Lethal shooting in Salt Lake City, UT; CCW holder was the shooter
- Thread starter jeepin_junkie
- Start date
- Status
That's incorrect.
The police would have issued a direct command for the knapsack guy to keep his hands visible before shooting.
A professional LEO is trained to prevent escalation to a shooting situation, if possible. George Harrison apparently was not.
The details of what was said, by whom, and what the deceased actually did are what is crucial to this case as far as judging it a good or bad shoot.
We don't even yet know exactly if the knapsack guy was reaching for anything. The report has been that he was perceived by someone (who?) to be reaching "inside his jacket or backpack." That's pretty vague. Which one was it? Was the guy just taking off his knapsack so he could attempt to fight bare knuckles with the private citizen who he was engaged with? Did he say something like, "I'm gonna get my gun from this here knapsack and shoot you now?" Just what did the knapsack guy do?
I don't think we know yet.
But we do know that the decedent had no weapon. That much we know.
Which increases the likelihood that it is a bad shoot. It's bad practice to go around shooting and killing a guy who has no weapon. People ask questions.
To stop the perceived threat, why didn't the big bad security guard just go and punch the guy in the mouth or something? Why did he have to shoot and kill the guy? Couldn't the the security guard have been a little more flexible in his continuum of force application?
Remember, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
Bowman140
Member
In the time it takes to run over and punch the guy, the BG could have pulled a gun or knife and started killing people. Sometimes you have no choice but to go with the information you have at the moment. Hesitation at a moment like this can be fatal. I believe that the security guard did the right thing and it is not our place to judge him for a decision he made in a split second.
FCFC,
I am a Utah CCW instructor. I've certified over 2,000 permit holders.
Basically, you're talking out your butt, and your obnoxious devil's advocate roll is annoying the hell out of those of us that actually do this stuff for a living.
Somebody says something pertaining to the law, then you come back that they didn't include EVERYTHING pertaining to that.
Well, guess what? When I talk about the use of lethal force in class, it is about an hour lecture, followed by an hour long role playing session. That comes after a three hour Handgun 101 lecture.
So no, I don't really feel like typing the whole thing out for you.
So in the meantime, you're annoying us. Yes, we all know about reasonable assumptions, the Reasonable Man doctrine, Ability, Opportunity, and Immediate Threat of Serious Bodily Harm. All of these things will be looked at during the investigation.
As for making assumptions as to the shooter's ability, training, or skills, you're just guessing, and don't have jack squat for facts.
From the description I've gotten of this shooting thus far, it sounds like you've got an antognist who's acting in a threatening manner. He's ACTING like he's got the Ability to hurt you. He's within range that would give him the Opportunity to hurt you. And most of all he's acting in a manner that indicates he's an Immediate threat of serious bodily harm.
(BTW the Immediate threat point of that takes care of your idiotic statement about somebody randomly shooting you because you just reached into a backpack. i.e. if you say you're going to kill me, and you're acting in a violent and irrational manner, THEN you suddenly reach into your bag, I'm going to assume that you are telling me the truth and treat you like a threat)
Go over and punch him in the face? Are you serious? I've knocked men unconscious with my hands, and I've been knocked unconscious by blows to the head or by being choked out. I've got some experience on this front, and even then I would NEVER want to go over and try to "punch in the face" some guy that I reasonably believe is pulling a firearm. Tough is great, but bullets don't really care how tough you are.
What you said about law enforcement officers is also incorrect. They work from the Use of Force pyramid. If you suddenly present what is perceived to be a level of lethal force against an officer, he will immediatly respond with lethal force. He might say "stop, show me your hands" right before he shoots you, but if he reasonably believes that he is immediate danger of serious bodily harm, he's going to shoot you.
I am a Utah CCW instructor. I've certified over 2,000 permit holders.
Basically, you're talking out your butt, and your obnoxious devil's advocate roll is annoying the hell out of those of us that actually do this stuff for a living.
Somebody says something pertaining to the law, then you come back that they didn't include EVERYTHING pertaining to that.
