Idiotic News Story - what would you do?


PDA






Jslap
November 1, 2008, 10:50 AM
<Previously posted in Legal section; moved over here...>

Here, our liberal local news, KSLA does an idiotic story on a guy who beats up on a girl - and asks, what would you do?

The KSLA office staff goes to a local park, with a huge 300 lb man choking on a woman who is screaming her head off. As cameras roll, they show folks not lifting a hand to help.

I wrote them, informing them that the man is fortunate to be alive, because he would be swiftly staring down the barrel of my Glock if I were present.

I believe these kinds of news stories are asinine to say the least. They put law abiding concealed weapons holders like myself in a situation to draw down on someone. I never intend to draw down on someone unless I plan to shoot, so that actor's life would have been dependent on how quick he dropped to the ground after pulling down on him.

Again - IDIOTIC!

Link to news story: http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?s=9273757 (http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?s=9273757)

If you enjoyed reading about "Idiotic News Story - what would you do?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
General Geoff
November 1, 2008, 11:10 AM
At the point where the attacking actor had a belt around her neck, a passerby would probably have been justified in shooting the guy. Very, very stupid stunt to pull.


FWIW I would have drawn on the guy strangling the woman, loudly and clearly demanded for him to stop, and if he continued, probably would have shot the guy.

Treo
November 1, 2008, 12:13 PM
I wrote them, informing them that the man is fortunate to be alive, because he would be swiftly staring down the barrel of my Glock if I were present.

That's exactly the type of vigilante w/ a gun response we don'tneed to be sending to the antis. I'm not saying it's not appropriate to intervene, but the chest thumping does nothing but reinforce to the antis that we're all a bunch of internet tough guys just waiting for an excuse to unload on somebody.

I want to be clear here, I don't think the idea of armed intervention is wrong but the response to the news crew could be discounted as posturing.

Just Jim
November 1, 2008, 12:49 PM
So Treo, would you let him kill her then??

jj

Byron Quick
November 1, 2008, 01:00 PM
jj,

Seems that he answered your question in his post to begin with.

Just Jim
November 1, 2008, 01:03 PM
I was asking Treo what he would do, nothing personal. Just want to hear what he thinks the right action is should someone comes across such an event.

jj

ants
November 1, 2008, 01:06 PM
jj

Treo told you in his post.

Treo wrote:
I don't think the idea of armed intervention is wrong...

As I read Treo's post, it would be reasonable that Treo would use best judgement on a case-by-case basis, and the circumstances as presented in the video enactment would validate armed intervention.

Just Jim
November 1, 2008, 01:11 PM
The case was the one that the original poster posted. I just want to know exactly what Treo would do in the case posted?? This isn't a personal attack, just an inqiury as to what Treo would have done in this situation.

Generalized comments like "case by case" are excluded when you have a situation that has allready happened. I just want to know what he would have done with the cameras rolling.???

jim

nc76
November 1, 2008, 01:17 PM
The reasonable thing to do would be observe and make sure he was not choking her b/c she was trying to shoot or stab him first. The second thing would be approach with caution and request him to cease is actions. Third thing would be to draw on him and tell him to step back. Then you would have to do what your gut told you to do.

Of course all this would probably happen instantaneously as you try to deduce the situtation

Matt-J2
November 1, 2008, 01:18 PM
The question is somewhat irrelevant, since Treo wasn't discussing the situation, rather he was discussing the response to the news story.
A more relevant question would be: 'How would you have responded to this story?'

Myself, were I inclined to write a letter to the news agency, is that the well being of the actor could have been placed seriously at risk. While nobody actually responded, someone could have responded violently to the 'attacker', and only asked questions after the actress was deemed to no longer be in any danger. Responses could have ranged from simple physical assault to assault with any manner of weapon. I would consider them to be irresponsible in the handling of employees in pursuit of a story.

Just Jim
November 1, 2008, 01:24 PM
My own point of view is that just like first aide people shouldn't be held accountable for trying to help.

If the media is filming this event and they do nothing to help then they are criminal to say the least.
How could the media make us look bad when they stand by and do nothing while someone is being killed. We look worse if we do nothing.

jj

30-06 lover
November 1, 2008, 01:29 PM
I saw one of these on ABC once and thought "Lawsuite waiting to happen." Kind of like putting a motor cycle down...not if but when.

slide
November 1, 2008, 02:42 PM
I'm very unclear whether the law would back me if I were to shoot the apparent aggressor here in my state.

