Lethal shooting in Salt Lake City, UT; CCW holder was the shooter

[Quinch]

Still waiting fcfc.............
I'm sure other TFLrs in other states will offer to meet with you to let you prove your prowess if you're not near Nevada

 

[dogmush]

And they said it couldn't be done!

No one said it couldn't be done. Many said it Shouldn't be done, and we all said it wasn't Leagaly Required to be done.

I'm glad Siglite's situation worked out for him, and truth be told I've been in similar situations where I did the same thing, but there are plenty of sound tactical reasons never to do that starting with the guy accusing you of brandishing and ending with an ambush outside your building later that night.

The fact of the matter is every situation is different. The CCW Holder in this situation says he felt threatened for his life. The DA is evaluating that claim.

For you to condem the shoot from the internet based on a 4 paragraph news bit and an op ed is beyond arrogant.

For you to do it EVERY time a SD shooting comes up on this board is just annoying.

 

[siglite]

FCFC,

You should be aware that the variables in my situation allowed it. The most important of those being distance. If that had occurred at a range of four or five feet instead of twenty, I can't say whether I would've fired or not. And we don't know any of the variables in this shoot.

 

[arthurcw]

Here’s a handy little sequence of mouse clicks and KBD commands:

Click User CP
Click Buddy / Ignore Lists
Enter “FCFC” into the Add New User to List text box in the Ignore List section.
Click Save List

Better than Bromo for that acid stomach feeling you get sometimes.

Ta

 

[M&PVolk]

I'm tired of the bleeding heart mentality that is so prevalent today. Why are we so eager to defend the criminal and punish the just?

My personal theory on why this seems to scare some people is that because they lack a moral foundation. They want to be allowed to do whatever they want without fear of consequence.

Maybe FCFC is one of those people that just brings out the worst in others. Obviously he enjoys inflaming situations. Those are the kinds of behaviors that lead to these exact types of altercations. Maybe he has sympathy for the criminal in this case because he believes he himself could have easily been this guy.

I think it's about time that criminal elements of society be put on notice that their actions have consequences. Is it so bad a thing for someone to think "maybe getting violent with this guy would be a mistake"? I don't think so.

I will never advocate unnecessary shooting, but I don't believe I have to wait until the gun is against my forehead before I can judge the intent of my assailant. I'm sorry if that frightens you, but if it's between me and him, I am going to take my LE buddies advice....I'm going to make sure that I'm the one that goes home that night.

 

[GearHead_1]

I used to frequent the FALFiles. There was a certain individual (eventually banned) that spent a great deal of time doing what is being done in this thread. The dialog is so similar it's sad. He was a lawyer or so he claimed. He was bright and up on current events. I found a little quote on how this same individual was handled on yet another forum. I was so tired of seeing him troll the forum that I just quit going there. I guess that would make me one of the people mentioned in the second paragraph of this quote. That's when I found THR. I've only been back a couple of times since I registered on The High Road. The person mentioned in this quote is the same person that caused grief over at FALFiles, I've XXXXX'd his name as a simple matter of courtesy. Anyway heres the info:

Back in the late 90s this was a pretty good forum with a lot of interesting people. Then GWB started his presidential run and a troll named [XXXXX] came on the forum and started spewing hatred for Bush. A lot of us responded and pretty soon there was a pretty good pissing contest going on.

By the time it was over and Gloria had stepped in and banned [XXXXX] we noticed something. A lot of very good posters had gotten tired of the back and forth insults and just left. They never bothered to come back and it took a couple of years to bring this forum back up to where it is now.

The lesson we learned is that you don't feed trolls. There are two ways to feed a troll. One is to respond to what he posts so he knows he's getting to you and the other is to click on his posts and up the view count. This one is the easiest because we are anonymous when we do it. You think, "I'll just read what he has to say and not comment on it." but you are still feeding him because he knows that you read his post and, comment or not, he had an opportunity to make you give him a chance to influence you.

The ONLY way to get rid of a troll is to totally ignore what he posts. You don't click on it and give him the satisfaction of thinking he is influencing you. It's that simple, no clicks and no comments...

