Armed civilian stops mass shooting

General Geoff said:

Belief in the story often has nothing to do with it. There are events that are absolutely, 100% clear-cut cases of self defense caught on video and even still, local authorities have charged the victim with murder.

There are both systemic prejudices in large metropolitan areas against self defense, as well as ideological rifts between those who would rather see a person die than kill someone else to protect their own lives.

Click to expand...

There was a movement in the late 80s thru the 90's, that you shouldn't defend yourself. Just given it to them, and they'll leave you alone. Couple that with Grand Juries tendency to rubberstamp the Prosecutors position. Well, I'd expect to end up at trial, warranted or no. Makes having CC insurance seem a better choice every day. For those that CC all the time.

Spats McGee said:

So you think there's a 0% chance of him being sued? I disagree, but I will admit that even if he is sued, it doesn't seem like a very strong case, from what I have seen.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think there is literally a zero% chance the family of the mass murderer will bring a wrongful death suit against this young man.
Certainly a suit that would end up going to trial.

rust collector said:

I disagree. An armed encounter is life changing and killing another human triggers emotions that most of us have never and will never experience. He did well to keep his face off camera, and he would be wise to find a good therapist to work through the emotional trauma.

I hope he is able to put these events in their proper place in the years to come. He performed well, protecting his friend and others in the process, and we support him. In today's society, however, there will inevitably be criticism and the honeymoon will end. I hope he will be sustained by a good support system and the knowledge that he did his best.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Most people are excellent armchair quarterbacks. But it's fascinating how much the ideals from the armchair are actually in opposition to the facts of reality.

The reality is that it is exceptionally difficult for one human being to deliberately kill another human being without some extreme circumstances being involved. To do so on a deliberate level invariably requires some act of "dehuminization" of the targeted individual or peoples.

They are not "people", for example...they are the "enemy". And the "enemy" must be killed.

He is not "human", he's a "rabid dog". And a "rabid dog" must be put down.

They're not "real", they're images on a remote camera. And images can't really die when you shoot them.

Killing at a distance is easier. Killing when you can't see the individual is easier. Killing when the individual is less-than-human is easier.

But killing face to face is exceptionally hard, because you are face to face with a real, live, human being.

For most people, at the end of the day when they have actually killed another person, people must face the reality that they did, in fact, take the life of another human being. Thinking that this wouldn't affect someone, or worse, thinking it wouldn't affect YOU in the same circumstances, is wistful thinking at best. And delusion at it's worse.

I hope this guy gets both a good attorney AND a good therapist. There is no shame in either.

I’m just glad he decided to do more than “be a good witness”

Those people seem to missing this time around, which seems standard with incidents like this.

Spats McGee said:

Well, the old saying is that you can indict a ham sandwich. I don't think such a suit is likely to succeed, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of a lawyer trying to shake a settlement out of it. Particularly if said lawyer can find a reason to add the mall as a defendant.

Click to expand...

While it is very easy to file a lawsuit against anyone, Indiana law
provides complete civil immunity to a person who uses force (including
deadly force) if that force is justified under Indiana’s self-defense statute.
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2. If a court determines a person who files a
lawsuit was committing a forcible felony or attempting to cause unlawful
serious bodily injury or death at the time justified force was used against
them in self-defense, the case will be dismissed. The original attacker
will be required to cover additional costs, including attorneys’ fees. This
law also applies to the family or estate of a person who is killed through
the justified use of force. Ind. Code § 34-30-31-1

Copied

The press and the leftists (but I repeat myself) seem to be disappointed that the body count wasn't much higher and that the defender survived... .

rust collector said:

he would be wise to find a good therapist to work through the emotional trauma.

Click to expand...

The city is providing counseling, according to a CNN interview with the mayor this morning.

They offered high praise to this young man, but of course their expert commentator pointed out how infrequently this ending occurs and cited cases where this sort of thing went south (apologies for not getting his name).

Anything to white wash a good deed with a gun

357 Terms said:

I can say the possibility of a mass murderers family bringing a lawsuit against a young man who stopped said relative from murdering several other people is quite likely not in the realm of possibility.

Click to expand...

You would think not, but in our current world there are hucksters that push the " victim of life's circumstances" jive, trying to hustle up some money no matter the situation. Here in Houston we have a 350 lb pile of manure named Quannell X who pops up out of the sewer every time he sees the chance to make a fast buck.

Mousegun said:

It appears the "no guns" signs in Indiana are just suggestions that do not carry the weight of the law. Here in Tennessee, they do and that poses a difficulty each time a person who chooses to carry goes to places like a mall or a movie theater or any place that simply smacks up a sign.

The Tennessee Firearms Association has been trying to get that law canned for years without any back up from the RINO Republicans that run this state.

Click to expand...

Anti gun RINOs are apparently a problem in most red states. A group of them prevent any meaningful pro gun legislation from coming up from a vote

matttric said:

You bring up a good point, as far as the jury pool goes. I wonder if the “jury of your peers” criteria would allow the case to be moved to an area more friendly to 2A than NYC.