Here's a story to keep in mind. One day when General Patton was walking in NYC, he spotted a fem walking with some guy. A truck stopped next to the two, some guys ran out the truck, grabbed the fem up. The man with her tried to intervene. The guys from the truck roughed the man up & dragged the fem into their truck.

Patton pulled his piece and intervened by demanding a halt to the action. It turned out that the fem was being 'turned out' by the guy she was with (a pimp) after she ran away from home. The truck guys were her brothers who were rescuing her from the pimp.

Now I dunno if that story is literally true, but it may be and even if it isn't, it's a lesson for us to not go in shooting based on an assumption of what is happening and who the bad guy is.

The Bushmaster
November 1, 2008, 03:07 PM
jslap...It seems you may be a bit hot headed.

Treo did answer your question before you asked it.

I would have intervened also, but I would not have written a blustery letter to the editer...A calmly written letter to the editer stating politely that what they stagged in the park was out of line and could have caused unwanted circumstances would have done the trick......

Treo
November 1, 2008, 03:11 PM
The case was the one that the original poster posted. I just want to know exactly what Treo would do in the case posted?? This isn't a personal attack, just an inqiury as to what Treo would have done in this situation.

Treo isn't sure what his response would be, but he is positive that riding to the rescue like the cavalry would be a bad thing. Especially if one wasn't completely sure what exactly was transpiring.

Let's suppose Treo decided there was obviously cause to employ deadly force. How do you think Treo would feel (even if he walked) after he found out that he had mistakenly shot an actor? :what:

Do you think that Treo would still have his house or his car or his gun collection when the lawyers (both criminal and civil) got done with him (again even assuming he walks)?:(

Treo thinks he would take it step by step and probably wouldn’t employ deadly force (or the threat thereof) with out a clear threat to life. Treo is also positive that sending an Internet tough guy letter to the editor wouldn’t advance the cause of RKBA an inch so he is positive he wouldn’t do that

As a former EMT and current Medical Student Treo thinks the first aid question is much easier to answer, because Treo would know it was a put on before he was half way done taking vitals and accessing the patient. He might even play along and hook the actor up to an AED and tell everybody he was about to shock him, just to watch the actor come off the ground like a monkey with his butt on fire. :D

jad0110
November 1, 2008, 03:28 PM
This is not the first time something like this has happened. Most of us have heard about the idiotic, unannounced shooter drills some school districts perform. Maybe I am not being very highroad, but methinks that some of these little "performances" are thought up and put on by rabid antis hoping a CCW holder will intervene with deadly force, using the incident as a proxy to demonize all gunowners. I certainly don't believe that is true in all cases, but then again I wouldn't be all that surprised if that is the motive behind a small number of these instances.

Or maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight :o.

Note that I am not a lawyer, but in my state this would appear to justify the use of lethal force. Though this is a great example of why one should not intervene with deadly force unless they are 110% sure of the facts surrounding the specific conflict. It may be prudent to call LE and observe, depending on the situation. Or, as Treo indicated, non-lethal intervention may be the appropriate first option. Finally, deadly force may be immediately justified.

I always enjoy reading threads like this. Running through possible scenarios and responses in one's mind is at least as important as trigger time, IMHO.

Jslap
November 1, 2008, 03:33 PM
That's exactly the type of vigilante w/ a gun response we don't need to be sending to the antis
and
jslap...It seems you may be a bit hot headed.

..Points taken. I will endeavor in the future to not "let my emotions" carry me on posting here, or interacting with others.

I DID NOT write a letter to the editor - just merely replied to the internet story on the news website linked above. Perhaps I could have been "nicer", or "more pleasant", but the sheer idiocy of the news report took me for a ride.

At the same time - I think that it's healthy to analyze "what would I have done" in this particular situation. Perhaps I should have been more eloquent in isolating the steps in my opening post. Here's what I think I may have done:

1. Yell - demand to desist.
2. Draw on him - continue to yell.
3. Is the woman continuing to be harmed - that is - is she choking literally to death?
4. To be honest - if it came down to it - him choking with the belt, not letting up - I'd shoot the guy in the leg - He'd let up then.
5. If he had a weapon, then I'd shoot to kill if he reached for it.

There. I hope that's not "too vigilante" or "hotheaded". BUT - that's the steps I'd take.

Thanks for the tip on interacting with non-gun guys. I'll keep that in mind.

k-frame
November 1, 2008, 03:40 PM
Maybe I am not being very highroad, but methinks that some of these little "performances" are thought up and put on by rabid antis hoping a CCW holder will intervene with deadly force, using the incident as a proxy to demonize all gunowners.

