Riiight.

The confrontation occurred as the perpetrator was outside the restaurant afterwards.

As karma-like as this appears, this event used as an advertisement by the NRA is reprehensible. The dreams of every cowboy is to gun down another human justifiably, a situation that almost never occurs.

It was terrible. The instructor promised to challenge peoples belief systems and be controversial. It was about as controversial as Wayne La Pierre and Oliver North arguing over what burger chain has the best burger, but I digress.
At some point guns came up and I had to stir things up (well he wasn't going to) and essentially said the same thing, that all the gunowners were fantasizing about killing another person. Wow did the howls go up that day!!!
Probably didn't change any minds, but at least they were called out with the truth.

"Logic and common sense do not work against strong emotions."

Yup

wasn't a "bad guy with a gun."

Don't you know?

one of our new "teacher-sharp-shooter" persons - you know, chalk dust all over their sleeves and checking for hall passes.

creators of that show would never allow such an obvious typo.

https://regulas314.deviantart.com/art/Animated-Atrocities-Turban-Cowboy-641991036

and wasn't a police officer (whether on or off-duty) then it was vigilantism and he can be charged for homicide. Whether they actually do charge him is another thing altogether.

What, if your kid was inside, you'd say, 'meh, not shooting at me, I can't stop him'??!??

Derp, you should check your own state's law.

e.g. Texas:

and that person was discovered to be "a good guy with a gun" (e.g., "armed teacher" ), i.e., there was doubt as to who the shooter really was because the "armed citizen" was not a witness to what happened and who the threat was?

There is a reason why, in certain situations, it might be difficult to try to justify what amounts to vigilantism in this situation.

Defense of others is pretty damned standard. God only knows where you got the idea that only defense of self is permissible.

then the potential is going to increase exponentially. The issue being you need someone who is trained as a LEO or who has had military experience handling a weapon.

See the biker gang shootout in Waco, TX for an example of gunfire gone wild.

What magical training do you think that cops and/or military folk get?

Do you know any cops or military folks? If so, sit down with them and talk about it.

Your average cop qualifies with his weapon once a year to 18 months, depending on duty schedule and range capacity. For many officers, that is the extent of their gun use. And thankfully so.

They spend more time on continuing education for changed paperwork and updated laws than they do for dealing with magic ninja shooting shit. If they're lucky, their department might pay for a tactical training certification class that usually lasts a week to ten days. It's usually glorified paintball in a warehouse with strobe lights and barrels. CE creds are more often used for things like EMT-II training or EVOC (Emergency Vehicle Operating Certification/Course)- aka, How to Drive Like a Badass.

What magical training is it you think cops get that makes them badasses?

Yes, we know, outlaw bikers bad. Now, since this is about your statement:

I'd actually like to know what training you think our cops and military get.

Please, proceed.

*grabs popcorn for training montage*

The suspect had already left the restaurant and it was the "armed citizen" who "confronted" the suspect.

There are exceptions for using force (less than lethal) to reacquire immediately stolen items, but any threat of serious harm or death should result in a retreat and then contacting police to handle it. This doesn't apply in your home, which is legally your refuge and you may use deadly force without a duty to retreat.

Some states have "stand your ground" laws which allow you to meet force with force without a duty to retreat, but even then, you have to be on the defense or defending others at that time to use force.

It’s a hastily written article for immediate consumption, not a police report nor a deposition.

and being a threat to anyone else. Who were the victims? Did they know the shooter? Or was this a random thing?
But the community is safer with the guy dead in the parking lot than running around free, with the police chasing him.
If he hadn’t of gone to shoot people there, he’d be alive right now.

it is not that straight forward. You can legally kill someone in the defense of others, especially if that person is committing a felony.

He was not defending himself or anyone else. The shooting was over. The man was leaving.

This might be a grey area but he made the right choice.

There were still people in the restaurant. If he was on a "spree" just to shoot people, he would not have left.

When does this CNN article written shortly after the shooting when scant details are available officially get entered into the court record?

we never see cases where, having killed in one place, shooters go to somewhere else to shoot someone?

I thought that it was common in domestic violence murders.

The killer was outside shooting into the restaurant. The person who shot him was also outside. In the 9 hours since you pointed out that reality I note crickets and tumbleweeds only.

However, had I been there I certainly would have nailed him with a can of beans I carry in my pocket and disarmed him with a hastily retrieved bicycle wheel obtained from a passing cyclist.

as·sume
əˈso͞om/
verb
1.
suppose to be the case, without proof.
"you're afraid of what people are going to assume about me"
synonyms: presume, suppose, take it (as given), take for granted, take as read, conjecture, surmise, conclude, deduce, infer, reckon, reason, think, fancy, believe, understand, gather, figure
"I assumed he wanted me to keep the book"

Either the guy just walked up to the guy and shot him Jack Ruby-Lee Oswald style, or he was trying to get him to drop the weapon and surrender and wait for the police, guy refused, and guy shot out of self defense.
If it was the first, yeah, that sucks and he should face charges. If it was the second, he should get a reward.

