Don't Expect to Be a Hero, Intervention Leds to Arrest

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviously firing at a fleeing assailant is wrong.

My question: did he get involved because he saw someone stealing a camera, or because he saw the woman’s life threatened when she was knocked to the ground?

Again obvious, if he became involved for the sake of the camera it was absolutely the wrong thing to do. What if it was because she was in danger of death or great bodily injury?
 
I carry only for me and my familys protection, I will only considering unholstering my weapon if I think it will be useful in helping us get out of a bad situation. with the legal liabilities and the way voters in my state are happy to restrict my rights, I will not even consider using my weapon to assist anyone other than my family or if I saw an officer in trouble and even then I would ask first.

being a hero is asking for problems far larger than I can imagine.

I do feel sorry for that gentleman he was only trying help, but he could have made things worse than what he was trying to stop.
 
"...or if I saw an officer in trouble and even then I would ask first.
being a hero is asking for problems far larger than I can imagine..."
Agreed. To my mind that seems like a prime opportunity to get shot by other responding police on their way.
The likelihood of surviving (while holding a gun) with an officer on the ground near to you is extremely slim.
Other people are simply on their own and they have my thoughts and prayers for good luck. Life is tough.
 
there was a guy not to long ago that saved a highway trooper in arizona by shooting a fighting suspect, maybe some would just walk or drive by like nothings happening, I would at least ask if they needed assistance
 
Obviously firing at a fleeing assailant is wrong.
What is the basis for believing that that was done?

My question: did he get involved because he saw someone stealing a camera, or because he saw the woman’s life threatened when she was knocked to the ground? Again obvious, if he became involved for the sake of the camera it was absolutely the wrong thing to do. What if it was because she was in danger of death or great bodily injury?
Robbery is not a property crime.
 
What is the basis for believing that that was done?

Robbery is not a property crime.

Posts 3, 5, and 8 all seemed to rebuke the guy for possibly shooting while the alleged robber was fleeing. I have no basis for believing that was done, but did not care to argue about whether or not he did and to that end I said that we all should know it is wrong. No argument to justify that here, but neither was I saying that he did it. In other words, "let's get over this, and move on" to my main point.

What do you mean by "Robbery is not a property crime"? I'm not sure why you quoted my post with that. I drew the distinction between someone simply stealing goods of monetary value and causing great bodily injury to someone. It seemed that several people were condemning the armed store owner for getting involved in a robbery. My point was that his motivation may not have been witnessing that someone was simply robbed of a camera, but witnessing that a woman was forcibly assaulted. His motivation may have been for the woman's physical well-being, not the camera.

I'm just trying to give the store owner the benefit of the doubt. I think that's okay?
 
What do you mean by "Robbery is not a property crime"?
Robbery is the cime of threatening or doing harm to someone for the purpose of taking something.

I drew the distinction between someone simply stealing goods of monetary value and causing great bodily injury to someone.
Stealing is the taking of something without threat of harm or violence.

Robbery does not necessarily involve "great bodily harm"--the threat of any harm is sufficient.

It seemed that several people were condemning the armed store owner for getting involved in a robbery.
I think they were pointing out the risks of defending a third party.
 
Stepping totally aside from what did happen, it seems the right answer is to get to a good position to be a good witness and then verbalize such so that the offender knows you are there, armed or not. If he disengages then so be it. If he doesn’t disengage and threatens the victims life then further action may be necessary, it’s absolute last resort being the discharge of a firearm. A shout “hey you (insert your choice of descriptive/expletive term) the cops are coming and your on camera. Leave now” seems like a good one way communication likely to break up the incident. If they threaten you at that point you may still be up a creek legally as you entered the scene “looking for a fight” but if you can demonstrate that they became aggressive towards you when you were not aggressive towards them then your in a better spot for argument.
 
Of all the comments posted here have any of the commenters actually involved them selves in a situation that may have called for a “chivalrous” reaction on their part. I for one have never and can’t really say how I would react if I observed a woman or child being accosted. Mano en Mano, probably mind my own business. But then I’m from a different age.
 
I helped a neighbor girl out that was being attacked by her steroids injecting BF.
I tell myself now to not get involved but when you see a 270 pound guy body slam a 120 pound girl on concrete you just react.
 
you carry a gun to protect yourself from criminal attack, or a third party from possible death, possible physical harm, or a forcible felony. as a private citizen, once the criminal disengages and is running away, you can no longer use lethal force.
5. If a perpetrator is obviously departing, any deadly threat is no longer present. Shots fired at the retreating perp are themselves a deadly assault.
Obviously firing at a fleeing assailant is wrong.

Several of y'all have touched upon this notion of flight and Kleanbore asked...
What is the basis for believing that that was done?

This is a HUGE question. It almost always seems easy to tell the difference between flight and repositioning, seeking cover, attempting to procure another weapon, etc. AFTER THE FACT. People seem to have the misconception that just because a person is moving away that the person is no longer a threat. People seem to think that just because the person is no longer facing you, he is no longer a threat. This may or may NOT be true.

Y'all remember when Joshua Williams shot up that gun shop in Louisiana? It was only last month.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...uding-suspect-at-louisiana-gun-outlet.884051/
He killed a lady, shot up the store, and then took took off, leaving the store, with his brother's small child...so obviously he was in flight, right? After all, he left the store and leaving = flight? No longer a threat? Nope. He apparently was regrouping and reassaulting, never ceasing to be a threat, and came back in the store and killed another person, and left again where he was killed in the parking lot. Sounds like he was in flight, twice, huh?
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/20/us/louisiana-shooting-gun-shop-three-dead/index.html

Turns out, he left the store the first time with one of his brother's children (getting the child to safety?) before re-engaging. He had fired all of his 32 rounds when he was put down by employees.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/us/new-orleans-shooting-joshua-williams.html

So was he in flight the 2nd time when he was killed by employees, or was he attempting to get to his vehicle to get more guns and ammo?

I didn't see a lot of people complaining about how he was in flight in the other thread.

So going back to the question at hand, how do you know when the bad guy/girl is in flight and absolutely not a threat in real time? People mentioned the suspect getting into a car. Okay. Does that mean the suspect will take flight or is now just armed with a bigger weapon? This is not an uncommon event... The bad guy punched the old man and knocked him to the ground, got his keys and got into his vehicle. Obviously, he is in flight, right? This is just a simple robbery and the bad guy only wants the vehicle. So when the victim got in front of the car and yelled at the bad guy, the bad guy used the vehicle as a weapon. THEN backed up and left? Regardless of whether or not you like how the old man behaved, at what point was the bad guy no longer a threat?
 

I did not read it all,all I needed to read was he "FIRED 4 SHOTS ".

That is a huge no ,no !

And displaying a firearm for what reason ?, miss the part where the victim was facing deadly force.
 
there was a guy not to long ago that saved a highway trooper in arizona by shooting a fighting suspect, maybe some would just walk or drive by like nothings happening, I would at least ask if they needed assistance
If it's the case I remember, the officer asked for the passerby's assistance. And IIRC the good guy even warned BG to get off the officer before shooting him after he failed to comply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top