Well, guess what? When I talk about the use of lethal force in class, it is about an hour lecture, followed by an hour long role playing session. That comes after a three hour Handgun 101 lecture.
So no, I don't really feel like typing the whole thing out for you.
So in the meantime, you're annoying us. Yes, we all know about reasonable assumptions, the Reasonable Man doctrine, Ability, Opportunity, and Immediate Threat of Serious Bodily Harm. All of these things will be looked at during the investigation.
As for making assumptions as to the shooter's ability, training, or skills, you're just guessing, and don't have jack squat for facts.
From the description I've gotten of this shooting thus far, it sounds like you've got an antognist who's acting in a threatening manner. He's ACTING like he's got the Ability to hurt you. He's within range that would give him the Opportunity to hurt you. And most of all he's acting in a manner that indicates he's an Immediate threat of serious bodily harm.
(BTW the Immediate threat point of that takes care of your idiotic statement about somebody randomly shooting you because you just reached into a backpack. i.e. if you say you're going to kill me, and you're acting in a violent and irrational manner, THEN you suddenly reach into your bag, I'm going to assume that you are telling me the truth and treat you like a threat)
Go over and punch him in the face? Are you serious? I've knocked men unconscious with my hands, and I've been knocked unconscious by blows to the head or by being choked out. I've got some experience on this front, and even then I would NEVER want to go over and try to "punch in the face" some guy that I reasonably believe is pulling a firearm. Tough is great, but bullets don't really care how tough you are.
What you said about law enforcement officers is also incorrect. They work from the Use of Force pyramid. If you suddenly present what is perceived to be a level of lethal force against an officer, he will immediatly respond with lethal force. He might say "stop, show me your hands" right before he shoots you, but if he reasonably believes that he is immediate danger of serious bodily harm, he's going to shoot you.
you have never ever done security work have you?
I'm new to thr so I don't know you.
I am willing to bet though you've never ever had any training whatsoever on either security or armed security.
Middle school rules do not apply in real life, son.
For instance, if you punch the crazy homeless guy in the mouth you can get a wide array of nasty incurable conditions.
please look up "blood borne pathogens"
never mind, I looked it up.
Think about this next time you punch the homeless guy in the mouth
I'm new to thr so I don't know you.
I am willing to bet though you've never ever had any training whatsoever on either security or armed security.
Middle school rules do not apply in real life, son.
For instance, if you punch the crazy homeless guy in the mouth you can get a wide array of nasty incurable conditions.
please look up "blood borne pathogens"
never mind, I looked it up.
Think about this next time you punch the homeless guy in the mouth
Last edited:
Correia wrote,"FCFC,
I am a Utah CCW instructor. I've certified over 2,000 permit holders.
Basically, you're talking out your butt, and your obnoxious devil's advocate roll is annoying the hell out of those of us that actually do this stuff for a living.
Somebody says something pertaining to the law, then you come back that they didn't include EVERYTHING pertaining to that.
Well, guess what? When I talk about the use of lethal force in class, it is about an hour lecture, followed by an hour long role playing session. That comes after a three hour Handgun 101 lecture.
So no, I don't really feel like typing the whole thing out for you.
So in the meantime, you're annoying us. Yes, we all know about reasonable assumptions, the Reasonable Man doctrine, Ability, Opportunity, and Immediate Threat of Serious Bodily Harm. All of these things will be looked at during the investigation.
As for making assumptions as to the shooter's ability, training, or skills, you're just guessing, and don't have jack squat for facts.
From the description I've gotten of this shooting thus far, it sounds like you've got an antognist who's acting in a threatening manner. He's ACTING like he's got the Ability to hurt you. He's within range that would give him the Opportunity to hurt you. And most of all he's acting in a manner that indicates he's an Immediate threat of serious bodily harm.
(BTW the Immediate threat point of that takes care of your idiotic statement about somebody randomly shooting you because you just reached into a backpack. i.e. if you say you're going to kill me, and you're acting in a violent and irrational manner, THEN you suddenly reach into your bag, I'm going to assume that you are telling me the truth and treat you like a threat)
Go over and punch him in the face? Are you serious? I've knocked men unconscious with my hands, and I've been knocked unconscious by blows to the head or by being choked out. I've got some experience on this front, and even then I would NEVER want to go over and try to "punch in the face" some guy that I reasonably believe is pulling a firearm. Tough is great, but bullets don't really care how tough you are.
