Which is why most of us carry in the first place. It seems to be a lot of risk for little reward. Then again we don't know if the robber would have killed the clerks or not. Or go on to kill someone else that night. Sometimes doing the right thing can put you and your family in danger. Indy has been having a problem with jail overcrowding and releasing criminals early. I wonder how many criminals seek revenge against the Good Samaritans that catch them. Getting involved is always a tough decision and sometimes the consequences are not all good. It is a smart move that the GS doesn’t wish to be identified or have his image released. Though at trial he may be called as a witness and the accused has a right to confront the witness. Hopefully he can remain anonymous and safe.
Customer pulls gun, stops robbery - WELL DONE!
- Thread starter camslam
- Start date
- Status
Which is why most of us carry in the first place. It seems to be a lot of risk for little reward. Then again we don't know if the robber would have killed the clerks or not. Or go on to kill someone else that night. Sometimes doing the right thing can put you and your family in danger. Indy has been having a problem with jail overcrowding and releasing criminals early. I wonder how many criminals seek revenge against the Good Samaritans that catch them. Getting involved is always a tough decision and sometimes the consequences are not all good. It is a smart move that the GS doesn’t wish to be identified or have his image released. Though at trial he may be called as a witness and the accused has a right to confront the witness. Hopefully he can remain anonymous and safe.
camslam
Member
I agree whole heartedly with this statement for this reason: any time a person is using a firearm in a defensive situation the decision is theirs and they must weigh their actions with the consequences.
That being said, I get so tired of reading news articles where people just sit idly by and watch crimes, assaults, robberies, and even murders, and do nothing about it. It is one thing if you are not able to do something, but a person that is licensed to carry a concealed weapon and is carrying, I have a hard time respecting their decision to let someone else die or be harmed, just so they can stay safe.
That old saying of, "I'm not the police, it isn't my job", drives me crazy. I think when I hear that type of comment, it makes me wonder what their opinion would be if their loved one was shot, murdered, or assaulted, while someone else that could have done something about it, sat and watched, and said, "I'm not the police, it isn't my job."
I guess if you are fine with someone not coming to your aid, or the aid of your loved ones, then I'm fine with you not being willing to come to someone else's aid. I may not respect you much, but I do respect your right to make that decision. JMHO.
kd7nqb
Member
BAD IDEA, once you pull the trigger you better have been authorized to use deadly force. Where that line is, varies too much to risk shooting the gun out of somebody hand, plus with all the adrenaline it just not going to happen reliably.
All in all Charlie did a good thing, his tactics were sub-par but they worked THIS time.
The debate about defense of others rages on all gun-boards frankly its a personal decision.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
...carry with a round in the chamber.
Life does come with risks. I wonder what the opinion of the good guy's family would be if he died defending a stranger. How would they feel about losing a father, husband, provider/co-provider when he didn't have to?
It is a tough call. What I do know is that it is stupid to trade your own life for that of another, especially when they are a stranger. It may be heroic, but it can also destroy the family you have been caring for/raising because of the loss of a parent, spouse, income, etc. So not only do you die, but your family suffers on top of it. The price paid goes beyond just yourself.
Is the stranger's family going to make up for your family's loss of income if you are killed? Insurance? Pay your mortgage or car payments? Do you think they will at least pay for a decent funeral? No, not likely. They will pat hug your spouse and tell your spouse how sorry they were, if they attend the funeral, and that will be it.
camslam
Member
Absolutely. That is why I say that everyone needs to make up their own mind when it comes to a situation involving using a gun for defense.
All of your assumptions are probably right on the money. However I guess my question would be, what kind of compensation are you looking for; for doing the right thing? Honor is tough call, is it more honorable to die or get injured in defending the life of an innocent person, whether you know them or not? Is is more honorable to stay out of any rough situations because you need to be there for your family? Very tough questions, which can only be answered by the person involved. I don't think it is some sort of badge of courage or show of manhood to defend those that are defenseless, but at the same time, it would be very difficult for me to look myself in the mirror, knowing that my lack of action had resulted in the death or deaths of innocent people.
I think that is where mental and physical training come into play, so that if you are presented with that type of situation, you will be able to react in a manner that gives you a better chance of coming out on the good side of things.
It is probably easy to tell from my postings, that I lean to the side of doing something about it when confronted with that type of situation. But as my close friends and I always say, "let's hope none of us ever gets into this type of situation."
IME
Member
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Maybe I'm missing something here but, when the second amendment makes reference to the security of a free state, isn't it fair to infer that it was intended or expected by the framers that an armed citizen would intervene, when able, to prevent lawbreaking when police intervention was unavailable? Doesn't this promote the security of a free state?
Maybe I'm missing something here but, when the second amendment makes reference to the security of a free state, isn't it fair to infer that it was intended or expected by the framers that an armed citizen would intervene, when able, to prevent lawbreaking when police intervention was unavailable? Doesn't this promote the security of a free state?
ZeSpectre
Member
Interesting, never thought about it from that angle. Something new to ponder over lunch.