It's up to you. This can be your forum or JohnQ's forum but it can't be both. I don't want to see this forum ever again go through what we went through six years ago but it's totally up to you. Everyone here is supposedly an adult and if you are, and if you want this to be our forum, then don't click on the posts and quit feeding the troll by commenting at all.

 

[FCFC]

Fcfc
If you are near Las Vegas, I'd be willing to set up the same scenario and we can do it on camera.
We can recreate the situation and repeat it until we get a solid trend.
Simunitions. Or airsoft, if you're not up to the cost. Same deal.

Still waiting fcfc.............
I'm sure other TFLrs in other states will offer to meet with you to let you prove your prowess if you're not near Nevada

 

[weisse52]

FCFC
Could you please share your purpose with this poll?

I have read your input on the related thread and am trying to understand what is to learned here?
__________________

Since you are reading this post I thought I would bring my question to you.

So, what were you wanting to learn from the poll you started and promoted on this thread?

 

[FCFC]

The fact of the matter is every situation is different. The CCW Holder in this situation says he felt threatened for his life. The DA is evaluating that claim.

I have no doubt that George Harrison said he felt threatened. But did he "reasonably believe that force [was] necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person" per the Utah code?

A lot has to do with something we don't know yet: What did Mike Mays say to George Harrision?

Did Mays say "I have a gun" and to then proceed to reach into his a) jacket, b) knapsack, or c) pants--whichever one it was? What did he say?

Unfortunately, SLCPD is stonewalling on this critical point. Rebecca Walsh asked the SLCPD straight out, "Did he [Mays] say, 'I have a gun'" or something like that? SLCPD declined to respond to that question.

Why, I wonder? Why would SLCPD not offer up a crucial and easily ascertainable piece of information within 4 or 5 days?

One of the news stories says Mays "intimated he was reaching for a weapon in his pants." What the heck does that mean? That was the watch commander's word: "intimated."

"Intimated," how? Did Mays make a gun with his finger? Did Mays take an art pad and draw a revolver like Bugs Bunny in the Yosemite Sam cartoon someone cited yesterday?

The delay in the release of info on exactly what constituted Mays' intimations is possibly indicative that they are favoring Harrison's position in this case. Maybe not.

The criterion is not whether Harrison felt threatened for his life. It is whether he "reasonably" feared for same.

We'll see what happens. It's an interesting case. And certainly it is broadly representative of a major type of easily conceivable CCWer/assailant deadly force situation: CCW has a gun and shoots--assailant has no weapon. That's why it is important to all in the CCW community.

Siglite detailed an informative story above in post #73. His story is in a slightly different category: CCW has a gun and draws only--assailant has no weapon

It's better to have a SD event in the latter category than the former.

 

[weisse52]

First,

Quoting Rebecca Walsh for anything will not gain you credibility points with any thinking people in Utah. If you want I will quote some of her other "hard hitting, investigative reporting" reports and then tell me if you want to take her opinion on anything.

The point is most people here, including those who have voted on your poll, are keeping an open mind and waiting to see what the offical outcome is. You seem to want to hang the man.
To quote you:

Why, I wonder?

Back peddling is tough work.....

 

[Correia]

Why, I wonder? Why would SLCPD not offer up a crucial and easily ascertainable piece of information within 4 or 5 days?

Maybe because it is none of your damn business...

SLCPD is a very professional department. I've worked with them a bunch. They're going to do their job, and that's it. The only people who's opinions matter right now are all in various police stations and government buildings in the SLC area.

Luckily for us, guilt or innocence is not decided by a bunch of doofi on the internet and our opinions on anything.

And FCFC, I don't think you would know reasonable if it bit you on the butt. Your mind is already made up, but if it wasn't I would invite you to come take one of my classes, and then I could run you through some realistic self-defense scenarios, and you could maybe 'educate' me on what was reasonable and prudent.

Oh wait, I forgot one other opinion that actually mattered. The shooter. He apparently thought he was in danger. But what does he know. He should have gone over and kung-fued the guy into submission or something.

God bless teh Interwebs.

