'Guns in the hands of good people'

[jeepmor]

Something rings PHISHY here to me, like a demographic probe for the Obama campaign. Shoot in the thigh.....humane, yes. Training protocol....not even close, I don't get it.

Sorry, just me. Read about and posted on shooting topics before and no one ever even comes close to touching on the subject because it really is ugly. Then someone just writes about it from a humane liberal point of view......still don't get it, sorry, just can't wrap my head around it right now. I'll ponder on it tomorrow.

I hope I didn't offend anyone, but something just seems too rehearsed to me.

bottomline - guy had his chance, passed it up against a gun, not a prudent decision. His mistake across the board.

As you were.

 

[jeepmor]

***, total PHISHING scam. I just miss clicked something and found a Barack Obama page while I was ABSOLUTLELY not looking for one. Not sure how, but being where I am in regards to internet searches, there was no reason to find that.

PHISHING????

 

[Deanimator]

The important things to take away from this story:

Despite the ignorant blatherings of people who demand that police (and citizens) "shoot to wound" their relatives and friends engaged in criminal violence against others, wounding somebody can end in DEATH. Shooting to stop someone invariably involves the risk of their DEATH. The moral of the story? Don't do things that would give people a reasonable belief that they need to shoot you in order to stop that behavior. You can end up DEAD.

If it were me, if I thought he needed to be shot, I'd have shot him center of mass. I'd only shoot somebody whom I reasonably thought was using or about to use deadly force against me. As was the case here, "deadly force" is sometimes... DEADLY. If I think you're a serious and imminent threat to my life and limb, I'm going to attempt to stop that threat in the most effective, efficient, and expeditious way. That generally means shooting you in an area substantially likely to result in a fatal wound. Secondly, I'm a pretty good shot. I don't know how good of a shot I am while somebody's trying to maim or kill me. That being the case, I'm going to aim at the biggest target most likely to result in quick incapacitation. That usually means center of mass. I don't care if an assailant using deadly force dies or is seriously injured as a result of my justified self-defense. He controls his actions, not me. I care a LOT if an innocent bystander is needlessly killed or injured because I engaged in what I consider an ill-advised attempt to shield my assailant from the consequences of his own actions. In that case, it's MY fault if an innocent is harmed. That having been said, I wasn't there. I'm glad things worked out for the persons being attacked.

 

[Dope]

***, total PHISHING scam. I just miss clicked something and found a Barack Obama page while I was ABSOLUTLELY not looking for one. Not sure how, but being where I am in regards to internet searches, there was no reason to find that.

PHISHING????

Are you okay? There's no links in the OP's story at all. Not to mention, going to an Obama site, intentionally or not, has nothing to do with phishing in the first place. *boggle*

Dope

 

[3KillerBs]

I stepped into a dangerous situation to protect the lives of two young women, a baby and my fiancée, and some have said that makes me a hero. I'm not sure what I did was heroic.

Yes. It makes you a hero.

Moreover, it makes you a man worthy of that title.

And to doubt the heroism, because it didn't occur to you to do otherwise, shows that you were a man and a hero even before that act.

Its old-fashioned phrasing, but I was raised in an old-fashioned way about such things and I believe that there are a lot of male persons in our society and culture who do not deserve to be called men because they are unwilling to fulfill a man's traditional duty of protecting those weaker than himself.

 

[Weezy]

My father raised me on the principle that helping people in need is not only the right thing to do, but also a great way to make friends and get free beer. Many flat tires and pushed cars later, it still holds true

 

[onebigelf]

First of all, WELL DONE. How many times do we rant about people who watch and don't get involved? The right to defend one's own person is one of the most basic. The willingness to place one's own person at risk to defend others is the ONLY thing that makes human kind worth the space we take up. Not saying that there aren't other positive things, but without that we're just animals. MPO, ymmv.

Second, the thigh? TWICE? Dude. So lucky he or the other maniac DIDN'T have a gun. Imagine what they would've done to your fiance' if they'd produced guns and killed you after you wounded the guy in the leg.

John

 

[ranger335v]

"Online commentator "Computer Steve" responded to a newspaper article saying, "His concealed weapons permit should be revoked. You cannot just intervene on behalf of someone else." He went on to say, "I witness crimes and call 911 on a weekly basis and there is nothing I can do but watch the crime take place and relay the information to 911. If I had known that I was able to intervene I could have stopped a violent sexual assault in front of the YMCA on Tuesday evening. So what's the law? Are we intervening on our own now or what?"

