brian Pfleuger]

^^^^

I prefer "Never start a fight."

[Tom Servo]

I prefer "Never start a fight."

I was once told that the #1 rule for surviving a gunfight was not getting in a gunfight. I was also told early on that one is entitled to a gun or a temper, but not both.

it does look bad if the shooter hasn't contacted LE.

Sage piece of advice #3: always be the first one to present your side of the story to the police. While it doesn't tank the shooter's chance of pleading self-defense, it certainly doesn't help.

[markj]

and open carry combined with aggressive, stalker type behavior. You know that, but I guess you can't resist stirring the pot.

I said my piece, if you think it is stirring the pot you are wrong. Dont like my thoughts on this? That is your opinion. The guy oc shopulda left it alone.

Did the shooter shoot cause of OC or just to shoot someone? Got an answer? So far this is unanswered isnt it? We dont really know why he shot or do we?

[BGutzman]

For me OC or CC puts me in the same mode, I go the extra distance to be polite and non confrontational. If things even look like it might get heated I would rather leave than escolate.

I dont claim to be some perfect human but I will even ignore stuff that would normally result in at least some minor comment.

Its just not worth losing my right to carry for some crazyness...

[Casimer]

I'll get heat for this, but many of the people I've known to open carry do so to get some kind of reaction.

I have the suspicion that the recent evolution in the tactics of the OC 'movement' may be attracting this sort. Because they didn't seem to be as prominent until it became popular to instigate confrontations with the police and public. At least this is what's been evident in PA. When OC advocacy was about educating people in a less confrontational manner, the OC community was relatively low key. There were always a few kooks and zealots, but the OC guys were mostly just people who wanted to be able to open carry without getting hassled. The change in tactics seems to have attracted an element that's more interested in showboating.

What I find funny about these guys is that though they'll tell you that we're living in a police state with storm trooping cops waiting to kill you at the drop of a hat, they never seem prepared for what happens to them when they do provoke a confrontation.

[Wildalaska]

I was once told that the #1 rule for surviving a gunfight was not getting in a gunfight. I was also told early on that one is entitled to a gun or a temper, but not both.

Truer words have never been spoken

My "mindset" (god I hate that word) is to run, or beg for my life, or do anything I can to avoid confrontation....

WildijusthadicecreamandthusamhappyAlaska ™©2002-2011

[Hook686]

I open carry when hunting never when I go into town. I belive this would happen so it goes under cover cause there are idiots out there. Some are armed....

yup and some open carry while hunting, then conceal when in town. One never knows really who one is crossing paths with ... gotta be careful out there.

[Eghad]

There has to be alcohol involved in this for such behavior. As my old Platoon Sgt used to say you go out get drunk smell your breathe and you think its ape crap and you start acting liking Tarzan. Then the trouble begins.

[Tom Servo]

The change in tactics seems to have attracted an element that's more interested in showboating.

For awhile, open carry wasn't even called "open carry." Some folks just didn't take pains to cover up their guns in some circumstances. It was never a big deal either way. If you jump back a few years on the forums, you'll see scant mention of the practice.

About three years ago, I noticed the twentysomethings throwing around phrases like "in your face." That's when a lot of local businesses starting banning guns from their premises. It's also when I started hearing a great deal of grumbling from law enforcement, who were finding themselves being baited by the open carry crowd.

I've spoken with two of those guys who've suffered self-inflicted negligent gunshot wounds this year alone. For many of these guys, it's not a weapon; it's an adornment for freaking out the squares.

I'm trying really hard not to hate open carry, but stuff like this makes it very difficult.

[MLeake]

Comparing this incident to the Fiorino case in Philadelphia, which some seem to be doing, is ridiculous.

[Mr. James]

Thank you, MLeake, well said.

For me OC or CC puts me in the same mode, I go the extra distance to be polite and non confrontational. If things even look like it might get heated I would rather leave than escalate.