I think it's about TV ratings - local broadcast news is first, last and always about entertainment.

Oh, and the news crew took a horrible risk with those actors. A hothead with a weapon (i.e. untrained or unsure), someone with a well-trained attack dog, even an LEO could have inflicted irreparable harm.

DFW1911
November 1, 2008, 03:58 PM
Some great points made so far.

This "news" story is just a bad idea that could have turned into a series of unfortunate events. For what...ratings? How many lives could have been ruined due to someone's brilliant plan?

I'm sure there is enough real news in Shreveport to cover and no need for news stations to stage such events.

Completely irresponsible "journalism" in my view.

YMMV.

Just my $.02.

Take care,
DFW1911

Treo
November 1, 2008, 04:05 PM
1. Yell - demand to desist.
2. Draw on him - continue to yell.If it really is an act that should stop it right there


4. To be honest - if it came down to it - him choking with the belt, not letting up - I'd shoot the guy in the leg - He'd let up then.And you’d catch Hell trying to convince the D.A. that you were justified to use a lethal weapon to deliver non-lethal force. If deadly force is called for use deadly force. If deadly force isn’t called for don’t touch your weapon.

k-frame
November 1, 2008, 04:09 PM
And just to add, "Sweeps Week" began a few days ago. This is when broadcast "news" starts to show what IMO is real schlock - look for more stories with lots of sex appeal, or anything in which they try to be "investigative."

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweeps_week#.22Sweeps.22

November 2008
30 October – 26 November, 2008

jad0110
November 1, 2008, 04:12 PM
Quote:
1. Yell - demand to desist.
2. Draw on him - continue to yell.

If it really is an act that should stop it right there

Yeah, and another hint might be that the actors would be running ... all the way down the backs of their pants :D :evil: .


Quote:
4. To be honest - if it came down to it - him choking with the belt, not letting up - I'd shoot the guy in the leg - He'd let up then.

And you’d catch Hell trying to convince the D.A. that you were justified to use a lethal weapon to deliver non-lethal force. If deadly force is called for use deadly force. If deadly force isn’t called for don’t touch your weapon.

My thoughts as well. And Jslap, please don't feel like we are gangin' up on your or anything - we're just trying to provide solid guidance that, hopefully, you will never have to use ;) .

akodo
November 1, 2008, 04:21 PM
I concur, seeing the man strangling the woman, lethal force is definately a reasonable response.

I also think it would be a good idea to be yelling STOP STOP STOP at the top of your lungs at the time, and any action OTHER THAN the perp (actor) stopping firing would be appropriate.

But the, so would picking up a big rock and bashing his head, or a biker pulling off the U-lock and using to hammer on the attacker, or a baseball bat, or a tree branch, or any of the other TOOLs we as humans know how to use.

I also think it would have been best to have phrased such a letter in an extremely careful manner. It would be easy skim the first poster's letter and an anti would simply see 'gun toting vigilanti', but a letter that points out the danger to the actor from some guys walking back to their cars carrying their baseball gear who use the bats with lethal results, OR a biker who uses his Ulock OR an armed citizen, retired police, or anyone with a firearm in easy access...then it portrays the firearm as the tool it is.

Cajun
November 1, 2008, 04:23 PM
Unfortunately I was to see something like that happenin I dont have a concealed carry but I am working on that but I do have a Brown Belt in Tae Kwon Do and I have also been training in Mixed Martial Arts for the past year I would'nt have shot him but I promise you Iwould have made him think twice about doin that to anybody else..my motto TAP,SNAP or NAP!!

Treo
November 1, 2008, 05:07 PM
A word of caution, I used to see this posted frequently on THR lately, not so much. In the event that you are ever involved in a shooting incident you can expect to be investigated to some degree. If this happens the last thing you want is for the D.A. to find all of your THR posts detailing how you’re going to use your “fists of fury” to detain the bad guy or shove your GLOCK up his butt and make him whistle “ Dixie”. You just may find such posts entered into evidence against you and used to prove that you are nothing more than a vigilante who jumped at the first opportunity to use your ninja gunfighting skills. Especially if (as posited by the O.P.) the incident turns out to be some sociology experiment put on by your local news team

slide
November 1, 2008, 05:12 PM
The way I look at it Treo, is that these hairy chested manly men making loud noises about shoving Glocks here and there are those who will not intervene. So while I agree with you, I think the point is moot.