My God, disregarding his own lack of cohnes, who would actually suggest that men of courage refrain from defense of the helpless! What a bunch of weinies he seems to feel we should be! Actually, legally, it isn't the job of the law to protect us, the law's job is to punish the guilty after the fact. That's a cold comfort to those in harm's way.

You obviously didn't defend the women at gun point, only with conviction and the courage to act. It was your own life that you defended and then with a effort to do it with a less than lethal target.

It is MY opinion that if more of us would stand against lawlessness, at the moment of need, there would be less of it. The trolls among us expect they can do as they wish without interference and escape before any LEO arrives. All too often, they are right.

A MAN has to do what a MAN has to do. Good job.

 

[TallPine]

I witness crimes and call 911 on a weekly basis and there is nothing I can do but watch the crime take place and relay the information to 911.

Doesn't seem to be working very well, does it ???

 

[Zundfolge]

I went to my car and stood at the driver's side door. Need turned back to me and started coming at me with his arms waving and shouting "just shoot me." I ordered him to stay back, but he kept coming. Then, when he was about four or five feet from me, he put his hand into his pants pocket, and that is when I fired my first shot into his left thigh. It didn't stop him from coming at me. He grabbed my shirt, ripped off the top button and grabbed my right arm. That's when I shot him the second time point-blank into his thigh. I was told later that the bullets had severed his femoral artery and he had bled to death at York Hospital. I was truly sorry he died, but knew I had made the right decisions.

Ok, some of you guys are being rather critical that he shot this guy in the thigh instead of COM (I suppose he should have pulled a perfect Mozambique?)

But lets look at his situation ... when he was about four or five feet from me, he put his hand into his pants pocket, and that is when I fired my first shot into his left thigh...

If you're standing at low ready arguing with the guy, and you remain in low ready until you're ready to fire, when the guy gets "four or five feet" away, you're not going to be able to bring the piece up to COM before he's already got his hands on you. So a thigh shot makes perfect sense. Second shot was "point-blank" while struggling with the guy latched to his right arm (the one with the gun in it?).


Seriously, anyone that is going to give the shooter a hard time over shot placement needs to realize that unlike those cardboard or paper targets at the range, the stress of a real person closing in on you, showing intent to do you harm, is going to have a seriously detrimental effect on your aim.

 

[Weezy]

"Online commentator "Computer Steve" responded to a newspaper article saying, "His concealed weapons permit should be revoked. You cannot just intervene on behalf of someone else."

Right. Protecting your own life is a perfectly valid use of a CCW permit, but should you happen to defend any nearby women, revoke that license ASAP!

 

[george29]

I read somewhere that most people freeze-up in all kinds of dangerous situations, there own as well as someone elses, that's why you get the "Zombie / Staring Bystander Syndrome", it's not from lack of caring as much as it's "Brain Freeze" according to this study. Soldiers and other trained personnel do it less because they ARE trained and actually go on "Auto Pilot" many times when SHTF scenerio.
I don't say this in defense of anyone particular, just that it sounded very plausable and should be taken into account when faced with a difficult situation, even in a crowded street, you may find yourself all alone dealing with a situation, that, and the "I don't want to get involved attitude".

 

[Hardware]

Online commentator "Computer Steve" responded to a newspaper article saying, "His concealed weapons permit should be revoked. You cannot just intervene on behalf of someone else." He went on to say, "I witness crimes and call 911 on a weekly basis and there is nothing I can do but watch the crime take place and relay the information to 911. If I had known that I was able to intervene I could have stopped a violent sexual assault in front of the YMCA on Tuesday evening. So what's the law? Are we intervening on our own now or what?"

And the ghost of Kitty Genovese weeps.

Going back almost 20 years now, but during the course for my LTC in Massachusetts the officer teaching the course informed us we had the right to use deadly force if we were in fear for our lives or the lives of others. A threat of the use of deadly force would have past muster in 1991. Probably not now the way things have gone there.

 

[Huddog]

I may be incorrect but I get the impression from the tenor of the story that the shooter fired into the thigh to stop the individual because he did not want to kill him. I personally have seen training and been trained on a shot to the hip area to stop someone from advancing. The fact is the perp died from bleeding out. He was stopped by the shots to the thigh. I wasn't there. It wasn't my decision and Ida is one of the baddest men in the world (as in Ida done this or Ida done that). All that being said COM is a better stop method. IMHO

 

[scrat]

amazing good reading
wow