Amen, brother. The last thing an OC or CC should want is any kind of confrontation. Hell, I'm with Wild - I'll turn and run and scream like a twelve-year-old girl at a Justin Bieber concert if it'll avoid me having to return fire. I'm willing to take that grief if that's the way it plays, but I'll do everything in my meager powers to avoid it.

This guy's behavior is simply incomprehensible to me. If he lets someone merge in front of him in traffic and doesn't get a thank-you wave, does he follow the guy home and demand an apology? Sheesh. Dude, leave the firearm at home until you get your head right.

[Casimer]

This guy's behavior is simply incomprehensible to me.

I have to wonder whether the fact that he was OC'ing is what gave him the 'courage' to press the matter.

Honestly if I were to have come out of that store to find some scruffy guy with a pistol waiting for me, who wants me to thank him, and then follows me to my car with his hands at the ready - I'd probably have assumed that he intended to attack me. I hope that I'd have kept my cool and not shot him. But consider that the shooter was otherwise faced with an approaching threat as he gets into the car and tries to pull away. There was a woman in the car, so her safety is a factor as well. It's not reasonable to expect that someone is going to recognize that this guy is just some idiot poser. His behavior was like a textbook prelude to an attack.

[thump_rrr]

I'm glad to see that most people here are logical and rational and see this the same way it appears to me.

[secret_agent_man]

The fact that the shooter ran and is hiding is proof enough...this wasn't a defensive shooting. Defenders call for help. Criminals hide from the police.

It doesn't necessarily follow that running away indicates guilt. The guy might have had paper on him, been a formerly convicted felon, etc and didn't want to get caught with a gun. But that does not change the fact he shot in self defense, assuming he did.

[Ringolevio]

The very last phase of getting my current CHL was an "interview" with a sheriff's deputy. I got the distinct feeling that it was an informal psychological screening, and that had I exhibited any instability, bad temper, hotdog/vigilante tendencies, or any other indication that I had the wrong motivation for wanting to carry, my application would have been denied.

Similarly, I'll bet that there are those who, while in the CC class, reveal themselves to be psychologically unfit for the heavy responsibility of being armed.

But where OC is permitted by law, there is no such screening process. So there's no way to filter out guys who want to carry because they still have something to prove, or worse.

[Double Naught Spy]

After seeing the video, I have to think that the shootee is an idiot. Demanding compensation (thanks) for a volunteered job not requested is moronic. I have to wonder if he would have done the same thing had he not had the gun on his hip.

3. Once the open carry guy has been shot, he is in a gunfight where someone is using lethal force against him, yet he never attempts to draw his gun and is slow to realize he has been shot and seek cover

I believe the shootee was in a "shooting" and not in a "gunfight" given that a gunfight involves participants on both sides shooting.

People who are inclined to create conflict should not be armed. Period.

Interesting perspective on a pro gun forum where folks often consider carrying a gun to be a natural right, God-given right, and/or Constitutional right.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Interesting perspective on a pro gun forum where folks often consider carrying a gun to be a natural right, God-given right, and/or Constitutional right.

All rights have limits. There are a lot of people who shouldn't carry guns. This guy just found out why. I know a guy who seems civil enough until you disagree with him. He can't have a conversation with anyone on a subject on which they disagree without blowing his top, no matter how polite and calm the other person remains or how insignificant the issue. He has come to blows with folks several times in his life over PERCEIVED slights... "DID YOU JUST ROLL YOUR EYES AT ME?!"

He should NOT carry a gun. Neither should the dude in the video. That situation was one totally of his own creation. People who tend to create violence should not have tools of violence.

[Deja vu]

How do you pick a good guy here? One guy creates an unnecessary confrontation over a perceived snub while open carrying, and the other guy shoots with no overt threat. I have little use for either type of belligerence. Sounds like bully vs bully.

I agree if you are armed you should do every thing you can to avoid a conflict... not start one.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Ringolevio

But where OC is permitted by law, there is no such screening process. So there's no way to filter out guys who want to carry because they still have something to prove, or worse.