Yes, the "right" of self-defense extended to defense of a third party, even under the common law, provided the third party face a imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death from the unprivileged and/or unlawful acts of another. Further, it is also true that whether the "right" exists in any particular situation does not depend upon the subjective intent of the aggressor. It depends upon whether a reasonable person, upon encountering the same situation as the person claiming the right, would conclude that either they, or a third person, faces the danger I just described. In other words, you don't have to be a mind reader.

Even with all those concessions, killing for the purpose you describe in your second paragraph is pure vigilante-ism and, quite frankly, murder.

Under the "right" of self-defense, we don't get to kill other folks EVEN IF WE KNOW it makes the community safer. We ONLY get to kill when there is an IMMINENT threat to an identifiable person, a threat will happen right then and there. We also don't get to kill another person just because they've done something, even something harmful. As individuals, we don't get to make the judgment whether a person's actions merit death. If the there is not an imminent threat, it is not even the most vile perpetrator in history's "fault" that they are killed by another person.

To use an extreme example involving a person who is both deceased and whose vileness is so known as to have embedded itself in pop culture, even if you were to have encountered Charles Manson right after the Tate-Labianca murders and knew for certain of both his involvement in those murders and of his plans for killing more people, you would have zero right to use deadly force against him.

I mention this only because the "self-defense" industry thrives on this idea that there is some generalized threat in society that we have a "right" to defend ourselves against. First, the existence of that "threat" pretty much total bullshit (white folks living in the burbs -- you know, the ones scarfing up guns like they were circus peanuts -- face a greater threat that a person they know will use their "self-defense" weapon against them and/or that it will be involved in their accidental death than that someone who looks like me will come busting in uninvited). Second, individuals have zero "right of self defense" against a generalized threat.

The myth that there is either (i.e., that anything more than a small percentage of people have an actual "need" to posses a self-defense weapon) has diminished us as a society.

you don't get to decide he is going to shoot others. And you could kill the wrong person making that decision on the street. It is self defense and defense of others in the present case; not future cases.

if a guy next to me start shooting at innocent people, I think it would be reasonable to assume my life was in danger.

Under the facts of the OP, which is what I was commenting on, this did not appear to be a justifiable homicide.

it is also from the police.

Fixed that for ya...

Will capitalize on this. "See! See?" We all need to carry iron...

What would the rah-rah talk be about then? LOL..."there is no indication of terrorism at this point". Meaning the shooter passed the "white" test eh??

The "armed citizen' was not trying to apprehend the suspect or stop an ongoing shooting. The "armed citizen" was not trying to defend himself. He merely shot the suspect to death as judge, jury and executioner.

It could very well apply. The ‘vigilante’ witnessed the man shoot 2 people, so he witnessed a felony. Then he was trying to apprehend the felon.

Don’t get me wrong, only a nut carries a gun into a restaurant to eat. And this law seems way to vague IMHO. But it may shield the guy.

There is no evidence the vigilante was trying to apprehend the guy. He simply shot him dead. Why didn't he shoot his legs? Or try to do something less fatal so that there would be a person to actually apprehend, rather than a corpse for the coroner? The statute requires that it be a lawful apprehension.

Last edited Fri May 25, 2018, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)

the chance that you’d miss. It also shows that you were’t in fear for your life. You always, ALWAYS aim for center mass. You never point the gun at something you aren’t ready to destroy.
Besides, a leg shot can be fatal if you hit the femoral artery. Guy bleeds out in minutes.

And you shouldn't aim for the chest ("center mass" as you call it) to cover up a murder, i.e. that you were not in fear of your life. That is some sick shit you posted.

You shoot to stop the threat. You don’t do warning shots.
If you aren’t in fear for your life, you shouldn’t be shooting at all. You tell them to get the hell away from you, but if the attack continues you aim for the biggest target you can aim for. If you miss somone’a leg,the shot goes wild (which can happen in a stressful life-or-death situation) it can go into someone you’re not wanting to hit.
Paper targets aren’t of arms and legs. It’s head and chests.

Shoot to wound is hollywood bullshit.

If you shoot at someone's feet and miss, the ricochet can still kill someone else. If the intent is to stop, then the best place to aim is center mass- a person's torso.

Most torso gunshots are non-fatal.

See e.g. Lethality of Firearm-Related Injuries in the United States Population Beaman, et al, Annals of Emergency Medicine 35:3 March 2000

The chances of hitting a femoral artery seem slim, whereas the chest cavity is filled with vital organs.