If you let criminals take over the country then your government must change in order to be able to defeat the criminal behavior... that assumes of course that the government itself isn't criminal.
When people have morals and govern themselves there is little incentive for people to want the government to step in and take care of things.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Interesting to ponder given that the first police department didn't get created for nearly 50 years after the Bill of Rights. I don't think the framers had cops in mind.
IME
Member
In my last post "police" was used generically, as a synonym for law enforcement -- whether it be the local constable, justice of the peace, sheriff, whatever. I am quite confident that you can find references to any one of them in the historical records.
ZeSpectre
Member
Shire-Reeve (Sheriff)
There is no reason to intervene on behalf of ANYONE.
This includes "loved ones"
Only use the gun you carry to protect YOURSELF (unless you are a cop,soldier, body guard, ect)
If your not in danger or being threatened don't pull the gun or use it.
Defending anyone else is asking for trouble imho
This includes "loved ones"
Only use the gun you carry to protect YOURSELF (unless you are a cop,soldier, body guard, ect)
If your not in danger or being threatened don't pull the gun or use it.
Defending anyone else is asking for trouble imho
camslam
Member
LAR-15, I'm not looking to demean you or pick a fight about this, because as I have mentioned in numerous posts, anytime you are engaging in a situation with guns, it is a personal decision. However as I started reading your post, I was waiting to get to the sarcastic face or inference when I got to the bottom and there wasn't any. The position you propose is downright scary to me....
... that being said, I'm sure glad that most people don't share your opinion on this. If you are saying you wouldn't even pull your gun to protect a "loved one", something is not right. What is the point of having a gun? I guess for you it is to defend yourself and that is it. I believe I have a duty to defend myself, my family, my neighbors, my country, and any innocents that I may be able to help. That is a personal opinion and I'm sure it isn't shared by all, but thankfully there are enough people out there willing to stand up and face bad situations when needed.
I just don't get people that aren't willing to help or protect another, but I have to respect your right to choose. Thankfully, I don't have to like it.
CZ 42, it's not that everyone thinks a gun can't knock another gun out of someone's hand, it's that in a high stress, high adrenaline, almost lethal type of senario you're not going to think of shooting the gun out of his hand. In that type of situation you can't think, you end up reverting back to instinct and training, you can't think. That's why we practice and form habits before incidents take place. Besides, the other point everyone is making is that it's very dangerous and there's a higher chance you'll either miss and shoot the perp or an innocent, or you'll hit the gun but the ricochet will injure or kill someone you're not trying to.
TallPine, the police would not have shot charlie because in an instance like that the person that calls police usually tells the dispatcher that the BG didn't get away but is being held at gunpoint by a bystander.
I'm guessing it was a DA/SA auto he was using. Assuming he had a round in the chamber, he probably just cocked the hammer to prove a point and get the perp to snap out of his paralytic stupor.
When the 2nd amendment was written, they were under siege by England and their neighbors were not a problem. People have a strange but fortunate tendancy of sticking together when problems arise that threaten everyone. The 2nd amendment was written in refference to protecting the new "America" from the Old World tyrant they came to the New World to escape in the first place. Their reasons for writing the 2nd amendment is because the king of England decided that since he claimed the new world for England that everyone that lives there is now under his authority. Also, since we were using our hunting rifles in a way that undermined the crown's intentions, he declared that we no longer had the right to own hunting rifles or anything of the sort. When the "red coats" came and took over an area, they'd confiscate all the weapons and execute the gunsmiths/makers for helping the rebels. The 2nd amendment was birthed as a response to all that.
TallPine, the police would not have shot charlie because in an instance like that the person that calls police usually tells the dispatcher that the BG didn't get away but is being held at gunpoint by a bystander.
I'm guessing it was a DA/SA auto he was using. Assuming he had a round in the chamber, he probably just cocked the hammer to prove a point and get the perp to snap out of his paralytic stupor.
When the 2nd amendment was written, they were under siege by England and their neighbors were not a problem. People have a strange but fortunate tendancy of sticking together when problems arise that threaten everyone. The 2nd amendment was written in refference to protecting the new "America" from the Old World tyrant they came to the New World to escape in the first place. Their reasons for writing the 2nd amendment is because the king of England decided that since he claimed the new world for England that everyone that lives there is now under his authority. Also, since we were using our hunting rifles in a way that undermined the crown's intentions, he declared that we no longer had the right to own hunting rifles or anything of the sort. When the "red coats" came and took over an area, they'd confiscate all the weapons and execute the gunsmiths/makers for helping the rebels. The 2nd amendment was birthed as a response to all that.
IME
Member
No, I have to take issue with this.
When the second amendment was written the War of Independence was over. It was written as one of ten amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) to the proposed constitution which was going to radically change the national government from a loose confederation of states to a much stronger central government.
These ten amendments were demanded by the states to limit the powers of the new nation government and to codify the inherent and natural rights of its citizens. The second amendment of which we speak simply was the federal codification of a right already established in most, if not all, of the constitutions of the 13 new states.
- Status
