And I wonder how they even saw him if he took cover behind a truck. Wasn't very good cover, I guess. Isn't "cover" supposed to conceal you?
Anything to make the lawfully armed citizen at fault?
quote
Originally posted by yellowstone: What I would do in such a situation is hide, call 911, try to take pictures of the guys and their car and then follow them while keeping the cops informed.
You've said yourself you'd try to take a picture or watch and perhaps follow so give info to the police. Ok, so use your magical "what if" machine to change is gun to a cell phone camera. He's trying to get a picture - just like YOU said you'd do - and the perp starts shooting at him. Only now his only option is to hope he gets a picture of the person who killed him for police to find by his body.
We get it. You think people should be unarmed no matter what. You'd rather die than defend yourself. At least then your surviving family can claim the moral high ground for you.
According to my handgun class, the marine acted inappropriately. The laws in Texas May be different, though.
The immenent danger period happened inside the store and it was at that time that he would have been authorized to use his gun. After the threat was over and they had exited the building, the workers and patrons were no longer being threatened. At that point, it was just two dudes with some stolen stuff. Property recovery is a police job.
If he had heard shots fired inside the store, that would have been different. He would have been stopping murderers or attempted murderers.
That doesn't jibe with this part of the article:
quote
He took cover behind his pickup truck as the two men left the store. Deputies said one of the men then pointed a pistol at him.
"At that point, the veteran raised his gun and fired," Gilliland said.
The immediate threat was the criminal pointing a pistol at him. Don also said the TV story said the criminal fired first. To make the veteran at fault, you'll have to use the "he shouldn't have been there" excuse. It's effective for anyone who's ever been involved in a crime. Just don't be there.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-30-2014).]
If the vet acted within the law (and the grand jury can quickly confirm this) then I think it's case-closed. He walks. It sounds like he should.
However ... put aside male bravado and machismo for a second.
1. Did the visual presence of the vet's gun prompt the suspects to fire? Would they have otherwise? Was this the initiator of the stray fire? I am assuming the later report that one suspect fired first is correct but if not ...
2. What exactly did the vet fix/solve/resolve or prevent? The robbery already occurred. All he did was keep the merchandise from being removed from the scene of the crime. In fact, it appears only he protected himself after challenging the suspects by showing his weapon. Now if it's shown the suspects didn't see his gun and they intended to shoot him either way then this is a moot point. That's self preservation and I wouldn't even bother counting the number of bullets he use. He's right - period. I would probably pay for his bullets.
3. Are we saying the vets actions were correct only because he was a vet? It's certainly makes a compelling argument for everyone carrying a gun but what if it was an 80 year old fragile woman? A sixteen year old? The exact same scenario and actions play out - would we still give them kudos? I sense that somehow being a vet makes this more right than your average non-vet citizen. Maybe the point of him being a vet is just the category he was placed in but that's irrelevant. I certainly don't see him being a vet as being relevant other than maybe he was more skilled with a gun.
So far the evidence is that he fired well within the law and that's all I need to hear. He walks. But I am not sure what happened needed to play out that way. Bullet's flying isn't the single solution to this robbery. It's almost sounds like an artifact but the two are being linked together by the press.
'Vet stops a robbery'. Yeah, I guess he technically did.
quote
it appears only he protected himself after challenging the suspects by showing his weapon.
What leads you to this conclusion? The original post says he didn't raise his weapon until after one of the criminals pointed a pistol at him. Don mentioned the TV story said the criminal fired first.
quote
Are we saying the vets actions were correct only because he was a vet?
I'm not. His veteran status has no legal bearing in this case, IMO. They mentioned he's a veteran, and it's an easy way to refer to him since I haven't seen his name reported. It's easier than "the guy" or "the lawfully armed citizen." By referring to "the vet" you know exactly who it being discussed with regard to this article.
quote
I am not sure what happened needed to play out that way.
Agreed. Two men didn't need to commit an armed robbery and try to murder someone in the commission of their crime.
We get it. You think people should be unarmed no matter what.
Yes, I have stated over and again that I'm opposed to individuals owning firearms (some exceptions apply). I have also explained over and again why I have formed that opinion (i.e. while possessing firearms definitely has it's pros, I think that in balance they do more harm than good in the hands of individuals).
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:You'd rather die than defend yourself. At least then your surviving family can claim the moral high ground for you.
In this specific case, that wouldn't have been the problem as I wouldn't have left the sandwich shop to go to my car to get a firearm and wait for criminals to leave the premises. I think that was a dumb idea, got one person killed and endangered many.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-30-2014).]
In this specific case, that wouldn't have been the problem as I wouldn't have left the sandwich shop to go to my car to get a firearm and wait for criminals to leave the premises. I think that was a dumb idea, got one person killed and endangered many.
But you would have gone to get your phone to take pictures, and then the only person you could have gotten killed was you, or any bystanders near you that got shot by the criminal trying to kill you. So yeah, that wouldn't have been a problem either - for the criminal.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-30-2014).]
But you would have gone to get your phone to take pictures, and then the only person you could have gotten killed was you, or any bystanders near you that got shot by the criminal trying to kill you. So yeah, that wouldn't have been a problem either - for the criminal.