What you said about law enforcement officers is also incorrect. They work from the Use of Force pyramid. If you suddenly present what is perceived to be a level of lethal force against an officer, he will immediatly respond with lethal force. He might say "stop, show me your hands" right before he shoots you, but if he reasonably believes that he is immediate danger of serious bodily harm, he's going to shoot you".
AMEN!
I am a Utah CCW instructor. I've certified over 2,000 permit holders.
Basically, you're talking out your butt, and your obnoxious devil's advocate roll is annoying the hell out of those of us that actually do this stuff for a living.
Somebody says something pertaining to the law, then you come back that they didn't include EVERYTHING pertaining to that.
Well, guess what? When I talk about the use of lethal force in class, it is about an hour lecture, followed by an hour long role playing session. That comes after a three hour Handgun 101 lecture.
So no, I don't really feel like typing the whole thing out for you.
So in the meantime, you're annoying us. Yes, we all know about reasonable assumptions, the Reasonable Man doctrine, Ability, Opportunity, and Immediate Threat of Serious Bodily Harm. All of these things will be looked at during the investigation.
As for making assumptions as to the shooter's ability, training, or skills, you're just guessing, and don't have jack squat for facts.
From the description I've gotten of this shooting thus far, it sounds like you've got an antognist who's acting in a threatening manner. He's ACTING like he's got the Ability to hurt you. He's within range that would give him the Opportunity to hurt you. And most of all he's acting in a manner that indicates he's an Immediate threat of serious bodily harm.
(BTW the Immediate threat point of that takes care of your idiotic statement about somebody randomly shooting you because you just reached into a backpack. i.e. if you say you're going to kill me, and you're acting in a violent and irrational manner, THEN you suddenly reach into your bag, I'm going to assume that you are telling me the truth and treat you like a threat)
Go over and punch him in the face? Are you serious? I've knocked men unconscious with my hands, and I've been knocked unconscious by blows to the head or by being choked out. I've got some experience on this front, and even then I would NEVER want to go over and try to "punch in the face" some guy that I reasonably believe is pulling a firearm. Tough is great, but bullets don't really care how tough you are.
What you said about law enforcement officers is also incorrect. They work from the Use of Force pyramid. If you suddenly present what is perceived to be a level of lethal force against an officer, he will immediatly respond with lethal force. He might say "stop, show me your hands" right before he shoots you, but if he reasonably believes that he is immediate danger of serious bodily harm, he's going to shoot you".
AMEN!
I realize I'm a little late to this thread, but FCFC, I find your comments on this shooting to be dubious at best. Are you seriously advocating that justifiable use of force only comes AFTER you are likely beyond the point of being able to actually defend yourself?
The law in my state clearly indicates that the individual need not have a weapon to justify the use of deadly force against him. All that needs to be there is a reasonable perceived deadly threat.
For example, let's say the shoe is on your foot. You find yourself involved in an altercation with Mr. Mays. Let's say he is a man of average build, but is clearly under the influence of "something". Now, let's forget the backpack for a moment. Let's say Mr. Mays retreats from the discussion. You think you are clear. Now, Mr. Mays approaches you combatively, while shouting and verbally threatening to "kick your ass". He quickly draws close to you, and you shout to him "Back Off". He continues coming toward you. You say again "Back Off". He shoves his hand in his pocket and draws within about two inches of your face. Do you pull your gun, or do you "wait and see" if he produces a weapon from that pocket?
Certainly, that choice is up to you, but if he comes out with a knife, there's a good chance you aren't going to survive this encounter. Do you simply draw the gun and try again to get him to back off? Do you shoot?
My friend (a LE officer) told me once that if it's a choice between "me or him, I'm the one going home to my family that night". Valuable words IMO. In this very scenario, he isn't going to engage in hand to hand combat, he is going to shoot. He is going home that night. He can't afford to wait for his assailant to get in the first shot or first cut, and neither can anyone else. That's why the law is what it is. It is designed to save law abiding citizens before they get killed or injured.
