Shootout in Walmart parking lot.

[pittpa]

I doubt very much any of them would know the difference or contemplate the potential lethality of a gun based on the cartridge it might fire.

Sure, I was being flippant. But the cartridge might dictate what fray I am willing to jump into.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[old lady new shooter]

What exactly is 'the government system' supposed to do in order to keep something like this from ever happening?

For starters, stop plea-bargaining, lock up the criminals, and don't give them early release.

 

[old lady new shooter]

1. I agree with all the people who said he should not have put his children at risk.

2. In general I agree about staying out of altercations.

3. If his children weren't in the car and instead of what he saw he saw some guy dragging a child away at the point of a knife or gun, I think a good case could be made for intervening.

 

[FROGO207]

Not being there when it happened we ALL now have 20-20 hindsight it seems. Well if he was boxed in and decided the best thing was to act to stop the problem when he observed the two shooters were actually fist fighting IMHO he then had the upper hand. Also why is everyone dog piling in on his "poor" choice? There was ANOTHER like minded citizen that ALSO saw the need and used his CCW to help the first guy secure the scene. I guess the people of Maine are just more foolhardy than the US as a whole.:banghead: Do not tell me, if someone in your family or a friend was helped by a CCW in this position you would not be grateful. I get it that not everyone is cut from the same piece of cloth and therefore willing to help.

I presume that as a firefighter that I am trained to assess an incident and attack if it is at all possible to prevail and that basic assessment training follows into thoughts/actions about other areas in my life as well. I have also stopped at many automobile accidents and used my training to help others while the act of just driving by and ignoring another human being in distress was a real possibility----and was done by a large number of other people I might add. I just hope if I am unlucky enough to be on the other side of the coin one day somebody that thinks like me will step up and come to my aid.

 

[Sam1911]

3. If his children weren't in the car and instead of what he saw he saw some guy dragging a child away at the point of a knife or gun, I think a good case could be made for intervening.

I just hope if I am unlucky enough to be on the other side of the coin one day somebody that thinks like me will step up and come to my aid.

So many get upset about "Monday morning quarterbacking" and "20/20 hindsight" (or as we actually DO it, analyzing choices made during real world violent encounters so we can best prepare for our own moment of decision) but then tend to throw in a lot of inferences and conditions that WERE NOT PRESENT.

Several people have been upset that people here would not "come to my aid" in a crisis.

There was no innocent party here who was in need of aid. Mr. Chavanne did not step out of his car to go save a robbery or kidnap victim. He stepped out of his car and drew his gun to make four heroin dealers stop having a gun fight.


If you read the analysis that we (some of us) are doing about the situation that ACTUALLY HAPPENED and take away from it that, if you were being beaten to death by a group of toughs (or...good grief, hurt in an auto accident??? ), no one here would stop to render aid, then you've COMPLETELY missed the meat of this entire discussion.

 

[pezo]

I believe there is a point being missed in general about civilian cpl holders. I carry a weapon to protect me and my family from being victims. I do not carry one to help supplement the police department. Theoretically crime would be diminished by would be victims fighting back. Not by the informal deputizing of common citizens. I blame the media somewhat for this

 

[Sam1911]

Theoretically crime would be diminished by would be victims fighting back. Not by the informal deputizing of common citizens.

Absolutely so. And in this case, while we comprehend the tangential issue and possibility of bystanders being "collateral damage," there was no innocent victim being preyed upon.

 

[FROGO207]

Sam 1911, I am just curious how a lot of the posters here all seem to have come to the conclusion that the original four people in the two cars (two of them whom were unarmed it appears) could automatically be ID'd as fighting drug dealers and therefore none of them were worth anyones time to keep them from hurting each other BEFORE the news stories spelled it out for us all. I will wager the CCW holders did not know that aspect when they independently acted. Just because two individuals are exchanging gun fire that does not automatically mean that they are both criminals does it? Maybe I am just a bit older and slow thinking but ...........

