The Larry Goldstein Incident

Status
Not open for further replies.

bdickens

Member
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
2,638
Location
Hockley , TX
For all of you who stash guns all over, thinking you'll be able to get to one, as well as you "but I live in a good neighborhood " types:

https://americanhandgunner.com/our-experts/with-a-gun-to-your-head-the-larry-goldstein-incident/

"May 15, 2015. In a suburb of Jackson, Miss., Larry Goldstein, MD, is in his open garage, loading his pickup truck. A successful gynecologist, his sleepless years in residency and dedication to his long-standing practice have rewarded him with a large, expensive home. Unfortunately, criminals are drawn to signs of money.

"His personal sport for the last five years has been competitive shooting. He is on his way to a USPSA match. He has just put his gear bag in the back seat of the quad cab. In it are two CZ Shadow 9mm pistols, several magazines of 9mm, and enough ammo for the whole match. He hears a noise sounding like a squirrel on the eaves, and suddenly he is confronted by two strange men wearing bandannas over their faces.

"The nearest, a broad-chested guy about 5′ 10″, shoves a long barreled stainless-steel revolver in his face. Larry makes it for a .357 Magnum. He can see the noses of the live cartridges in the front of the cylinder. The man snarls, 'You know what this is?' Larry replies as calmly as he can, 'It’s a gun.' Predictably, the next words from the man are, 'We want your money'...."

Mr. Goldstein (and his wife) are extremely lucky. Lucky he kept his head and lucky the two thugs' attention slipped long enough for him to finally act.

If he had a gun on his person, Mr. Goldstein would still have had to wait his turn, of course. But in his predicament, both thugs had to let their guard down twice. Once so he could retrieve one of the guns stashed in his vehicle and conceal it under his leg as he drove, and a second time so he could bring it to bear.

Read. Think. Hopefully, at least a few of you will learn from this.
 
Just read this article a couple days ago and told my wife the story today while we were walking the mutts. Quite the coincidence. Nonetheless, I purchased a USA made magnet and mounted it in the truck - sofhold.com - the days of keeping the pistol in the console are over. Need to carry concealed more than I do too...
 
Of course, many here believe (and have stated so) that those of us that carry in our homes are ... let's just say, unduly paranoid.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: crime happens in your nice neighborhood. Just because some THR members (and lots of guys on the internet) think that this stuff only happens in bad areas, don't buy into that notion. Criminals would rather choose easy targets, where the nice stuff is kept ...
 
The idea of having guns stashed in different places all over the house doesn't make any sense to me. Even if they're stashed in lock boxes.

If they're locked up you had better hope that you're close enough to the lockbox and you get the combination right the very first time when somebody kicks your door in. If they're not in lock boxes you're far more likely to lose your guns in a burglary then you are to use to defend your home.

It seems to me like the better solution is to keep one gun on your person at all times. Especially now that there are so many compact 9 mm handguns available. I'm a firm believer in having a gun on my person anytime I'm dressed. If I'm at home wearing gym shorts and a t-shirt the gun is sitting on the coffee table right in front of me (holstered of course) and when I move through the house it moves through the house with me.

The funniest thing to me about this topic is that when it comes up there's always somebody who insists that carrying a gun at home means that you live in fear. Then they go on to tell us how they have multiple firearms stashed throughout their home.
 
I have guns stashed all around and I mean within feet. I also have multiple large dogs that alert if anyone gets within about 50 yds of the house. Yes, they are inside and alert if someone is outside within about 50 yds. When they alert I check the security cameras. If a direct assault were to take place any intruders would have a difficult time making headway as each entrance is blocked in a zig-zag pattern both giving me cover and preventing a rapid assault.

I firmly believe that if I were in the situation of the linked incident in the OP I would be well aware of any intruders.
 
If you can't get to a gun in two steps, you're not armed.

Be armed.

Larry
 


Or carry your loaded firearms.

I don’t bag loaded firearms for matches but have carried them to the range then unloaded them, before exiting the auto, once I got there.
 