You can wait to see that weapon if you want, but might I suggest you trade your CCW license for an organ donor card...at least then your sacrifice would have some redeemable value.
The law in my state clearly indicates that the individual need not have a weapon to justify the use of deadly force against him. All that needs to be there is a reasonable perceived deadly threat.
For example, let's say the shoe is on your foot. You find yourself involved in an altercation with Mr. Mays. Let's say he is a man of average build, but is clearly under the influence of "something". Now, let's forget the backpack for a moment. Let's say Mr. Mays retreats from the discussion. You think you are clear. Now, Mr. Mays approaches you combatively, while shouting and verbally threatening to "kick your ass". He quickly draws close to you, and you shout to him "Back Off". He continues coming toward you. You say again "Back Off". He shoves his hand in his pocket and draws within about two inches of your face. Do you pull your gun, or do you "wait and see" if he produces a weapon from that pocket?
Certainly, that choice is up to you, but if he comes out with a knife, there's a good chance you aren't going to survive this encounter. Do you simply draw the gun and try again to get him to back off? Do you shoot?
My friend (a LE officer) told me once that if it's a choice between "me or him, I'm the one going home to my family that night". Valuable words IMO. In this very scenario, he isn't going to engage in hand to hand combat, he is going to shoot. He is going home that night. He can't afford to wait for his assailant to get in the first shot or first cut, and neither can anyone else. That's why the law is what it is. It is designed to save law abiding citizens before they get killed or injured.
You can wait to see that weapon if you want, but might I suggest you trade your CCW license for an organ donor card...at least then your sacrifice would have some redeemable value.
Enough Info--Bad Shoot
Oh, yeah, another fact: He's dead.
Bad shoot.
And it will cost all gun carriers something. There is a cost to these bad shoots.
Rebecca Walsh: Assault with a deadly backpack?
Raving homeless man swinging backpack? Shoot him, of course
By Rebecca Walsh
Tribune Columnist
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 07/13/2008
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9866066
Have you heard about the wave of backpack crime sweeping the nation?
Rampaging criminals breaking into homes, kidnapping, raping and murdering innocents while brandishing deadly Keltys and Jansports?
Yeah. Me neither.
So I'm a little mystified why George Harrison felt so threatened by an obviously obnoxious, apparently aggressive, couch-hopping homeless man who swung his backpack at Mama's Southern Plantation diners last week.
We've all run into mumbling, stumbling misfits on the sidewalks downtown. Some rant and rave. Most of us walk away or call the police. But when 47-year-old Mike Mays reached into his pocket and "intimated he was reaching for a weapon in his pants," the part-time restaurant security guard didn't wait to find out if he was. Harrison pulled his concealed weapon and squeezed the trigger.
A gun will always beat a backpack.
The street fight between Harrison and Mays goes to the heart of our notions of a "reasonable" right to self-defense. Police shifted a good chunk of the blame to the dead man; he "contributed to the confrontation that ultimately led to his death." They tiptoed around the concealed-weapon carrier/Vietnam vet who killed him, questioning and releasing him the same afternoon; he was "very cooperative."
How the case is handled is a matter of public policy and social conscience. Is starting an argument enough to get you killed on the streets of Salt Lake City now? Are concealed-weapon holders going to join the rarified ranks of the police - the only people we give a license to shoot-to-kill outside the battlefield and our own homes?
This will come down to an interpretation of Utah law, which does not require a person to retreat if feeling threatened.
"We're dealing with a human life here. From a moral standpoint, people ought to be willing to run away in the face of this kind of threat," says Steven Gunn, a board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. "The shooter should have retreated. He should never have allowed the situation to escalate to the point where he had to use deadly force. He had no duty to do that."
Concealed-weapon instructor Clark Aposhian says he always teaches his students to disengage, to "warn and retreat." His classes also role play to-shoot-or-not-to-shoot situations.