KelVarnson
November 1, 2008, 06:07 PM
What if some good guy intervened, but had a heart attack in the process? After all, this would be a highly stressful encounter for most average citizens not used to this kind of thing.

People shouldn't play around with this sort of thing. Not everyone handles stress the same way.

Jslap
November 1, 2008, 06:33 PM
My thoughts as well. And Jslap, please don't feel like we are gangin' up on your or anything - we're just trying to provide solid guidance that, hopefully, you will never have to use.

I understand, and point well taken. I am not thin-skinned at all - and can take some constructive criticism.

Thanks to all who have commented - even the ones with the "Glock up your butt" comment. I understand and am not offended.

Thank you also for the comments about future "investigation" into THR postings potentially in the future, etc. I certainly don't want to come off as a gun-toting vigilante who's looking for a fight, or at least a chance to brandish some metal.

My OP was my STRONG negative reaction to the (in my opinion) HIGHLY irresponsible and idiotic behavior of a local news crew. Again, perhaps my whole "draw down" comments were unnecessary, and themselves idiotic. The fact is, however, I think most on these boards are like-minded enough that folks would have intervened.

Thanks for those who've responded.

mljdeckard
November 1, 2008, 06:46 PM
There is a VERY short list of third parties for whom I would use deadly force. I have family members on that list. If you don't absolutely know what's going on, and you start killing people, you are going to jail. I would be on my phone to the police, depending on the situation, I might remain in hiding with the weapon out to see what happened, But I would NOT jump in and start killing people.

What I don't necessarily agree with is that stuff people post in here could be used against them in court. What people post anonymously in an internet forum holds no reasonable expectation of honesty. And just because a comment is posted under someone's screen name, you can't prove that any one person is responsible for ALL posts made under that screen name, making impossible to know that the person accused is responsible for the comment. I cannot imagine what circumstances would allow anything from this forum to be admitted in court. That's not even law school, it's junior college Rules of Evidence class.

Just Jim
November 1, 2008, 06:56 PM
It's really nice to know that if one of your family members ie wife or daughter, is being killed that there are people out there that care. They may not do anthing so they can save their gun collection but they really do care.

jj

meef
November 1, 2008, 07:09 PM
:banghead:

Treo
November 1, 2008, 07:32 PM
They may not do anthing so they can save their gun collection but they really do care.

With all the big, burly internet tough guys running around you'd think somebody would have stepped in and beat that hired actor ( reading comprehension is our friend) to a fare thee well.

Of course they'd go to jail over it but hey, they proved their manliness.

Now on a serious tick, did I offend you in a past life just jim? I stated 3 times in my first two posts that if deadly force was called for (don't think it was in this case) I would have used it. However, you seem to be deliberately ignoring that fact I'm curious as to why?

If you really want to know what I'd do in a real world situation I can think of a dozen options to use before the gun.

Just as an example I generally have a liter of ice water W/me, think that might have got our bad guy's attention W/out actually injuring anyone?

Deanimator
November 1, 2008, 08:14 PM
I'd do what I did with my upstairs neighbor who kept beating the crap out of his girlfriend. I'd just keep calling the cops, over and over and over. Of course I figured that he might come downstairs and want to beat the crap out of me. That would have just ended with a gunshot and his body hitting the floor.

Getting DIRECTLY involved in a domestic is dangerous. I don't get paid for that kind of thing. If it was obvious that it was an attack by a stranger, I'd get involved. For a domestic, I'd just call the cops. I don't want to end up fighting TWO people, one of whom I was trying to help. Some women are just stupid, and getting myself hurt or arrested isn't going to change that.

mljdeckard
November 1, 2008, 08:15 PM
Tease, scoff, do whatever, I don't care. The reason I carry is to protect myself and my loved ones from harm. If I jump into a situation I don't fully understand, kill the wrong person, get killed, prosecuted, sued, or a combination of the three, how does THAT help my family?

Someone else related the story of when Patton nearly intervened in what he thought was a kidnapping, which turned out to be a very different situation. The guy who taught my CCW class told a story, (I have no idea how true it is,) about a permit holder who was leaving a bar and saw a guy having a disagreement with his girlfriend down the block. the fight escalated, and the man pushed the girl back into an alley, where she was yelling. He went down to look, and up the alley, he saw the man on top of the girl with his pants down. He pulled out his gun and took off the top of his head. The girl popped up and yelled; "What the #$^& are you doing?! We were playing a sex game, playing out a fantasy, why did you kill him?!" That's manslaughter.