 

[Sam1911]

. Just because two individuals are exchanging gun fire that does not automatically mean that they are both criminals does it? Maybe I am just a bit older and slow thinking but ...........

While I have no idea what, exactly, the two female accomplices were doing in all this, or how visible they were, or what any onlooker might have concluded about them (if he even noticed them), surely we can accept that if two guys are battling it out with guns none of us thinking of responding to the situation has even remotely enough information to conclude that one is a "good guy" and one is the "bad guy." Or in this case that EITHER of them was a "good guy."

While there is a suggestion in your comment of painting the picture as possibly on CCW-er coming to the aid of another CCW-er who's been attacked, surely we comprehend that (as with the examples mentioned before) it would be a pure roll of the dice to pick whom to defend. (Do you shoot scuzzball "A" who's an undercover cop, or jeans-and-polo-shirt guy "B" who's a heroin dealer, or suit-jacket-and-nice-shoes dude "C" who's protecting the briefcase full of dope money?)

On the other hand, we could proceed as this fellow did, and wade into the battle pointing our gun and commanding both parties to stop shooting. On the near miraculous chance (as happened here) that both parties acquiesce to those demands, hey great we can sort out the good guy from the bad guy, or the bad guy from the other bad guy, and all is well.

In every other likely result, the two guys already shooting at each other now see a THIRD threat. Neither a good guy nor a bad guy who is actively shooting at someone else is going to see the arrival of a (non-uniformed) third shooter as anything but another lethal threat (probably they both think you're with the other guy!) to be engaged with gunfire post haste.

So that leaves you now with the age-old question: what are you going to do with that gun? Shoot them? But you've waded into this assuming you were protecting an innocent, right? Now you have to shoot them both because they're shooting at you? Or maybe let the guy you picked as the "good" one go ahead and shoot you because you really don't want to shoot HIM?

This seems like a uniquely self-sacrificing position to take.

So I'd suggest that if you see two people battling it out with guns in a parking lot, you may not choose to automatically judge both of them to be "Evil Doers®." As Ash said, "Good, Bad, [they're just] the guy with the gun." But you're a fool to pick sides, a double fool to add your own gun and bullets into the mix, and a triple fool not to concentrate your efforts on defending the people you DO know are innocents: your own family.

 

[Tirod]

There is, naturally, a lot of speculation about what should be done.

So far we have a Good Samaritan who was boxed into a parking lot. I'm thinking that a lot of other shoppers were more aware than he was about what was happening and they bailed, blocking his exit.

That demonstrates either a lack of awareness about the shooting up to that point, or, a deliberate choice to slowly investigate when an exit may have still presented itself. The issue with a post incident interview days later is that the speaker often has has a lot of questions thrown at him and he's now trying to justify his actions - it's NOT a first person statement of the bare facts anymore, the human mind starts posturing about the incident to cover up what they think they did wrong.

Anyone who's participated in after action reviews has seen and experienced it - the longer the time period after the incident, the more it's dressed up to make the participant look good. The rule is to hear the immediate testimony and anything later becomes highly questionable. The life span of truth is a scant few hours - after that it becomes window dressing.

At that point, blocked in and unable to easily retreat by vehicle, the Good Samaritan does what?

I see no mention of him calling 911. That is a serious error because if you are carrying a firearm and near the scene of a shooting, the probability of being interviewed by the police goes up geometrically. You need to identify yourself as the innocent or risk being in cuffs as a weapons carrier who is just deflecting your own participation. Momma didn't seem to call either. Just who did call 911? We have another unidentified participant here - who is sheltering his identity and who remains nameless, with no corroborating testimony.

With that comparison in mind, who is seeking publicity, and who's going about their business with less risk of exposure BY NAME for other gang members to acknowledge?

Major strategic fail right there.