"You don't have to wait until a person pulls out a gun or a knife or chokes you to death. You don't have to wait until they are actually harming you," says Aposhian. "But you can't just say, 'I don't like the look of that guy, I'm going to shoot him.' It has to be somewhere in between. Some people are easily frightened, but that doesn't mean they can pull a gun."
A lot is at stake at the conclusion of this investigation. Concealed-weapon carriers boast that they are five to seven times less likely than the rest of us to commit crimes. But if Harrison's hair trigger creates a firestorm, lawmakers may face pressure to scale back the state's free-wheeling concealed-weapon permitting program.
"I want [the shooting] to be justified, because I don't want this to have an air of criminality about it," says Aposhian. "Honestly, I'd love to see the police report and witness statements."
Salt Lake City police are being circumspect, cautious, careful.
They will work "closely" with District Attorney Lohra Miller to determine if any charges should be filed against Harrison. Just because he was not arrested doesn't mean this is over.
"We're trying to be very thorough. If we don't get it right, we don't get a do-over," says police spokesman Jeff Bedard. "We rely a lot on witnesses."
So my question for the witnesses is: How threatening was that backpack?
[email protected]
Here's a fact. And it should be "annoying" everyone: the knapsack guy had no weapon.
Oh, yeah, another fact: He's dead.
Bad shoot.
And it will cost all gun carriers something. There is a cost to these bad shoots.
Rebecca Walsh: Assault with a deadly backpack?
Raving homeless man swinging backpack? Shoot him, of course
By Rebecca Walsh
Tribune Columnist
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 07/13/2008
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9866066
Have you heard about the wave of backpack crime sweeping the nation?
Rampaging criminals breaking into homes, kidnapping, raping and murdering innocents while brandishing deadly Keltys and Jansports?
Yeah. Me neither.
So I'm a little mystified why George Harrison felt so threatened by an obviously obnoxious, apparently aggressive, couch-hopping homeless man who swung his backpack at Mama's Southern Plantation diners last week.
We've all run into mumbling, stumbling misfits on the sidewalks downtown. Some rant and rave. Most of us walk away or call the police. But when 47-year-old Mike Mays reached into his pocket and "intimated he was reaching for a weapon in his pants," the part-time restaurant security guard didn't wait to find out if he was. Harrison pulled his concealed weapon and squeezed the trigger.
A gun will always beat a backpack.
The street fight between Harrison and Mays goes to the heart of our notions of a "reasonable" right to self-defense. Police shifted a good chunk of the blame to the dead man; he "contributed to the confrontation that ultimately led to his death." They tiptoed around the concealed-weapon carrier/Vietnam vet who killed him, questioning and releasing him the same afternoon; he was "very cooperative."
How the case is handled is a matter of public policy and social conscience. Is starting an argument enough to get you killed on the streets of Salt Lake City now? Are concealed-weapon holders going to join the rarified ranks of the police - the only people we give a license to shoot-to-kill outside the battlefield and our own homes?
This will come down to an interpretation of Utah law, which does not require a person to retreat if feeling threatened.
"We're dealing with a human life here. From a moral standpoint, people ought to be willing to run away in the face of this kind of threat," says Steven Gunn, a board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. "The shooter should have retreated. He should never have allowed the situation to escalate to the point where he had to use deadly force. He had no duty to do that."
Concealed-weapon instructor Clark Aposhian says he always teaches his students to disengage, to "warn and retreat." His classes also role play to-shoot-or-not-to-shoot situations.
"You don't have to wait until a person pulls out a gun or a knife or chokes you to death. You don't have to wait until they are actually harming you," says Aposhian. "But you can't just say, 'I don't like the look of that guy, I'm going to shoot him.' It has to be somewhere in between. Some people are easily frightened, but that doesn't mean they can pull a gun."
A lot is at stake at the conclusion of this investigation. Concealed-weapon carriers boast that they are five to seven times less likely than the rest of us to commit crimes. But if Harrison's hair trigger creates a firestorm, lawmakers may face pressure to scale back the state's free-wheeling concealed-weapon permitting program.