True? Don't care. It illustrates that if you don't REALLY, REALLY know what's going on, and you jump in and start killing people, you may well get into trouble. That civil case would have legs even if the criminal one didn't.

The list of people I would use deadly force for is short, because they're the only one I really trust. I trust them with the lives of my family. They are the people who I would rather defend them incorrectly and be wrong and go to jail than doubt them. They would do the same for me, and it has been discussed in advance. Some of them go back before kindergarten. Strangers don't get the same level of trust.

I have a sister who......hasn't figured life out yet. She's always dating bad guys, and just barely staying out of trouble. If she called me up in the middle of the night, and told me she needed my help, right now, and to bring my gun, I can absolutely guarantee. I will not be going anywhere that the police don't go first.

Just Jim
November 1, 2008, 08:26 PM
Like I said, nothing personal. It is important that we all know where others stand should push come to shove. Enough said.

jj

CRITGIT
November 1, 2008, 08:37 PM
A word of caution, I used to see this posted frequently on THR lately, not so much. In the event that you are ever involved in a shooting incident you can expect to be investigated to some degree. If this happens the last thing you want is for the D.A. to find all of your THR posts detailing how you’re going to use your “fists of fury” to detain the bad guy or shove your GLOCK up his butt and make him whistle “ Dixie”. You just may find such posts entered into evidence against you and used to prove that you are nothing more than a vigilante who jumped at the first opportunity to use your ninja gunfighting skills. Especially if (as posited by the O.P.) the incident turns out to be some sociology experiment put on by your local news team


Investigated to a huge degree!
Be assured he'd find your posts. Some might not fair well under those circumstances.

CRITGIT

Flyboy
November 2, 2008, 12:18 AM
Does anybody recall the case in which a man heard his wife yell "rape" while in a truck with another man, and shot the man? It later turned out she was having an affair with him, and yelling "rape" was her attempt to cover her tracks.

He was acquitted, and she went on to face charges in his death.

I can see a parallel situation here for the news agency. If you put somebody in the position of reasonably believing that he is acting to preserve the life of an innocent, you may find out that he's willing to take strong action. And since you created the situation, you bear at least some responsibility for the outcome.

Kind of Blued
November 2, 2008, 01:23 AM
I DID NOT write a letter to the editor - just merely replied to the internet story on the news website linked above. Perhaps I could have been "nicer", or "more pleasant", but the sheer idiocy of the news report took me for a ride.

For your sake, and for every gun-owner, just be aware of how you carry yourself and how non-gun owners can interpret your actions and words. This is what Treo was saying, and we're all on your side, but we're just giving some friendly advice.

If you spend enough time around here reading articles, you will find that some (anti-gun) folks love to take the most innocent statement and make you look like a blood-thirsty vigilante simply because you own a gun and are willing to use it.

This does nothing but hurt our cause, and makes more and more voting Americans make up a reason to get our guns and our rights taken away from us. We want to do everything we can to avoid that. Some of it is passive, some is active. They see the gun as a problem, when in reality, if used properly, it can be a solution. Just don't give them a reason to see it as a problem.

doc2rn
November 2, 2008, 12:39 PM
Here in Ks they have a portion of the CCW law that defines your responsibility to render aide in the rescue of someone else.
You could easily be sued for doing nothing, but protected by drawing. You will definately be sued for each projectile launched from your weapon.

Ash
November 2, 2008, 12:47 PM
This act is not covered under freedom of speach in that it is falsely crying fire in a crowded theater. In this case, falsely telling the public that an attack is occuring. Where I to smack the actor with a 2x4 and discovered it was a ruse only to find myself facing a suit, I would go after the news organization. The actor, by the way, would also be suing the news organization as well (or his family if he were shot) because responsibility would be on the news organization for setting up the operation and so endangering the actor, his victim, as well as the personal well-being of any person who attempts to protect the victim.

Ash

mljdeckard
November 2, 2008, 12:51 PM
In Utah this is certainly not the case. When defending a third party, you have all of their rights, and also ALL OF THEIR LIABILITIES.

And the expectation of a reasonable person to render aid with deadly force cannot be applied the same way as say, rendering aid to an accident victim. When you carry, you can CHOOSE whether or not to shoot in any given situation. You are not taking on any obligation any other person doesn't have. Are you SURE that the law REQUIRES action for a third party, or just protects you?