 

[weisse52]

Rebecca Walsh highlights:

Walsh: Women become trophies, targets at the Legislature
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9884286

Walsh: Drive-by instills its goal: fear
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9835924

Rebecca Walsh: Assault with a deadly backpack?
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9866066

Walsh: State cars and turkeys have a bit in common
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9813738

Walsh: Time to grow up and put your guns away
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9662672

Walsh: I get mail, lots of it
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9692463

That last one is my personal favorite. I really enjoyed that one. Everyone should read it.

So go ahead, keep using her as your source.....

 

[FCFC]

Quote:
Why, I wonder? Why would SLCPD not offer up a crucial and easily ascertainable piece of information within 4 or 5 days?

Maybe because it is none of your damn business...
SLCPD is a very professional department. I've worked with them a bunch. They're going to do their job, and that's it. The only people who's opinions matter right now are all in various police stations and government buildings in the SLC area.

Luckily for us, guilt or innocence is not decided by a bunch of doofi on the internet and our opinions on anything.

No, that's not it. The public is entitled to get a reasonable amount of information from the investigating department about the incident. SLCPD is stonewalling. The watch commander is wordsmithing. Something's up.

The public has a right to know. This is not a trial we're talking about. A court is the place for the innocence-guilt determination. This is simply a reporting of events that took place seven days ago now. The longer they wait to release crucial information about the shooting incident, the less professionalism SLCPD is displaying.

Oh wait, I forgot one other opinion that actually mattered. The shooter. He apparently thought he was in danger. But what does he know. He should have gone over and kung-fued the guy into submission or something.

As stated previously, the criterion is not feeling in danger. The criterion is reasonably feeling in danger of life or limb.

But your idea of the tactic of Harrison going over to Mays (perhaps with his two companions) and kicking Mays' butt--well that would have been a very good idea. Too bad Harrison rejected that option. I think he rejected it because he simply thought about the gun first.

Remember: When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

 

[Correia]

We'll see what happens. It's an interesting case. And certainly it is broadly representative of a major type of easily conceivable CCWer/assailant deadly force situation: CCW has a gun and shoots--assailant has no weapon. That's why it is important to all in the CCW community.

And once again, if you had a clue you would realize that the lack of weapon does not make it a bad shoot.

Ability, Opportunity, Immediate Threat. That's what you need to be legally justified in shooting somebody in the state of Utah.

Okay class, do you need a weapon to have the Ability to cause Serious Bodily Harm? Nope. So take that Strawman Argument and knock it right back down.

You do not need a weapon to have Ability. Yes, it helps in the eyes of the jury, but is not mandatory. I could beat you to death with a fluffy pillow. And I would probably really enjoy it too...

So your point above is utter nonsense.

Next, you intimate-- (see that word? it's your vocabulary word for the day. When the police officer in the story used it, you didn't understand it, so you might want to check that one out, but I digress). When you intimate that you have the Ability to harm me, and you have the Opportunity to harm me, and you are acting in a manner that suggests you are an Immediate threat of harm, then I will treat you as such.

So he didn't need to say he had a gun. He just had to be acting in a manner that reasonably suggested that he was going for one. In other words, if you're freaking out, acting like a whackadoo nutjob, and I'm in fear for my life, don't make sudden scary movements, 'cause you might get shot.

If you wait to see the gun, you're dead. If you wait to make sure the gun isn't a toy painted black, you're dead. If you live in a delusional fairy-land where you can walk over to the violent criminal aggresor and "punch them in the face" while you reasonably believe he's pulling a gun, you're dead.

And if he's pulling a knife, and he's close enough to converse with, and you wait too long, you're dead. I've gutted probably 300 students with a rubber knife in various Tueller drill scenarious over the last few years. I start at about the 20-25 foot mark based on the scenario. It's a piece of cake.

And when you come onto a gun board, and your backup is an article written by somebody who is downright notorious for being both A. Anti-Gun and B. Full of crap, don't expect that to somehow prop up your pathetic arguments.

SLCPD will do their jobs. Prosecutors office will do theirs. Folks on the internet who don't know anything about law, violence, or self defense will continue to bloviate uselessly.

Carry on, FCFC.