I see serious tactical issues and life issues disregarded here. If you are serious about running to the sound of gunfire, call 911 and ID yourself and what you are wearing so that the clean up crew can at least speed up disposition of the scene and your remains. "This is the guy who dialed 911 and his family is right over their, Detective. I saw a guy with a gun and when I shouted he turned toward me . . ."

Didn't evade in a timely manner, didn't call 911 to keep from being targeted by the first patrol car on the scene. And then detained for two hours until released.

I'd like to point out the unnamed participant is the better example. We aren't debating his actions at all, to his obvious peace and quiet. Just exactly what are you looking for if you choose to get involved? Notoriety or doing the better thing? He's avoided the 15 minutes of fame, his face all over America, etc.

You could be the next George Zimmerman and just maybe you don't want that.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I'm pretty sure my itty bitty LCP wouldn't look nearly as impressive as my full size Glock, if I had to present it in self defense.

A gun's "impressiveness" or lack there of isn't going to change the situation. Someone you are pointing a lethal weapon at is going to see a lethal weapon, not a more lethal weapon. Either way, they are seeing something that can end their life. If a criminal actually thought, "That's only a 380. I can survive that.", then he/she is the most bad ass of criminals, worthy of legend, Hollywood, or comic books.

I believe the only way it could have a measurable impact is if you are carrying a gun that is actually small enough that the person you are pointing it at doesn't realize you're armed at all. I suppose that could happen with a derringer or an NAA mini revolver.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Sure, I was being flippant. But the cartridge might dictate what fray I am willing to jump into.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Respectfully, the gun or cartridge you are carrying should never make you feel like there is ANY fray you might or should jump into unless directly involved by circumstances or forced by an aggressor. A concealed gun carried on the street is supposed to be used for defense, not as a REASON to go on the offense.

If you are witnessing a person being victimized, and stop to think if you are carrying enough gun to intercede, then why are you carrying that gun, as it clearly isn't enough to defend yourself either.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Driving to work this week I heard another radio interview, done a little later than the first I heard. The updated information I got from it is that they could not leave the scene. The car was boxed in by panicked shoppers. He could not have just driven off to safety. They were stuck. In all probability that realization may be what made him act.

Then that completely changes the situation. If unable to escape, the gentleman may have felt that involving himself in the situation was the best way to stop the threat to his family, and was in fact a defensive action.

In that case, I believe his actions are a lot more justified. That is still lacking a lot of details of course.

 

[Old Dog]

As long as everyone is debating the merits of the man's actions based on what amount to a lot of "what-ifs," can we not suggest that maybe, just maybe, by stepping in and resolving the situation quickly with no further gunshots fired, the man actually prevented the (alleged) drug-dealers from wildly firing additional shots which just maybe, might have hit and killed an innocent citizen in the area?

Here we see an incredible amount of self-righteous proclamations by those who state they would never, ever, intervene in such an ambiguous situation ... but one cannot argue with the outcome. Right, wrong, questionable, stupid, risky, whatever ... Miscreants arrested, no citizens shot -- chances are good that a man with a gun saved lives that day.

Since none of us were there, given the paucity of actual facts (as well as background and training of the Good Samaritan) what is there really to argue?

Aside from this:

There was no innocent party here who was in need of aid.

Yes, there apparently were innocent parties present who might have been injured or killed if the criminals had continued shooting at each other. Presumably, there were other motorists attempting to flee the area and close by.

 

[Sam1911]

As long as everyone is debating the merits of the man's actions based on what amount to a lot of "what-ifs," can we not suggest that maybe, just maybe, by stepping in and resolving the situation quickly with no further gunshots fired, the man actually prevented the (alleged) drug-dealers from wildly firing additional shots which just maybe, might have hit and killed an innocent citizen in the area?

Of course, maybe, maybe! Why not, maybe, maybe?

I think we've already discussed that at some length.

But the idea that two criminals blazing away at each other (i.e. already attempting, both, to commit murder) are going to see you and your gun and decide NOT to shoot you is about the least likely possible outcome ...though through a cosmic stroke of good fortune, it did happen here.

