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

Not open for further replies.


Moderator Emeritus
Apr 11, 2004

At about 5:30 p.m., a liquor store owner saw a woman being robbed of her camera at the corner of Ninth and Franklin. After seeing the woman knocked to the ground, the owner ran out with a gun, ordering the assailant to stop and reportedly firing four shots.

The suspect fled in a vehicle, but when police arrived, they took the business owner into custody.

The chief:

Armstrong told gathered media that police want input from the public, but for safety reasons would rather people report crimes to the department instead of getting involved.

“Our message really is that we don’t want to see our business owners or others begin to arm themselves,” said Armstrong. “We would really prefer them to be good witnesses and give us the observations that they have; share that information, call law enforcement immediately and let OPD respond and follow up. What we really don’t want to do is bring any additional issues that threaten safety into the equation.”

If you discuss this, stay on the incident and no general complaints about politics or California.
Feel bad for the guy just trying to help that lady out.

The song “Beer for my Horses “ by Toby Keith and Willie Nelson comes to mind:

One major problem I took from the article was that the Oakland Police Chief doesn’t sound much like “the long arm of the law”. He’s not looking for citizens to defend themselves much...

Sadly, a typical metro PD head response.
Last edited:
if you follow either John Correia (Active Self Protection) or Andrew Branca (Law of Self Defense) on YouTube, you will hear them both repeatedly emphasize several salient points.
1. Deadly force must only be used when faced with a deadly threat.
2. Armed citizens are not law enforcement officers, and should not try to intervene as if we were.
3. Your priority is to defend yourself and your loved ones. Think long and hard about the potential consequences, both physical and legal, before intervening for a stranger. Branca adds that the stranger has just as much opportunity to train and arm as you; why should you step in if they are not willing to do so for themselves?
4. Protection of property never justifies using deadly force. (Please see discussion of the Texas night time burglary exception in other threads.)
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.

From one of the linked articles:
The anonymous source said that the store owner fired his gun after the robbery suspects got into their car to flee the scene and nearly hit the victim with the vehicle.
See #5, above.

From the linked post by John Boch about having insurance:
There’s also Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Like Massad Ayoob, I’m a member of their program as well.
Based on the reported details, especially shooting at a fleeing vehicle after it "nearly hit the victim," it is highly likely that ACLDN's advisory board would refuse to support a member in this case.

Last edited:
There is the psychological drive of the 'chase'. Predators are more likely to attack if you flee. Police seem to use more force on suspect if they flee. The same goes for the civilian, the emotion, aggressive instincts flare up on a fleeing opponent. It take a cognitive override, usually gotten through training, to enable that response in folks.
Few months back some dog kin of my wife's intervened on behalf of a lady. He is dead and his friend spent some time in the ICU. Shooter was arrested. He was 19 iirc. Pick and choose your battels wisely. Could be your last.
While the police may not want citizens to be armed to protect themselves, the police are also not that great at protecting but cleaning up afterwards; with more and more locales letting criminals walk, thus emboldening them to commit crimes, odds are they won't want to leave witnesses to make those reports to the police.
While shooting at a fleeing vehicle is not a wise move, being armed is.
Among the many things that I learned at my CCW course the ONE lesson that stood out for me more than anything else was the instructor's refrain "Don't be a hero." It was a point very well taken.
It is just like the time-honored practical lessons we have been taught over and over and over and over...

"...You turn a corner and see a scruffy-looking vagrant holding an impeccably-dressed man at gunpoint. You draw your lawfully-owned firearm, shoot, and proudly save the day. Hurrah for the good guys!..."

You just shot an undercover cop arresting a violent criminal with a great haircut and fashionable clothes.
The unknown is precisely the reason we should just steer clear about 99.99% of the time.
There are countless ways information and observations can be completely inaccurate and wrong.
If something crazy happens on the street...I am getting myself far away and safe to consider next steps.
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. i believe this is universal even in locations that infringe heavily upon the 2nd Amendment.
He would have helped more using his camera or video on his phone !
As they a picture is worth a thousand words .
I've heard it called "sheepdogging". The police have backup, equipment, training, the backing of the courts, the Police Union, and are specifically assigned, for this work. I'm not the Police, FBI, CIA, Captain America, The A-Team, or even Deputy Dawg.

Upside: If everything goes exactly right, AND authorities decide not to be dicks, somewhere, down the line, somebody may say "thank you, or attaboy".

Downside: 99.999 % of the time, you're the one taken to task, and you stand the better chance of losing everything.
Lethal force is not justified once the perceived threat is withdrawing and no longer a threat.

A "reasonable person" must agree that they, in your shoes, would have been in fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm if they had not used lethal force. The "reasonable person" list includes responding police officer, police investigator, prosecutor, grand jury, trial jury.

Lethal force is justified only in the gravest extreme situations.

While there is the old adage flight = guilt, sometimes a fleeing party may be a frightened witness or victim.
One of the many in our large pamphlet of rules was we were not permitted to shoot at a fleeing vehicle even if it had been used as an attempted weapon.

Shots had to be fired from the vehicle before we could return fire.

Once I lost indemnification, I decided unless I or my family was involved, I’d just be the best witness I could.

As they say, every bullet fired in anger has a lawyer attached to it.

I've mentioned the incomparable (both the security camera video selection, and the advice) of :)"Active Self Protection"o_O on several gun websites.

These comments and even a link apparently seem to be totally ignored.
Last edited:
These comments and even a link apparently seem to be totally ignored.
Horse, meet water; water, meet horse.

I learned about ASP and LoSD when I attended two of Correia's seminars and one of Branca's at the NRA Personal Protection Expo in Fort Worth two years ago. Been hooked on both ever since. That weekend was money well spent on upping my knowledge.
I've bought several of Branca's courses, and am hoping to get direct training from ASP this summer.
Triple wow. I could tell that John Correia (ASP) must have at least a few interesting qualifications.

As to how anybody has the time or opportunity for even 25% of what he has undergone is a mystery to me.
Not open for further replies.