goodtimes
Expedition Poseur
It's the Second...
Ha! See what happens before a full pot of coffee?
Of course, you are correct. Search and seizure (4th) is a completely different subject.
weezerbot said:I have a CCW (from back when it was required) and generally carry daily, and I have to say in a chaotic situation like that, if I'd been there I'm not sure I would have fired. This did not take place in a contained area, it was outside in the open with people running everywhere. Unless I saw the guy walk up and start shooting from the beginning and had a 100% clear shot there is no way I'd come out guns blazing.
That is what the interviewee did -- and it was the right decision. I like to think I (and everyone else) would respond in the same fashion.
thebrassknuckles said:Training.
A cop wont run into a room full of guys with guns and start taking them out... (hopefully:Wow1
a CCW holder when told to by the police will put his gun down.
a criminal when told the same.. generally wont..
if the guy who had tackled the shooter had a gun, he wouldnt have tackled the shooter, he would have shot him.
The second guy, would then have seen a guy holding a gun on a guy laying on the ground. His next action would have been to assess the situation, and decide if anyone needed further doses of lead... (hopefully no one would need any more lead) then the police would have shown up to a bunch of CCW guys giving each other high fives for saving the day.:wings:
ok not the high fives part. but you know.
Yes, training helps. And no, police aren't always there quick enough to respond before stuff hits the fan, leaving people to respond themselves (and I believe that law abiding citizens should have every right to respond and protect themselves and others around them). But remove the police from the scenario and replace them with un-trained people who are legally carrying a concealed weapon (remember, no permit is required in AZ).
How does that untrained person respond when they hear shouting, screaming, and gun-shots, run around the corner and see a scruffy, dirty, guy shooting at a group of 3 people (all yelling at each other) -- a man, a woman, and a small child, all trying to get away from the shooter -- who is still shooting.
Is the shooter trying to murder someone, or is he trying to stop the man from kidnapping the woman and child? You don't have time to stop and ask each one what is going on. You can either shoot the shooter, possibly killing a good Samaritan and letting a kidnapper/murderer get away with two innocent victims, you can stand there and yell until the cows come home (or otherwise not get involved) -- all to no effect, or you can join the shooter in trying to dispatch the potential family, at the risk of killing someone who is simply trying to run away from someone trying to kill them.
We all know that the new guy on the scene shouldn't shoot until he *knows* what is going on, but we also all know that that isn't always the case. What level of training (if any) should be required before you are allowed to respond to these types of situations? Or, as some believe, should people not be allowed to respond with deadly force?
Yes, I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate here, but I think the guy in the interview I mentioned earlier brings up a really good point. How do you ensure that people responding in these situations have a solid foundation to evaluate a situation from, and make life-or-death decisions from? Again, in AZ, absolutely no training is required to carry a concealed weapon.