Here we see an incredible amount of self-righteous proclamations by those who state they would never, ever, intervene in such an ambiguous situation ... but one cannot argue with the outcome. Right, wrong, questionable, stupid, risky, whatever ... Miscreants arrested, no citizens shot -- chances are good that a man with a gun saved lives that day.

One cannot argue with the results.

But as I've said many times before, we don't come here to cheer the guy in the white hat and boo the dastardly baddy in the black hat.

We come here to discuss and analyze real world encounters and try to figure out how to apply the lessons they might teach us.

Since none of us were there, given the paucity of actual facts (as well as background and training of the Good Samaritan) what is there really to argue?

What is there to argue? How about whether or not the choices that man made -- given the facts we have to work with -- were choices WE should make if we were presented with that same situation? If we did what he did, should we expect the same results?

What did he risk?

Was the benefit he sought worth the incredible value of the things he put on the line to achieve it?

Is it appropriate to claim, as the OP did, "this is how it's done?" Or better to say, "HOLY COW, what a lucky, lucky dude...sure hope I don't ever make a decision that bad?"

There was no innocent party here who was in need of aid.

Yes, there apparently were innocent parties present who might have been injured or killed if the criminals had continued shooting at each other. Presumably, there were other motorists attempting to flee the area and close by.

Which leads right back around to one of my earlier points, which I've pretty heavily established:

There is NO reason to believe that, if you wade into such a situation with your gun drawn, ANYONE is going to STOP shooting. In fact, they're almost guaranteed to start shooting in your direction, which puts even more bystanders at risk -- especially those behind you which would presumably be your own family!

Not only that, but (once more for the bacon) what are YOU going to do with that gun? Are you going to start shooting at THEM if they don't listen to you and cease fire...for some unfathomable reason? If so, nifty. Now there's THREE guns going off and you've just added 50% to the volume and vectors of fire occurring in this public place.


That make any sense to you? That something you want to be responsible for?

We see here a man drive a speeding car off a cliff, crash into the rocks below, and walk out of the mangled, flaming wreckage miraculously unscathed. And the response from some is, "wow, that looks like a good idea!"

Blind luck in the face of insane odds is NOT a good teacher.

 

[sequins]

I am reminded of this scene in a movie called "Mean Girls". It's a bunch of high schoolers in a gymnasium getting the sex talk from their laughably awkward father-figure gym teacher. His line goes "If you have sex before marriage you WILL get pregnant, and you WILL die... Now everyone take a handful of condoms". Does that sound like anyone in this thread's argument about CCW guns? You better have one, but NEVER USE IT! At least, that's how it sounds to me when people go on about how if you use your gun for anything besides a paperweight you're going to get shot by another CCWer, and if you don't get shot by him you'll get shot by the police, and if you don't get shot by the police you'll already be dead from the navy seal gangbangers you tried to take on who engaged you in unison with tactical precision... Well where is the evidence?

I can cite a dozen stories off the top of my head where a CCW holder intervened and saved the day and I can't really name a single one where the CCW holder got it wrong and went to prison (and I know the media is trying to conceal stories of the CCW saving the day, and trying to amplify stories of the loose cannon vigilante who made things worse). We have that man in Las Vegas who died, but still saved the day and ended the attack and that's about the worst I've seen a CCW do. The only story we've seen in this thread where a CCW actually did the wrong thing and shot the NYPD detectives was posted by a guy who said "I think I read this, I can't actually cite it, could someone check me and link a story if it's true? I swear I read it but I'm not sure..." I mean I suppose that could have happened? Even if I accept that as true it's the only citation anyone can even grasp at which supports the premise that intervening will end badly for the CCW more likely than not.