I was just telling a friend, that I bet almost every single murder where the unarmed victim saw it coming, they would have given anything for a gun before they died. Quite possibly one of their final thoughts was about the weapon they did not have.

He agreed. He still doesn’t carry and his house gun is upstairs somewhere. :thumbdown:
 
Not 1 but 2 trained sheriff deputies with their loaded sidearms holstered and presumably other firearms in their possession were ambushed while sitting in their squad car, and both severely wounded by gunfire by a piece of human slime recently. The fact that they both survived is remarkable. Things happen.
 
The most interesting thing in the article to me is that he fired at the fleeing suspect without legal consequence.

While reading through I had figured that was going to get him into legal trouble. It has been drilled into my head so often that shooting at a fleeing suspect is bad form. Like most things "it depends" strikes again. It would be challenging to have changed my mind on the fly in an event like that.
 
Read more carefully. Dr. Goldstein didn't shoot at a "fleeing suspect." He shot at a guy who he reasonably believed (there's that word again) was going after his wife

I got that part.

If you are looking at it from an ability, opportunity, and jeopardy scenario the opportunity part is not immediate. There is a change of venue required for the second assailant to make good on his threat. I think it is reasonable that the attacker was in flight (as did occur) rather than attempting to follow through on the threat. A particularly nasty prosecutor could easily have seen the facts of the case and decided that the victim's actions in firing at the fleeing assailant were reckless endangerment or worse had he connected.

That is the reason I found it interesting, not a lack of reading comprehension.

The article is written with a definite slant toward the victim's actions and intentions. That is fine, but you need to realize that some of the information can be skewed to record the victim's rationalization after the fact. And even if it isn't skewed and is the honest truth of what was going on in the victim's mind the people who are judging it need to be convinced. Luckily this never made it past the point where more than some free legal work was able to cover the victim's expenses, but it could have cost him a lot more.
 
You have to be a pretty unlucky criminal to take a USPSA shooter hostage. And a dumb one to let him drive himself in his own car.
 
If you are looking at it from an ability, opportunity, and jeopardy scenario the opportunity part is not immediate.
You have to know more than I do to come to that conclusion

here is a change of venue required for the second assailant to make good on his threat.
"Cnange of venue"? the issue is about immediacy, coupled with what the guy has just done and what he said he intended to do.

It's a judgment call.

I think it is reasonable that the attacker was in flight (as did occur) rather than attempting to follow through on the threat
.

He fled after the shooting.

A particularly nasty prosecutor could easily have seen the facts of the case and decided that the victim's actions in firing at the fleeing assailant were reckless endangerment or worse had he connected.
Yes, but could he establish that beyond reasonable doubt?

The reason we don't shoot at fleeing felons is that one assumes that the immediate threat no longer exists--not because the man is moving fast. That assumption is subject to examination in light of the facts. The question is whether the man still constituted an immediate danger.

Others determine that, on the basis of what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstance, knowing what the defender knew at the time

Consider this: " The perpetrator is getting into a tan SUV... he has parked near the church close to Larry’s home"--immediately after having attempted a particularly heinous crime--and he had been planning to go to her ASAP.
 
I think doing yard work or hanging in the garage with the door open are some of the most hazardous times. Within the house your door is probably locked so no one can just walk up to you. But in the yard while raking leaves or puttering around in the garage you probably are at an attention deficit (ie your attention is occupied on whatever you're working on). And psychologically your guard is probably down because you feel like you're "at home" when in reality you have all the tactical disadvantages of being in a public space. Where I live now I don't do the yardwork but I do gun-up when I walk out to the street to my bank of mailboxes. It's tough to describe but with the layout of my place I don't carry inside; my door is always locked and bolted with a latch accessible only from the inside and my front door is steel and fairly heavy. It would virtually impossible to get through the door to me in a short enough interval that I couldn't reach a firearm. I am only carrying in my home if I am just getting ready to go out or have got back in.

In years past though I have in houses that had unattached garages. They were smaller, low-crime cities and I rarely carried while puttering around in there. In retrospect it was more good luck on my part that nothing bad happened than good procedures. A sobering read indeed!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top