"I want [the shooting] to be justified, because I don't want this to have an air of criminality about it," says Aposhian. "Honestly, I'd love to see the police report and witness statements."
Salt Lake City police are being circumspect, cautious, careful.
They will work "closely" with District Attorney Lohra Miller to determine if any charges should be filed against Harrison. Just because he was not arrested doesn't mean this is over.
"We're trying to be very thorough. If we don't get it right, we don't get a do-over," says police spokesman Jeff Bedard. "We rely a lot on witnesses."
So my question for the witnesses is: How threatening was that backpack?
[email protected]
FCFC, quoting Rebecca Walsh's story is a bit like quoting Democratic Underground. She is completely anti-gun, and she is not in possession of the facts. She is also an opinion writer.
You are starting to piss off a lot of people with this devil's advocate crap. Why do you do it? It's like poking an angry bee's nest. Do you like crapping where you eat?
You are starting to piss off a lot of people with this devil's advocate crap. Why do you do it? It's like poking an angry bee's nest. Do you like crapping where you eat?
So, let me get this right, if I am outside of a restaurant minding my own business, and some guy starts yelling at me, threatening me with violence, yells more and comes at me in an extremely threatening manner...I am supposed to let him continue at me and then do what? Let him attack me?
It was an unprovoked attack, an assault. I don't know if he has a gun, knife or another weapon in his possession. When he is within 15' from me, he can be on top of me within 1.5 seconds, should he have a lethal weapon, I am a goner.
Why is the benefit of the doubt always given to the bad guy? The guy that started this whole thing, the guy that assaulted Mr. Harrison...what Mays did was wrong, and if I was in a similar situation you can bet, I will defend myself as well. At my age, one blow could be fatal.
There is NO reason that anyone has to endure assaults like this and be a sheep. I value my life and I will not let some homeless guy determine whether I live or die.
There are many people that will let fate, and a crazy homeless guy determine their future of life or death.....but I am not one of those.
It was an unprovoked attack, an assault. I don't know if he has a gun, knife or another weapon in his possession. When he is within 15' from me, he can be on top of me within 1.5 seconds, should he have a lethal weapon, I am a goner.
Why is the benefit of the doubt always given to the bad guy? The guy that started this whole thing, the guy that assaulted Mr. Harrison...what Mays did was wrong, and if I was in a similar situation you can bet, I will defend myself as well. At my age, one blow could be fatal.
There is NO reason that anyone has to endure assaults like this and be a sheep. I value my life and I will not let some homeless guy determine whether I live or die.
There are many people that will let fate, and a crazy homeless guy determine their future of life or death.....but I am not one of those.
One of Many
Member
FCFC, according to the article by Walsh that you posted, the shooter was a SECURITY GUARD for the restaurant. His job was to protect the clients from threats. The guy who was shot threatened to use deadly force (reached into his pocket to simulate grasping a handgun), after already having committed violent assault without a weapon. The security guard had no duty to turn his back and take a bullet while running away. He had a right to defend himself and those placed under his care (as a security guard).
This looks like it may be a justified shooting, based solely on the article that you posted, even though it was written with the intent to make the guard look like a cold-blooded killer with not justification.
This looks like it may be a justified shooting, based solely on the article that you posted, even though it was written with the intent to make the guard look like a cold-blooded killer with not justification.
What really annoys me is your opinion that this is a bad shoots (shooting).
This case costs gun carriers nothing, but the satisfaction in knowing another bad guy is dead. Mays harassed and assaulted many others before this, including members of his own family. Our courts, again, did little to correct his criminal behavior.
Bad people need to learn there are consequences for their actions and should they threaten the safety of people, assault them, that men and women will protect themselves and their family members with lethal force when necessary.
Some where I remember reading something about…. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That word life refers to my life, that word liberty refers to my freedoms and I have more happiness now since I pointed out how wrong your thinking is, with all due respect.
GearHead_1
Member
I wonder if Rebecca Walsh understands that you can't retreat faster than a bullet travels and there is only a split second to make the determination whether or not one may be coming. I believe the shooter chose the safe side of that split second.