Again, I can cite at least a dozen CCW shooter stories where the CCW saves the day, so if it's really that likely for a CCW holder engaging a threat to end badly then I'd like to see the proof! Heck, at this point based on evidence presented (in the form of news articles) as well as that oft cited "if a CCW gets involved average deaths are 2.3, if the police get involved it's 14.3" it seems to me like you'd need to have your head in the sand to argue that running was the better option than fighting, at least if you cared about death tolls (not everyone does).

I don't have any problem with not being a hero, but I do have a problem with people claiming it is more prudent or virtuous to do nothing than it is to act, calling people fools for wanting to save lives and prevent harm, when that is simply not true. All of these fears of the CCW holder getting shot by another CCW holder (has this ever happened? even once? If it has happened I bet it's only once...) getting shot by the police (again, when has this happened? I'd love to see even a single citation), or simply making the situation worse / dying with no effect. I just don't believe it to be true and I think it's a load of fear-mongering designed to foster uncertainty and doubt. Everyone who advocates against action seems to be referring to some litany of evidence against action which I just don't see- instead I see story after story of lives being saved and people going home to their families simply because a CCW holder was willing to say "stop right there" until the police arrived.

 

[Sam1911]

Does that sound like anyone in this thread's argument about CCW guns? You better have one, but NEVER USE IT!

If that's not the mentality you have when you strap on your gun, you probably aught to put it back in the safe. NEVER use it, unless you have NO choice.

As I've often said, shooting someone is just about the second WORST outcome of any violent encounter. There really are no winners. At that point you're simply fighting to stay out of very last place. The risks and repercussions of drawing and using a firearm against another person are so grave that it should make us very, very cautious. You may die. You may shoot an innocent person. You may do exactly what you think you should do, and go to jail for years (and lose all your guns, your marriage, your home, your relationships, your job, etc.) because prosecutors and a jury decide your actions didn't meet the standards required by law. You may do exactly what you think you should do, and fight a grave battle in court (possibly both criminal and civil), costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and quite likely your marriage, your home, your relationships, etc.

Lethal force is EXTREMELY serious business, and being FORCED to use it or threaten it is a grave thing.

people go on about how if you use your gun for anything besides a paperweight you're going to get shot by another CCWer,

Silly, as no one said that. Hyperbole makes your argument look weaker.

you'll already be dead from the navy seal gangbangers you tried to take on who engaged you in unison with tactical precision...

Of course you're simply being goofy here, but in this case it seems as if two people already had guns out and were in the act of shooting. That's bad odds for someone else entering the fray and attempting to engage both of them with his holstered handgun. Think about that for a moment and I'm sure you'll see what was actually suggested isn't anything like your exaggerated quasi-rebuttal.

I can't really name a single one where the CCW holder got it wrong and went to prison

OH REALLY? Well, yup, we do see reports of them. Usually they're reported as "man with gun got into argument and ..." because nobody really cares, once he's arrested and hauled off, that he thought he was just doing the right thing.

Don't assume that having a carry license makes your judgment extra good, or your halo shine super bright so everyone else can see that you're the "good guy."

No, I'm not going to get into a battle of throwing statistics around. The numbers are so tiny and so poorly compiled as to prove absolutely nothing, or anything you want. Finding news articles isn't much better.

And really, a hundred news stories about what other people did in other situations doesn't speak -- AT ALL -- to the one scenario we're discussing here. You can't possibly analyze what one person might decide to do in one given situation, based on random anecdotes about other random events.

I don't have any problem with not being a hero, but I do have a problem with people claiming it is more prudent or virtuous to do nothing than it is to act,

It often IS more prudent ("virtuous" is too wifty a concept to apply) to not act than to act. We hear too many stories of "John Wayne" moments where some good guy used a gun because he just had to do what a man's gotta do, and got completely afoul of the law and right.

No one is saying you cannot use a firearm to defend your life, or to defend the life of someone else under certain circumstances. But those circumstances are MUCH more limited than our movies and TV, and our macho society, really, conveys.

In this case, a man took GRAVE risks and things worked out despite astronomical odds.

Don't let his lottery-winning results teach you a false lesson.