The problem with such a screening process is that it has historically been abused. Instead of being used to screen out people who shouldn't have a gun, it has been used to generate campaign funds (only those who donate cash to the official in charge of approval turn out to be psychologically stable enough) and deny people who did have a genuine need; but couldn't navigate the byzantine network of laws.

This is one of the major reasons shall-issue concealed carry has been so popular. All of the criteria are objective. If you meet them, you get the license.

Personally, I am of the opinion that as long as there are consequences for bad behavior, lack of regulation is easily the lesser evil of the two.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

He should NOT carry a gun. Neither should the dude in the video. That situation was one totally of his own creation. People who tend to create violence should not have tools of violence.

I think that is probably a fair assessment of Jimmy Rodgers. At the same time, I think an occasional Jimmy Rodgers is a smaller overall problem than the previous practice of eliminating the right to self-defense through burdensome regulation. I am also not in favor of solutions that seek to preemptively limit rights based on what you might do instead of what you have actually done.

Personally, I think concealed carry demands a higher level of self-discipline and awareness than unarmed carry. I think that open carry demands an even higher level of discipline and awareness than concealed carry. But if the prospect of imminent death or serious injury isn't enough to get people to take that seriously, I don't think additional regulation will solve the problem.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

I think that is probably a fair assessment of Jimmy Rodgers. At the same time, I think an occasional Jimmy Rodgers is a smaller overall problem than the previous practice of eliminating the right to self-defense through burdensome regulation. I am also not in favor of solutions that seek to preemptively limit rights based on what you might do instead of what you have actually done.

Absent a criminal record, there's nothing saying he CAN'T carry a gun, he just SHOULDN'T carry a gun. It's a bit of a Catch-22, in that a little personal insight would tell someone that their temper should preclude their carrying a gun, yet the same general mindset that leads to the anger management issues will generally also preclude any real personal insight.

It's the same thing in many areas of life.... the people who are most dangerous to themselves on a motorcycle are the same people who lack the insight to realize that they are dangerous to themselves, so they ride anyway.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Interesting perspective on a pro gun forum where folks often consider carrying a gun to be a natural right, God-given right, and/or Constitutional right.

But I think that most of us here recognize that the excercise of that right also carries some responsibilities. I have a right to arm myself, in order to defend against an attack. If I choose to exercise that right, I have a responsibility to take (at least) reasonable measures to avoid exposing the innocent or unwary to the very real risks associated with firearms.

What I find interesting is that there is a solid consensus that the OCer was out of line in the course of action he took. The whole deal could have been avoided if Jimmy Rodgers had simply climbed into his car and gone about his business.

Someone commented on road rage a few posts back. When I first read the OP and watched the video, I was also reminded of road rage incidents where someone was cut off, slighted, what have you. One of my pet peeves is when I let someone in front of me in traffic, but don't get so much as a wave. Would I follow them home to tell them they should have waved? Absolutely not.

[BlueTrain]

I agree completely. Think about how voting used to be restricted in the past and sometimes still is. Efforts were made, legally or otherwise, to keep certain people from voting. Same with guns and I suspect those kinds of things started after the Civil War in some states.

It is something of a dilemma. How do you keep people from carrying (or even having) a gun (or voting) who you think are irresponsible, rash, prone to violence, etc., etc., without restricting other people's rights? I don't know and it can be a slippery slope. It isn't a new problem either. Gaylord mentioned it in his book fifty years ago. We sort of go through the same thing with driving with not much to show for it. By the time a teenager is old enough to get their license, they have been sitting beside one of their parents picking up their habits and attitudes for 15 years already. Driver's Ed is hopeless at that point.

Sometimes it is mentioned how difficult it is to get a permit to own a firearm in, say, Germany. Well, it is and moreover, it is very difficult to get a driver's license there, too. But you can start drinking earlier.