Where does this guy Brown get off pulling out his gun on a fleeing individual and ordering them to stop? Concealed carry is for personal defense and if the woman was fleeing how was Brown in immediate danger at that point.
First of all the article does not say: 'the robber fled and then Mr. (note the use of Mr.) drew his weapon' but instead it says: "Brown pulled his gun out and ordered the fleeing robber to stop, he told police." The woman stopped but raised her own gun, Brown told police. . There is a subtle difference there and if you do not see it allow me to explain, that the way it is written could also imply he pulled it out, she fled, he ordered her to stop, she drew down on him.
The again, please tell me where is it written in the law of his state that you cannot pull out your gun if there is a possibly still a potential threat. If this armed robber was within pistols shot (assuming it was a pistol she had used) there was absolutely nothing wrong with Mr. Brown pulling out his weapon in anticipation of her possibly turning to fire at them. I have read enough reports of an armed criminal returning to the scene to wipe out witnesses after it had appeared the criminal had already fled. He can also order an armed robber to stop as to effect a citizens arrest. Being that the armed robber was in fact armed when he gave his command to stop, he had more than a reasonable belief to think his life would be in jeopardy when he did so since she had just committed an armed robbery in his presence. In addition, concealed carry does not preclude you from drawing your weapon to protect innocents other than yourself despite you saying it is only for personal defense of self. Your argument about where does Mr. Brown: "get off pulling out his gun on a fleeing individual and ordering them to stop?" is moot.
Now as to his missing; tell me exactly what is it that makes you certain that he missed. I once shot a deer, a small 120 pound deer, through the heart (tore of at least 1/4 of the heart right at the aorta) and also ripped up about 1/2 a lung (turned it to mush). The deer ran at least 100 yards away from where it stood when I shot it. Recently you may have heard of the Police officer in NYC who was shot fatally through the heart yet pursued a criminal (the guy who had shot him) for a couple minutes more. In addition there was the man just reportedly shot in his head (unknown to him at the time), who with bullet in his brain drove to work to tell his boss he could not make work that day because his head was bleeding and he needed to see a doctor. I once shot a mugger who tried to mug me. At least some of the police who responded told me I should never have drawn my weapon, I should never have fired it and that I may have killed an innocent bystander or been killed myself. They seemingly had the same mindset as you. Other police officers told me I had done the right thing. As it turned out, a day or two later, the mugger was found in a not to distant hospital. He had checked himself in with multiple gun shot wounds. I had only fired a single round at him as soon as my pistol cleared leather, then pointed my gun at his accomplice and fired one toward him. The police, despite 5 bullet holes in the hospitalized suspect, assured me that my one shot had been responsible. It had hit him in one of his thighs at groin level, it exited the thigh and went into one of his testicles, it passed through both of his testicles and exited the other side, it then entered the other thigh and traveled down until it stopped just next to his knee. This guy, after being shot, ran like a rabbit to flee. There was no blood left behind at the scene. Everyone thought I had missed, the police were absolutely certain of it. I thought the evidence made it seem as if I had missed, I was worried I had hit an innocent bystander as they slept in their apartment, but I was also at a loss to explain how I had missed at a pretty close range and after having been fairly certain right after the shot, that it had hit its mark.
Was I justified in shooting, let me assure you yeas I had been justified. A grand jury that investigated found such to be the case as did the police and my agency at the time, as did my agency's Internal Affairs. Had I missed, would it had made me any less justified to draw and fire than had I hit him? No it would not, the fact of a miss would not have effected whether or not I should have drawn. Would there have been a problem with a miss? Possibly. The second shot by the way was in essence a miss even though it had been right on the target of the accomplice. It was deflected by a windshield. Should I not have taken that shot - the accomplice clearly had a revolver in his hand as he was about to exit their car. The other guy had already pointed what appeared to be a gun at me and ordered me "don't move mother f-----".
If I shoot I must be responsible for each shot I take. People often misunderstand what exactly that means. It means you must be responsible in that you must have justification for each shot. It does not mean you will necessarily be criminally prosecuted if your shot hits an innocent bystander. The totality of the circumstances will be weighed before such a criminal prosecution, even here in this anti gun state of New York, wherein I reside. You maybe sued but even then you will not necessarily lose the law suit just because you wound up shooting an innocent bystander. There was no reckless endangerment involved in Mr. Brown's actions if the report of what he did is correct.
Of course maybe he really missed, then again, does anyone else ever miss under the stress of having a firearm pointed at them? Think about that before you answer. Would that make it reckless endangerment. I have been under the stress of several life threatening situations. My sphincter muscle starts to get the pucker factor - you know where it tries to prevent a smelly mess in my pants. That causes lots of stress on the body, that along with what seems to be a gallon of adrenalin pumping into your system, and just being scared that you are potentially about to lose your life. Tell me, should only police use guns in situations like this? What about if they miss, or is it you think they do not miss because of some special talent they have. I have been an LEO for over 26 years. For 14 of those years I was a firearms instructor as a collateral duty. LEOs often shoot like stink pickles. As to this incident: I guess time may tell, if the armed robber is ever arrested, as to whether or not he hit his mark. If she is not arrested, we may never know if he hit his mark or not.
As for this:
We are not police officers and it is not our job to attempt to stop fleeing bad guys (or girls). Sure he had a right to respond when the woman raised her gun, but she was responding to his actions, which if the story is accurate, amount to escalating the situation.
Are you kidding, you mean to tell me you in essence somewhat justify the act of the robber by saying she was reacting to him? You say he escalated the situation. In fact he attempted to have the situation end by ordering her to STPO. That is not an escalation of anything. Drawing a weapon in self defense against possible or potential threat is also not escalation. Her turning and pointing g the firearm at him is an escalation of the situation. I find it hard to believe you even wrote what I just made comment on. You apparently find it against all that is proper for him to have reacted the way he did to her just threatening lives, robbing McDonalds, and then fleeing (if that is the actual correct order) with a pistol still in her hand posing a potential imminent threat to anyone who may have accidentally gotten in her way. You imply he does not have the right to order her to stop! The fact is that, Mr. Brown would have taken an inappropriate action had he not drawn his pistol to the ready to be prepared for any further threat that may have occurred - such as the return of the armed robber or the threat of an as yet unnoticed accomplice, and so forth. As for his ordering her to stop - to find any fault with that is just, in my opinion, a rather sad commentary on a certain mindset that seems to have infected our society as of late - the let's do everything we can to criminalize the victim who fights back mindset.
I must ask though: Did you write what you wrote just to stir the pot and try to have the grease spill over and ignite the flames? You begin by saying how "you guys" may not like your point! So what if we do not like it, is there any logical reason to state that before you start except that you are trying to rile people up before they even read further. You seem to be baiting us, trying to stir us up before we even see what you have to say. Then you basically end by saying your initial "knee jerk" reaction was basically in direct opposition to all else you had written, implying that you initial reaction was emotional and was incorrect. You seem to be implying that others here also had "knee jerk" reactions. My responses to this thread were not knee jerk at all, nor were others from what I have seen. I carefully weighed the reported facts I know about this incident. Then I replied.
Sincerely with best regards,
Glenn B
I'll go to Bojangles. Better food anyway. I hope the guy gets a better job at another store.