JimmerJammerMrK
November 3, 2008, 04:26 AM
Assume a position of cover and use your cell phone(1) to call the local police providing them with your name, location, and nature of the disturbance and COMPREHENSIVE descriptions of ALL parties involved. (most importantly YOU & the fact that you're armed.)(2)

THEN you might decide to call out for the 'perp' (in this case the guy?(3) to immediately desist because the police were on the phone & on the way.

Quoted for truth.

qajaq59
November 3, 2008, 08:09 AM
The first thing you do is call 911. Then if you must use force you'd better be darned sure you are right. Killing someone is serious business and it shouldn't even be thought of until every other option has come and gone. My .02

Kragax
November 3, 2008, 08:17 AM
Having had to deal with a situation like this I have a story.
I was driving through the downtown area of our town, not a great area but not too bad either, as I came around a curve I saw this guy slapping a woman around on the sidewalk. Now my upbringing came into play, I stopped the car and got out and went over to break it up. Im not a real big guy but Im not small either so I got him off pretty quick. Then Holy S%&T Batman!!!!!, They both turned on me, punching, swearing, sratching. I got loose and got to the car and split. I was carrying at the time but never even thought of drawing, It wasn't near a life or death situation, but I did learn that everything is not as it seems at times. Now this was way back before cell phones and my methods would be different now than then, but I hope I would still have the stones to help a lady in distress.

MachIVshooter
November 3, 2008, 08:22 AM
He might even play along and hook the actor up to an AED and tell everybody he was about to shock him, just to watch the actor come off the ground like a monkey with his butt on fire.

Now that'd be funny!

stevemis
November 3, 2008, 08:34 AM
There is no win here. The newspaper set out to make a story, and gosh darn it, they'll have one regardless... even if the story is there is no story.

If someone drew a firearm, a bunch of people would have yelled they are just actors. The good citizen would have his picture and name in the paper and would quickly be ridiculed as a gun nut with an itchy trigger finger and this incident would be used as a reason to take guns from law-abiding citizens.

I'm not sure what they would have done to someone calling the police, but it might have something to do with all of those "horrible deadly greenhouse gases" that got released by the subsequent police vehicular response and excessive breathing.

Similarly to guns, had someone drawn a knife, there'd be new "ammunition" to take your steak knives AND your guns.

You saw what they did when nobody came to the rescue, so I don't need to explain that one.

mbt2001
November 3, 2008, 08:40 AM
Honestly, we have been told by the police, the media and everyone in between to leave people alone, just keep walking, nothing you can do about it for YEARS now.

Further to that, with all of the gadgets, I don't think that many people hear or see what is happening in their environment...

lonegunman
November 3, 2008, 08:53 AM
To bad none of those handy dandy open carry Rangers were there to save the day.:rolleyes:

If you ask most LEO's they will tell you a simple truth. In a suprising number of "domestic violence" incidents the victim will turn against you when you try and arrest the aggressor. OR the victim won't want to press charges. OR the victim will gladly run to the car and drive away with the 300 pound thug after he pounds you into the ground like a tent peg. Was this woman actually screaming for help or were they having a drama for all to see?


This news story revealed a simple truth. 99% of the time is it better to let the riff-raff do whatever the hell they are doing and call the police. If you pulled your trusty gat on a unarmed man in a city park, even if he was kicking the crap out of a random woman, YOU would be getting carted off to jail. That goofy woman would more than likely tell the police you started the whole thing. How do you know this was not that couple's version of foreplay? This day and age, it could be anything.


Having a concealed weapon gives you an additional tool for defending yourself, your family and those closest to you. It does not give you the right to defend strangers, to enforce laws or to engage criminals that are not impacting you in a direct way. Other than engaging a mall shooter or something of that sort where the criminal had a deadly weweapon and was using it in plain view, I'd personally just call 911 and let the cops do their job.


Ask yourself this question before you get all worked up.

How many times have the same idiotic reporters ran a story about a FAKE woman in distress who has cohorts hiding nearby to rob, rape and kill a good samaritan?

How many times have the same news idiots ran a story of a woman who offered help to a stranger in a parking lot being dragged off and raped or killed?

How many stories a year do you read about a guy getting stabbed in the Wal-Mart parking lot trying to break up a fight between some hoochie and her love interest/pimp/husband/whatever?

How many times do the newcasters report a story and call the "hero" a vigilante and then destroy him on the air, report his address or do something to aid the criminals in finding him for later.