Yes, we're all well aware of that now. How about you let the DA, with all the facts in front of her decide whether or not to press charges, and then we'll have an opinion from someone who knows a hell of a lot more about the situation than you do.
GearHead_1
Member
FCFC, I'm with you brother. I only hope that when your "Oh Crap!" situation presents itself you patiently wait until a gun is produced before you decide to reach for yours. Oh wait! Then we wouldn't be able to read your posts anymore. Well... ummm... well, no go ahead be patient. By the way Rebecca was speaking about this type of situation in general when I spoke about bullets. Many of BG's really do pull guns with bullets that travel faster than you can retreat.
Poor East Texan
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 366
It's so dang easy to second guess something like this.
I wasn't there and don't know the history of the two men.
But based on the fact that the guy was reaching into a backpack while moving towards the shooter I'd say "good shoot".
I wasn't there and don't know the history of the two men.
But based on the fact that the guy was reaching into a backpack while moving towards the shooter I'd say "good shoot".
brighamr
Member
3 pages of arguing and second guessing? 
Anyone who thinks this shooter was in the wrong, by all means if you get threatened, just wait until the BG has shot or stabbed you a couple times before you try to defend yourself. Seriously, do you really think in this situation that you would wait to see what he was pulling out of his bag? Keeping in mind he is actively yelling and advancing towards you???
If you follow the wait and see philosophy, you should probably use mace as a first line of defense... or better yet, try to "reason" with your attacker. These are both very effective, as numerous studies have illustrated.
Flame me all you want, I like breathing and intend to do so. (I also payed attention in my CCW class
)
Anyone who thinks this shooter was in the wrong, by all means if you get threatened, just wait until the BG has shot or stabbed you a couple times before you try to defend yourself. Seriously, do you really think in this situation that you would wait to see what he was pulling out of his bag? Keeping in mind he is actively yelling and advancing towards you???
If you follow the wait and see philosophy, you should probably use mace as a first line of defense... or better yet, try to "reason" with your attacker. These are both very effective, as numerous studies have illustrated.
Flame me all you want, I like breathing and intend to do so. (I also payed attention in my CCW class
)"Yes, we're all well aware of that now. How about you let the DA, with all the facts in front of her decide whether or not to press charges, and then we'll have an opinion from someone who knows a hell of a lot more about the situation than you do."
brighamr
Member
When will the brady trolls leave?
This one didn't. He had no bullet launcher.
Anyways, feel free to vote your position at:
Poll: Utah Shooting, Good or Bad?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=378204
siglite
Member
I've drawn on a guy in a similar situation, years ago. Guy went crazy in the lobby of the place I worked. Threatening employees, threatening me. I helped escort him outside. He walked about twenty feet towards his car then turned, and started coming at me while reaching under his shirt like he was carrying in the common method criminals carry. Front, behind the waistband.
I drew, but I didn't fire. I was yelling for him to stop and waiting to see what appeared from underneath the shirt. But I had a good bead, and he would've been *gone* if anything dark or shiny had come from under there.
Fortunately, the guy stopped and reconsidered his options. His hand appeared from under the shirt empty, and he turned and walked away, still yelling threats.
I was *this* close to dropping the hammer.
I still get a little (bad) adrenaline rush thinking about it. Blech.
I drew, but I didn't fire. I was yelling for him to stop and waiting to see what appeared from underneath the shirt. But I had a good bead, and he would've been *gone* if anything dark or shiny had come from under there.
Fortunately, the guy stopped and reconsidered his options. His hand appeared from under the shirt empty, and he turned and walked away, still yelling threats.
I was *this* close to dropping the hammer.
I still get a little (bad) adrenaline rush thinking about it. Blech.
Fcfc
If you are near Las Vegas, I'd be willing to set up the same scenario and we can do it on camera.
We can recreate the situation and repeat it until we get a solid trend.
Simunitions. Or airsoft, if you're not up to the cost. Same deal.
If you are near Las Vegas, I'd be willing to set up the same scenario and we can do it on camera.
We can recreate the situation and repeat it until we get a solid trend.
Simunitions. Or airsoft, if you're not up to the cost. Same deal.
- Status