 

[FCFC]

Quote:
We'll see what happens. It's an interesting case. And certainly it is broadly representative of a major type of easily conceivable CCWer/assailant deadly force situation: CCW has a gun and shoots--assailant has no weapon. That's why it is important to all in the CCW community.

And once again, if you had a clue you would realize that the lack of weapon does not make it a bad shoot.

Ability, Opportunity, Immediate Threat. That's what you need to be legally justified in shooting somebody in the state of Utah.

No immediate threat. No gun. No knife. Not even a Snickers bar.

No "I have a gun and Ima KILL you!"

Sounds like the dreadful gun first approach to SD so so popular with the homeboys.

If you wait to see the gun, you're dead

What gun? Also, see siglite's post # 73 above, won't you?

And if he's pulling a knife...

What knife?

SLCPD will do their jobs. .... Folks on the internet who don't know anything about law, violence, or self defense will continue to bloviate uselessly.

Including those same people, hopelessly biased and invested, who accuse others of doing so.

SLCPD is stonewalling. The question is: Why?

 

[Correia]

Oh, I missed your last post!

That there is Fisking Gold!

The public is entitled to get a reasonable amount of information from the investigating department about the incident. SLCPD is stonewalling. The watch commander is wordsmithing. Something's up.

Apparently wordsmithing = using a word from 5th grade vocabulary.

Give me a break. Stonewalling? If you had a clue you would know that is ridiculous. The SLC admin is about the most liberal you will find in any department in the state. The street officers have to put up with admin and city leadership that is doesn't really like CCW or guns or any of our Utah typical red state values.

Trust me on this one. SLC admin won't go out of their way to protect a CCWer, no more than they would go out of their way to crucify one. If this shooting had happened in rural Utah, they would have just pinned a medal on the shooter and called it good. What you're seeing here is a professional department going about their jobs.

The public has a right to know.

No. Actually, you don't.

See, most people who talk about their "Right To Know" only care about stories that validate their preconceived notions. Just like the press decides that the only gun related stories that are fit to print involve bad shoots or massacres at elementary schools or other things that fit their agenda.

Once this shoot is gone over and the shooter is aquited, the press will forget about it, until the next thing comes along that they can get their knee-jerk reactions on about.

This is simply a reporting of events that took place seven days ago now. The longer they wait to release crucial information about the shooting incident, the less professionalism SLCPD is displaying.

Nope. I've never once, in my entire life, EVER, seen a newspaper report the facts of a violent encounter with anything that even approached what actually happened. And this includes situations that I was involved in myself.

A good rule of thumb. If it is about self-defense, guns, or law, and you read it in the paper, it is probably wrong.

I was once involved with a SWAT team raid where NOTHING happened. It turned out that no crime was committed. Nada. Zip. Zero. It was a false call out based upon a Federal Agent committing perjury on the search warrant. However the next day I got to read in the paper about how this SWAT raid turned up surface to air missiles, RPGs, hand grenades, and anti-tank mines.

Why? Because the paper was too lazy and stupid to check their facts. And just took the perjured information and ran with it.

So if you're expecting factual info about a shooting from the paper, keep wishing. Even if the SLCPD released a report that read like an issue of the Ayoob Files from American Handgunner, the paper would report it to say whatever mood they wanted to create in the grass eating populace anyway.

And SLCPD is a very professional department. Except for Rocky Anderson's old psych-eval guy. He sucked. Luckily professionalism is not graded by people like you.

As stated previously, the criterion is not feeling in danger. The criterion is reasonably feeling in danger of life or limb

And that tidbit out of the way, how exactly does that change anything that I've said before? Not at all. Like I said in my first post. You take something somebody said, and then chastise them for not putting down EVERYTHING.

Wee... that was fun.

Reasonable doctrine goes along with Ability, Opportunity, Immediate Threat. Obviously, unless your a troll... Then you need to be beaten over the head with it like a sack full of rocks.

When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

But sometimes a nail is just a nail, and then you can hammer the ever livin' hell out of it.