When all is said and done, no matter what you do to help and no matter how effective it is to do it. The local police spokesman will tell reporters "they prefer you stand and watch, call 911 or simply keep walking and let the popo handle the problem."

gmofftarki
November 3, 2008, 10:11 AM
I was driving through the downtown area of our town, not a great area but not too bad either, as I came around a curve I saw this guy slapping a woman around on the sidewalk. Now my upbringing came into play, I stopped the car and got out and went over to break it up. Im not a real big guy but Im not small either so I got him off pretty quick. Then Holy S%&T Batman!!!!!, They both turned on me, punching, swearing, sratching. I got loose and got to the car and split. I was carrying at the time but never even thought of drawing, It wasn't near a life or death situation, but I did learn that everything is not as it seems at times. Now this was way back before cell phones and my methods would be different now than then, but I hope I would still have the stones to help a lady in distress.

That whole "punching, kicking, scratching" thing kinda bothers me... it strikes me as being exactly the occasion that someone would discover you were carrying concealed and use that to their own advantage (depending on how you were carrying the firearm, obviously ankle is different than shoulder or IWB)...

I'm really not sure what I would have done in the situation here other than call the police, either... maybe shout from 10-15ft away, but definitely not draw unless it was warranted.

Then again, in Konnektikut, I imagine even shouting "I have a gun, cease and desist" in public would be grounds to be arrested for "Breach of Peace" and have your CCW taken.

RKBABob
November 3, 2008, 11:16 AM
*** I can't see the video at work! ***
(So I'm just going by everyone's description.

If you ask most LEO's they will tell you a simple truth. In a suprising number of "domestic violence" incidents the victim will turn against you when you try and arrest the aggressor. OR the victim won't want to press charges. OR the victim will gladly run to the car and drive away with the 300 pound thug after he pounds you into the ground like a tent peg.

Its common knowledge that some women are mentally ill, and would gladly see you thrown in jail for daring to interrupt their loving huband's romantic public beatings.:barf:

At my work, a woman complained of her boyfriend being controlling, stalking her, and being prone to violence... so what does she do? She sells her own house, gives him the money, and moves in! She then starts complaining to all her female co workers about how the boyfriend was in the mafia, won't let her leave the house, and is jealous of anyone she talks to (including other females). Other women in the office decided to 'get involved' and help her out (while I, being the only guy in the office, stayed as far away as possible)... she then tells the violence-prone mobster boyfriend that the mean ladies in the office were jealous, and "trying to break them up!" :eek:

If I ever saw this former co worker being beaten by her boyfriend, calling 911 is the most help I'd offer. Some people DON'T WANT HELP! This is why police officers absolutely dread domestic violence calls... and likely why most people don't want to be involved.



Now, if the news had staged a 300 pound man attacking a 4 year old, I'd bet everyone would get involved pretty darn quick! Likewise, if they had staged a masked man (obviously not her boyfriend) jumping out of the woods at passing women, there would be a much greater response to that.

calaverasslim
November 3, 2008, 11:38 AM
"I don't think ARMED INTERVENTION" is wrong, but folks, let's us reason together.

"A REASONABLE INTERVENTION' (READ RESAONABLE GUN LAW) is something we should consider. HHHUUMMMMMM, let me think a minute.....HHHUUUMMMM.

Darn the girl is dead.....oh welll, too late, its a shame, someone shudda done something.....

Fifteen+1
November 3, 2008, 09:48 PM
One woman just jogged on, followed by another woman who walked passed the confrontation. Then there are the guys who just watched as our actress was being pushed to the ground. So we told our actors to ramp it up a bit, thinking they were not loud or hands on enough.


Ok I am going to clear this up before I say this.....I am kidding

These are two smart women. If Ike and Tina are fighting in the park why would two more women stop to take a chance on getting the hell beat out of them too. Maybe the woman jogging was going to get her linebacker boyfriend at the smoothie stand. Maybe the two guys were going to mug the couple but then said well this is a much better scene than what we would have put on. What if I walked up and cracked a 2 x 4 across the back his head? What then? Who would save him from his attacker. The two women jogging? Shows like punked have made us this way, hop into a time machine and go back to 1960 and try this crap....John Wayne would beat the snot out of that guy.

If you ask most LEO's they will tell you a simple truth. In a suprising number of "domestic violence" incidents the victim will turn against you when you try and arrest the aggressor. OR the victim won't want to press charges. OR the victim will gladly run to the car and drive away with the 300 pound thug after he pounds you into the ground like a tent peg.

Its common knowledge that some women are mentally ill, and would gladly see you thrown in jail for daring to interrupt their loving huband's romantic public beatings.

