We were discussing the same subject five years ago:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/concealed-carry-stops-bad-guy.663680/#post-8228102
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/concealed-carry-stops-bad-guy.663680/#post-8228102
Strambo writes:
So, the Uber driver was pointing the gun to his own head so the passenger could get a picture?
Sounds like Beaty, with his view of the driving obscured by the passenger, thought it was the passenger that had the gun on the driver's face.Updated news article with some additional information.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/05/16/uber-driver-wounded-shooting-old-east-dallas
.
Hmm, looking in from the passenger's side, dimwit driver holding the gun to his own face would look exactly like the passenger was doing it as the view of their arms would be shielded by the passenger's torso. So, it probably would look exactly like a car jacking with imminent threat of grave bodily harm to the driver.
That is a different picture than 2 people examining a gun on their lap.
Doesn't change the fact that he made a stupid decision to try to engage someone who was in an automobile, surrounded by steel of various thicknesses and tempered auto glass with a handgun. Even if it had been a carjacking, the chances of successfully stopping a car jacking by opening up on the vehicle with a fusillade of 10 rounds from a handgun are very low. A probable outcome would be to startle the carjacker who then reflexively shoots the victim you are trying to save. Another outcome that's highly likely is the one that happened, the "victim" was shot.
Even if the decision to intervene had been justified by an actual crime being committed, the means that were used to attempt the thwart the crime were inappropriate.
https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms in a vehicle while using our app. You can learn more about our firearms prohibition policy here. [1] If you violate Uber’s firearms prohibition policy, you may lose access to Uber.
And it is troublesome that there are people here that believe this was a reasonable action. The shooter didnt identify his target.He saw a gun. That's all. Identifying your target requires more context, more information, than seeing a gun. To me, this was a major failure.Texas statutes often include the terms a "reasonable and prudent" person.
A sense of moral obligation is not without responsibility or consequences.Do you think that the shooter, driven by his sense of moral obligation will sleep well tonight, knowing he has shot an innocent man
Well, a couple of more details only have come out. But it is apparent that what he believed was a robbery, carjacking whatever was what he perceived in the moment. There are many unanswered questions here though..And it is troublesome that there are people here that believe this was a reasonable action. The shooter didnt identify his target.He saw a gun. That's all. Identifying your target requires more context, more information, than seeing a gun. To me, this was a major failure.
That won't help him. He acted without sufficient knowledge of what was happening and of what had happened beforehand.,,,it is apparent that what he believed was a robbery, carjacking whatever was what he perceived in the moment.
There are many unanswered questions here though..
That's only half of it. Let's say there really had been a carjacking taking place and every single bit of information he thought was true, really was true.He acted without sufficient knowledge of what was happening and of what had happened beforehand.
Well I don't think he was gunning for the driver. My impression, based purely on the info available, is that he perceived the passenger had a gun to the face of the driver.It's purely speculation on my part, but I'm going to guess that a big part of his defense is going to revolve around his combat experience, PTSD and the fact that the Uber driver was of Iraqi descent.
I doubt many of the issues that we are discussing will come up in court. And that's a shame, because the issue needs to be a completely inappropriate response to a perceived (wrongly) situation.
It is certainly true that we need to be aware of both how others are likely to perceive us and how our perceptions affect our decision making/situational assessment processes.RPZ said:One point uncommented about so far is that the passenger was shirtless. Now, I am not of the mindset that being shirtless anywhere in a city environment means you are a criminal, however, I have to say that generally when I see shirtless people walking around in a city environment (and I live in Houston), they are generally not your average Joe, and appear as social outcasts.
Well I don't think he was gunning for the driver. My impression, based purely on the info available, is that he perceived the passenger had a gun to the face of the driver.
That hits the nail on the head.The issue is the fact that he chose to intervene in a situation that wasn't what he thought it was and the method he chose to 'stop' the crime he thought he was witnessing was completely inappropriate had the situation actually been a car jacking.
Well I don't think he was gunning for the driver. My impression, based purely on the info available, is that he perceived the passenger had a gun to the face of the driver.
One point uncommented about so far is that the passenger was shirtless. Now, I am not of the mindset that being shirtless anywhere in a city environment means you are a criminal, however, I have to say that generally when I see shirtless people walking around in a city environment (and I live in Houston), they are generally not your average Joe, and appear as social outcasts.
If you watch the video he was shirtless. Generally, you don't have your shirt removed and then get cuffed at a crime scene. You get cuffed first, and if they want your shirt they take it later.
9MMare wrote:
I do agree with you that it's certainly not simple when confronted with such a scenario.
In this case, on the face of the information presented, he saw an unshirted guy in the passenger seat with a pistol to the head of the driver.But in that scenario you don't ask the question, "What happens if I shoot?" but rather the question, "What happens if I don't shoot?"
And if the shooter had, in this case, paused just long enough to do that and consider the implications of the decision, the movements of the people in the car would have been inconsistent with a highjacking and everyone would have gone on to live their lives as if this had not happened - because it wouldn''t have happened.