Click to expand...

IIRC NY allows you to waive a trail by jury in favor of a judge only trial. Which may or may not help in these partisan times

Spats McGee said:

Well, the old saying is that you can indict a ham sandwich. I don't think such a suit is likely to succeed, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of a lawyer trying to shake a settlement out of it. Particularly if said lawyer can find a reason to add the mall as a defendant.

Click to expand...

Another point is that for the moment, this story doesn't have much traction. Bad guy dead, good guy can ride off into the sunset. Nothing more to see folks. If there is a lawsuit, the action of a good guy with a gun will be all over, poking holes in the antis arguments. From the perspective of the anti movement, the less said about this, the better.

357 Terms said:

While it is very easy to file a lawsuit against anyone, Indiana law
provides complete civil immunity to a person who uses force (including
deadly force) if that force is justified under Indiana’s self-defense statute.
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2. If a court determines a person who files a
lawsuit was committing a forcible felony or attempting to cause unlawful
serious bodily injury or death at the time justified force was used against
them in self-defense, the case will be dismissed. The original attacker
will be required to cover additional costs, including attorneys’ fees. This
law also applies to the family or estate of a person who is killed through
the justified use of force. Ind. Code § 34-30-31-1

Copied

Click to expand...

The part a lot of people don't understand about this is HOW this civil immunity is acquired.

It isn't acquired by some investigation's findings, though obviously this would carry significant weight. It isn't conferred because the DA decided not to press charges. It's acquired in court.

If a person is criminally charged and acquitted, then there's a court finding to support civil immunity. If there isn't...then there is no such finding to support a case for civil immunity. A judge HAS to be brought into this somehow. If not, then a civil trial can move forward.

So, in a nutshell, a person has to prove in SOME court of law (either criminal or civil) that he meets the requirements of civil immunity.

The exact specifics on such laws, of course, depends on the jurisdiction which have them.

Now, I ain't no attorney, of course, and don't claim to be an expert on this. But there are misconceptions out there about civil immunity and what it takes to qualify under it.

Latest coverage by (as expected) the usual suspects (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, Yahoo News and a couple others) just have to note the fact that the mall was "posted" and the "Good Samaritan" violated (gasp!) MALL POLICY by going shopping and still carrying his legal conceal carry handgun. In fact, one of last night's television news broadcasts insinuated that our "Good Samaritan" was a big symptom of the problem with the "gun culture" in the USA.

And we here just continue the preaching to the choir. The outrage needs to be expressed to the news media, which is collectively now out of control. Really? The talking heads have to actually say to their viewers that this type of happy ending is ever so rare, an anomaly and doesn't represent the true need for citizens in this country to be able to bear arms for self-defense? What planet are these people living on? These morons need to be called out, publicly, loudly and often.

Doesn't matter that the Greenwood Mall's rules had no force of law; the media sayeth firearms are prohibited in the mall, thus, citizens believeth concealed carry by a law-abiding citizen in that particular mall was illegal.

The way the mainstream media operates these days, there doesn't seem to be any spin on this story that will ultimately come out in favor of the RKBA (excepting to those of us that believe in the RKBA). The focus will remain on the "successful" mass shooters. This story will fade quickly (at least it was more widely reported that the woman that took down the rifle-toting guy at the graduation party, probably because it was in a sacred public institution -- a mall) from the media's consciousness as it doesn't fit the leftist narrative.

Bricks fly through windows of businesses, causing millions of dollars worth of damages, "protestors" assault and injure police officers, police precincts are vandalized and ruined, Seattle and Portland burn, but it's okay, because the media supports "peaceful protests" and "black lives matter" so thousands of criminals never get arrested, never get charged, never get convicted. But a potential active shooter, with the capability to have taken far more than the three lives he did take, gets taken down by a law-abiding citizen and all the media can say is it's so incredibly rare as to be statistically insignificant.

I felt like puking while I waded through the national news broadcasts of this story.

citizenconn said:

You would think not, but in our current world there are hucksters that push the " victim of life's circumstances" jive, trying to hustle up some money no matter the situation. Here in Houston we have a 350 lb pile of manure named Quannell X who pops up out of the sewer every time he sees the chance to make a fast buck.

Click to expand...

The stark reality is that the shooter being a "victim of life's circumstances" has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the people he's shooting have as much a right at that instant in time to live as any other human being. Once the violence begins, the circumstances of the shooter's past life take a back seat to everything until the violence stops. THEN people can worry about this (if the shooter survives long enough to take advantage of any benefits from this).

What we NEVER see in ANY shooting are representatives of this professed ideology standing up amongst the crowds of victims and stopping the violence with cries of "Awww, you poor young man! Let me give you a hug and make you feel all better!"

Nope. What you DO see, however, is a whole bunch of people running, screaming, crying, hiding, getting injured and killed, etc. And in a few instances you'll see a person or two take action against the bad guy.

It'd be rather challenging to find any case of such representatives having actually taken any such action...and rather fewer, I submit, who were successful.