In this case, just shoot both of them.

KelVarnson
November 4, 2008, 12:15 AM
I'm not saying it would hold up in court, and I am certainly not a lawyer, but I would categorize the behavior of the station and their actors as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Some passers-by would intervene, some would not, but either way I'm sure the vast majority of them, being normal everyday folks, would get an adrenaline rush out of it.

And those that do pass by, and don't later watch the news, might not ever find out that this was not real, so they're carrying that around with them, that they witnessed an actual act of abuse, and didn't intervene. That sucks, and it is all just for ratings. Pretty sick, IMHO.

RX-178
November 4, 2008, 12:44 AM
Think of what LEOs say when they come across this kind of a scenario? It would be a good idea to take careful note of this.

'Is there a problem?'

Think about how many ways that could be answered, and think about how important it might be for you to get those answers before bullets start flying.

KelVarnson
November 4, 2008, 01:03 AM
RX, that is an interesting observation. That does seem to be what cops say, and I had never thought about it in this context.

Brassbutten
November 5, 2008, 03:42 AM
HI. Yes I'm new here, But I just read treo's answer to the other newbe's Q: What would you do? Listen to treos adv, Its good. Any one have hind sight here? What happens after you pull the trigger? Cops come. You have to explain. Gun better be legal. Was it concelled? If yes. Why? You can break more laws then you think. Shooting within city limits. My town has a noise law, Includes gun blasts. Public endangerment comes to mind. Slap him first, anyone that has had a gun pointed at them pretty much stops what there doing unless there on drugs, If he comes at you..run..... If you decide to shoot. then call a lawyer. NO B.S. Best have 911 on your cell to record whats going on or youll be in one. Reverse this situation, What do you want to happen? If your carrying[legelay] Shoot. Best be judged by12 then carryed by 6.

TRX
November 6, 2008, 08:02 PM
> I'm very unclear whether the law would back me if I
> were to shoot the apparent aggressor here in my
> state.

I don't see that it's a situation that requires a firearm. Presumably the guy has both hands full choking the woman. Walk up to an optimal position, then step forward and try to kick his balls up into his throat. Then use a phone to call 9-1-1.

If they were on the other side of a fence you couldn't climb, or you saw the outline of a gun in his pocket, or if he had a knife visible, using your gun might be the correct answer. But as the situation was presented, it doesn't justify shooting.

frogomatic
November 6, 2008, 08:19 PM
large man choking a woman, he's gets a verbal order to cease, if that fails, I draw and repeat that verbal warning. If that fails, well, it may not be possible to fire without endangering the woman due to their close proximity, but I'm damn sure going to do SOMTHING, kick him, punch him, give him a papercut and pour lemon juice on it. perhaps draw his attention long enough to give the woman a chance to escape. If she can get clear, and he's still intent on harming her or me, then I don't see how I have any choice but to fire.

ezypikns
November 6, 2008, 10:02 PM
My CHL (or CCW) instructor gave our class this scenario: You hear loud voices at a gas station or other public place. You notice a large man holding a gun and shouting at an (apparently) defenseless woman. You draw your weapon, begin issuing commands to this dangerous man, and prepare to defend this damsel in distress. You're absolutely in the right!

Trouble is, the man is an undercover police officer. The "defenseless" woman is a dangerous felon who uses your interruption to draw a weapon and shoot the officer, then flee the scene. Maybe calling 911 wasn't such a bad idea.

Impossible?


The idea behind concealed carry is that you are able to defend your own life or the lives of your family. You are not a peace officer. You'd better be darn sure before you draw your weapon and begin shooting.

My guess is that if you'd shot and killed this fellow with the TV news crew, you'd probably eventually be exonerated. That is, after spending some time in jail and undoubted thousands of dollars for your legal defense.

If you feel this is the wrong attitude, just fire away. I sure could be wrong.

Mr Crowley
November 6, 2008, 10:36 PM
I agree with you ezypikns.

This situation is just like one of those Socratic paradoxes.

Your not a peace officer or your not batman, but if you just stand there and watch a defenseless person.....

In the situation that your instructor gave. I don't think there is a right answer to that.


what would I do if stumble upon that situation?
run away as fast as I can

what would I want someone to do if they walk up on me getting shot at?
kill the guy shooting at me

so who knows:barf:

ezypikns
November 6, 2008, 10:42 PM
said so far.


so who knows

If you enjoyed reading about "Idiotic News Story - what would you do?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!