Assume that a situation is dire enough to warrant deadly force. Are you going to aim for the part that corresponds to 9% of a person's surface area, or the part that corresponds to 18% of a person's surface area?

Which do you think has a greater chance of being struck? Which has a greater chance of stopping the attack?

Unintentional leg and arm shots often go unnoticed by criminals (and officers) in the heat of the moment. They rarely stop an attack. A criminal doesn't immediately drop and go, "arrgh, you got me copper, I surrender!" when shot in the arm or leg.

And I don't lnow how your body is configured, but my legs take up way more area than my torso.

The shooter was outside shooting in, not fleeing. You seem to have studiously ignored the information that others have posted (e.g. post #42).

I know, I know, that shits on the narrative that you want to relay, but it's true.

So, which would you shoot for? the area that represents 18% of your body, or the area that represents 9%?

Do tell.

The man was not "outside shooting in," he was standing in the doorway shooting in. Then he fled. He was not shooting at anyone when they shot him dead in the parking lot.

My legs represent about half my body length and mass. You couldn't miss them if you were a halfway decent shot, standing as close to the suspect as those men were.

I would prefer people not "shoot for" anything when it comes to a fleeing suspect. Let the cops apprehend suspects. It's what they're trained to do.

If you wish to carry on about how the torso is the best, least lethal spot to aim for when shooting at a person, please take that conversation up with someone else.

If you'd like to read the study I mentioned* re wound mortality, or the body surface area charts**, please do so, then come back and we can talk facts.

I see you're still sticking with the earlier story that carries the narrative you like, rather than the updated story.

I promise, I won't disabuse you of your silly notions too badly.



*Lethality of Firearm-Related Injuries in the United States Population Beaman, et al, Annals of Emergency Medicine 35:3 March 2000

** https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rule+of+nines

The link I cited was an updated link.

Don't you have anything better to do on Memorial Day weekend?

he was outside the restaurant shooting in.

The guy was leaving, which is what you jumped into this thread to contradict. Now you want to change the subject...

And not fleeing or leaving scene if PD are suggesting additional tragedy was avoided. If the initial shooter was fleeing scene and shot in back I'm sure we will soon hear of this when the DA considers charges.

Dangerous man with a gun running free? Sounds like a smart idea.

Nothing magical about cops. These guys obviously were capable of handling the situation.

How about leaving apprehending suspects to the professionals who are trained and tasked with hunting down suspects?

Cops are usually lousy shots. They don't get a lot of practice . I shoot more rounds in a weekend than a cop shoots in a year.

But reality is never black and white despite your apparent conviction otherwise.

You're not really helping here.

You're really not helping here.

Does the shooting happen, and does another armed idiot shoot someone in public.

None of this is good.

NRA gets its bikini-clad cover-boy for next month's issue of Bleeding Out Monthly.

Though for some reason, I doubt they'll post it with the same salacious glee they would were it the SI swimsuit issue... no reason to ever expect consistency from these geniuses, regardless of their tired protestations otherwise.

might start to tip the scales and prove the NRA's point.

We would get treatment and would not have guns.

...restaurant gunman

Warning: Incoming Bullshit!

the perp shot people in the restaurant...
ran...
was confronted and killed by bystanders who had retrieved their own guns from their cars.

I don't doubt this person was prospectively dangerous to just about anyone including brave heros and cops and random bystanders. But based on what's reported so far, if anyone tells you a good guy with a gun *stopped* this shooting, they are lying to you. He shot, her ran, he got killed.

If that's the order of operations, he stopped shooting and ran before the gun-based intervention. Maybe the reporting is in error and they did stop him amidst ongoing shooting. But that's not what's reported so far.

Don't get steam-rolled by gun-humpers because of this incident.

and it's pretty much how I suspected how it happened. I don't trust CNN to get shit right.

and unwilling to accept updates. This almost is always how these stories go. The initial reports are seldom accurate. The same thing happened with the Texas church shooting.

Some just don't want to accept that a gun owner can be a hero. The cop you quote called the guy a hero in that news conference, you know.

The shooter was fleeing, as stated by the cops. Some cops seem fine with killing fleeing suspects, even mentally ill people like this shooter who thought his refrigerator was talking to him. So yeah, it is no surprise these Oklahoma cops saw his execution as stupendously heroic.

there wasn't crossfire and more people died...without a gun, no one would have been shot.

He just shot at random people he didn't know. Just because he was leaving that particular place doesn't mean others were safe from him, considering he still was armed.

but it does not always happen this way.

I'm all for responsible and properly trained people having the freedom to be armed for self defense, I have a concealed weapons license myself. I do believe people should have the appropriate training and regular refresher training, during my federal career I had annual weapons qualification tests and justified use of force training using live scenarios and simulators.