The unrelenting clown show media reinforces my "predetermined policy" to evacuate the vicinity should some dirtbag start shooting…unless the criminal is directly targeting me and mine. I am extraordinarily proud of this remarkable young man and we are seeing how society will simply not allow a good deed to go unpunished.

The reason I have made this decision in advance is to hopefully "go on autopilot" should the need sadly arise and not be burdened with ethical and emotional quandary. I wish laser focus on simply saving me and mine.

AlexanderA said:

From a moral standpoint, the right thing to do is for the armed bystander to intervene, to save lives. But from a legal standpoint, the basis of being armed is personal self defense. Every armed citizen is not a substitute, amateur, self-appointed policeman. As laudable as this person's actions were, if as a society we go down that road, it will ultimately lead to chaos.

And this armed bystander was lucky. In a similar situation, he could have made a mistake, an innocent person could have been shot, and then he could be subject to legal liability. If you're going to intervene, you damn well better be sure you are shooting the right person. The police have legal protections, for their actions, that ordinary citizens do not.

Click to expand...

None of this is correct or accurate.

From a legal standpoint, defense of others absolutely is justifiable in plenty of jurisdictions, mine included.
For example: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00411.htm

Then there's the second ammendment, which mentions self-defense exactly zero times. Doesn't even insinuate it. Not even a little bit.
It does, however, seem to indicate that an armed citizenry is necessary for the security of the nation.
In other words, the use of arms is justified as a means of protecting our countrymen.

The idea that armed citizens standing up & doing the right thing will lead to chaos is nonsense.
How long have Americans been armed? Last time I checked it was always.
Have we decended into a chaos of our own making yet? How many CCW-holders do we read about daily shooting up schools, malls, or nightclubs?
How many mass killings have resulted from armed 'good guys' going into spray & pray mode and killing everyone in sight?

The increase in people interested in carrying guns for self-defense is a response to the chaos we're already living in. Not the cause of it.
People who realize the police will rarely be there for them when it matters in an increasingly violent world.

What's the cause of this chaos? What's the cause of the violence & disregard for human life that seems to be increasing at a rapid pace?
I won't pretend to have all the answers, but I'll tell you one thing: A diverse nation filled with people who's only concern is looking out for #1 is a pretty big part of it.

People defending the weak & needy aren't the cause of chaos. They're the cure.

I'm so sick & tired of heros like these being treated like dolts too stupid to realize they're putting themselves in jeapordy. Saving your own butt at all costs is not an indicator of intelligence. It's an indicator of cowardice.

Old Dog said:

Bricks fly through windows of businesses, causing millions of dollars worth of damages, "protestors" assault and injure police officers, police precincts are vandalized and ruined, Seattle and Portland burn, but it's okay, because the media supports "peaceful protests" and "black lives matter" so thousands of criminals never get arrested, never get charged, never get convicted. But a potential active shooter, with the capability to have taken far more than the three lives he did take, gets taken down by a law-abiding citizen and all the media can say is it's so incredibly rare as to be statistically insignificant.

Click to expand...

Don't you understand?
If you don't arrest, prosecute and convict the perpetrators then NO CRIME OCCURRED!
Crime stats drop - it's like magic!!

I'm still waiting on a statement from the Johnston County Prosecutor before I do any kind of speculation. At least my state isn't trying to do a Rittenhouse on the guy.

Officers'Wife said:

I'm still waiting on a statement from the Johnston County Prosecutor before I do any kind of speculation. At least my state isn't trying to do a Rittenhouse on the guy yet.

Click to expand...

FIFY.

RetiredUSNChief said:

FIFY.

Click to expand...

Trying to put words in my mouth, Chief? Johnston County has a history of being conservative and as such the Prosecutor is unlikely to make his name known by an indictment. Had this happened in neighboring Marion County it would be a different story.

Officers'Wife said:

Trying to put words in my mouth, Chief? Johnston County has a history of being conservative and as such the Prosecutor is unlikely to make his name known by an indictment. Had this happened in neighboring Marion County it would be a different story.

Click to expand...

Sorry...I shoulda added a winky-face to that!

As for politics and politicians in general...about the only thing I can say about them all in general is "they're not to be trusted".

Even those with strong histories either way can make a shift against the winds.

Officers'Wife said:

Trying to put words in my mouth, Chief? Johnston County has a history of being conservative and as such the Prosecutor is unlikely to make his name known by an indictment. Had this happened in neighboring Marion County it would be a different story.

Click to expand...

Easy...even Marion county wouldn't touch this!
The Governor, Mayor (Greenwood) police chief....and many other politicians have lauded this kid!
I'm surprised this SD incident hasn't brought ALL 2A people to a singular point!!
This legally armed citizen has STOPPED a mass murderer!!
Much of this thread is pointing to negative aspects (the media, possible legal ramifications)
This event is tragic, yet, a legally armed citizen has individually stopped a heavily armed man intent on killing as many people as possible.
The media can't deny (although they can try) this.
I have literally seen more praise for this kid in the media, and from politicians, than I have on THR....
Shocking...and to tell the truth. Disappointing