(and he'll come along and chastise me about this too, I'm certain, even though I usually teach hours of how to AVOID shooting people)

Your little bit of homespun wisdom is noted. However in this case, it has nothing to do with justification or not. Here in Utah we are not required to wrestle somebody if we feel that we're in danger of serious bodily harm. There is no legal requirement to meet like force with like force. No law in Utah says that you have to go hand to hand with the crazy guy filled with blood-borne pathogens, just because it makes people like Rebecca Walsh all warm and fuzzy inside.

I think he rejected it because he simply thought about the gun first.

Wow, for all of your pontificating I thought for sure you would KNOW. Well, regardless, your opinion is less than useless. Your points are duly noted, and dismissed. Thank you for sharing.

I consider myself a patient man. But I have zero patience for devil's advocates with no wisdom, facts, or original ideas, who's only argument is to slander somebody braver than they are, or question the integrity and professionalism of their betters.

 

[Correia]

What gun? Also, see siglite's post # 73 above, won't you?

If you think he's got one, and you wait to see it, I'm not going to take bets on your odds of living.

Oh wait, let me type your next post for you.


If you REASONABLY think he's got one, and you wait to see it, I'm not going to take bets on your odds of living.

There you go. Saved you some time.

Including those same people, hopelessly biased and invested, who accuse others of doing so.

Nope. I just don't tolerate idiotic misconceptions about self-defense very well.

 

[FCFC]

And SLCPD is a very professional department. Except for Rocky Anderson's old psych-eval guy. He sucked. Luckily professionalism is not graded by people like you.
...
I consider myself a patient man. But I have zero patience for devil's advocates with no wisdom, facts, or original ideas, who's only argument is to slander somebody braver than they are, or question the integrity and professionalism of their betters.

Yep, invested.

Apparently wordsmithing = using a word from 5th grade vocabulary.

You wrote a book and you don't know the word wordsmithing? Hope you had a good editor...

 

[Correia]

Yep, invested in my deep disdain for trolls.

My little self published book got up to #4 on the Entertainment Weekly Bestseller list before I pulled it to sell the rights to a large publishing house. So, yes, I had an excellent editor. She also is the editor for Concealed Carry magazine, which you probably haven't read, because you seem to have a deep disregard for that kind of thing.

But you wouldn't like my book. The characters like to carry guns and do insolent things like defend themselves with them. Plus it has many large words, and no pictures. So you should probably skip it.

 

[GearHead_1]

Larry, I have one question for you, what's the point? We have the power, see my previous post.

 

[Correia]

I type fast and enjoy my collection of stuffed troll heads that I keep above my mantle.

Point taken Gear. I'm walking away from this one. I shouldn't feed the trolls.

 

[FCFC]

She also is the editor for Concealed Carry magazine, which you probably haven't read, because you seem to have a deep disregard for that kind of thing.

Seem?

Wrong again. As per usual.

I carry a firearm every day of my life. I first carried a gun 40 years ago.

No, you are wrong again. I think that carrying a gun is a fine idea.

You're invested, not only in kissing up to SLCPD, but ialso invested in assidously self-serving speculation and instantaneous strawman arguments, both the commonest tools for making life soooooo simplistic....

Ah, life can be so pleasingly simplistic sometimes, eh?

 

[alligator94]

I have a question for anyone who thinks it is a bad shoot. Do you think that a police officer would have done any different if you pretend that you are going to pull a gun on him?

 

[weisse52]

Here’s a handy little sequence of mouse clicks and KBD commands:

Click User CP
Click Buddy / Ignore Lists
Enter “FCFC” into the Add New User to List text box in the Ignore List section.
Click Save List

Better than Bromo for that acid stomach feeling you get sometimes.

Ta

\


Very good advice...I think I will follow. Everyone else should consider.

 

[weisse52]

Quote:
Here’s a handy little sequence of mouse clicks and KBD commands:

Click User CP
Click Buddy / Ignore Lists
Enter “FCFC” into the Add New User to List text box in the Ignore List section.
Click Save List

Better than Bromo for that acid stomach feeling you get sometimes.

Ta
\


Very good advice...I think I will follow. Everyone else should consider.
__________________

THAT WORKS GREAT!!! SOLVES THE PROBLEM WITH TROLLS.....