Look, if the perps had wanted to shoot people no matter what they would have done so before exiting the store IMO. They didn't.
I don't have to go get my phone, I have it on me (as most people do) and I wouldn't have to exit the store to take pictures. At the very least, I would have tried to take down the perps licence plate number and called police with that information.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-30-2014).]
Look, if the perps had wanted to shoot people no matter what they would have done so before exiting the store IMO. They didn't.
I don't have to go get my phone, I have it on me (as most people do) and I wouldn't have to exit the store to take pictures. At the very least, I would have tried to take down the perps licence plate number and called police with that information.
And if they had seen you, they could have started shooting at you and hit a bunch of children and nuns in the store. If you're going to play "what-if" you might as well apply it to how you would have reacted as well. It's just as possible anything you would have done would have resulted in greater endangerment and loss of life.
It's just as possible anything you would have done would have resulted in greater endangerment and loss of life.
That's true. I maintain that "my" odds are much better than the guy going to his car to get his gun and waiting for criminals to exit a store after a robbery... but that's just me.
In this specific case, that wouldn't have been the problem as I wouldn't have left the sandwich shop to go to my car to get a firearm and wait for criminals to leave the premises. I think that was a dumb idea, got one person killed and endangered many.
Americans aren't afraid of their own shadows, unlike you who would rather hide and wait for the bullet to the head and die satisfied that you did the right thing, while your wife is next to die or maybe first. we try to protect those who are less than brave, like yourself. I'm not afraid to die to protect myself or someone else, obviously you are.
Steve.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 05-30-2014).]
Americans aren't afraid of their own shadows, unlike you who would rather hide and wait for the bullet to the head and die satisfied that you did the right thing, while your wife is next to die or maybe first. we try to protect those who are less than brave, like yourself. I'm not afraid to die to protect myself or someone else, obviously you are.
Steve.
You completely missed the point I was making. I think it's reckless to get into (what I see as a) completely avoidable firefight over some cash and video games and therefore endangering bystanders in a public place (mall). I also think that it's not right to kill someone over a robbery. Punishment for robbery is not the death penalty and a private citizen is not a court of law and an executioner rolled into one.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-30-2014).]
That's true. I maintain that "my" odds are much better than the guy going to his car to get his gun and waiting for criminals to exit a store after a robbery... but that's just me.
The way you and people like you think is upside down.
Wait for the cops to protect you or others.
Cops have no obligation to protect you . They are law enforcement.
By putting all the responsibility in the government you take responsibility from the people.
The way you and people like you think is upside down.
Wait for the cops to protect you or others.
Cops have no obligation to protect you . They are law enforcement.
By putting all the responsibility in the government you take responsibility from the people.
And again:
You completely missed the point I was making. I think it's reckless to get into (what I see as a) completely avoidable firefight over some cash and video games and therefore endangering bystanders in a public place (mall).
You completely missed the point I was making. I think it's reckless to get into (what I see as a) completely avoidable firefight over some cash and video games and therefore endangering bystanders in a public place (mall).
No I get your point. But I judge you on the whole and then I lump you in with a larger group of people.
I don`t particularly like people getting killed over robbery but when you throw a handgun into the mix all bets are off. You knowingly set yourself up for getting shot at, especially in Texas. If these guys wouldn`t have had guns then they more than likely would not have gotten shot at.
Originally posted by yellowstone: You completely missed the point I was making. I think it's reckless to get into (what I see as a) completely avoidable firefight over some cash and video games and therefore endangering bystanders in a public place (mall). I also think that it's not right to kill someone over a robbery. Punishment for robbery is not the death penalty and a private citizen is not a court of law and an executioner rolled into one.
So no one but cops should have guns in your mind and we all know how bad shots cops are, they fire more shots at people committing crimes than people carrying concealed do and hit other officers and innocent bystanders more than the average person does who is licensed to carry concealed. just check any of the last few police shootouts and you will see that is true.
Cops are bad shots, really bad shots. add to that the fact there are always a dozen or more of them that surround the suspect and they end up shooting each other. Now a solder fresh from battle, that is what he was is a far better shot than the average cop who only fires his gun at most twice a year, and he at least told the people with him to call police and take cover before he did anything.
When someone points a gun at you and they are committing a crime, if you don't have a gun chances are you are the one who is going to be dead. If you have a gun you have better odds if you at least practice with your gun. because thieves and gang bangers don't practice, what they do is point and spray.
"He took cover behind his pickup truck as the two men left the store. Deputies said one of the men then pointed a pistol at him.
'At that point, the veteran raised his gun and fired,' Gilliland said."
^^^^^That's not the way I read it.^^^^
My bad, I misread it. But as Wade Garret said in Roadhouse "When a man sticks a gun in your face you either stand there and die or you kill the M****f*****
When you got nothing, invoke Hitler. Come on dude, you can think better than that. Try it.
History - not Hitler. There's also Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Amin, Duvalier, et al. If all you have is "oh, it's Hitler so I can ignore it" you haven't learned a damn thing from history. It's happened before, repeatedly. Yet for some reason you think it's impossible for it to ever happen again. No, couldn't possibly happen - not here.
I don't mind you not learning from history, but I don't want to be the one repeating it because of your willful ignorance.
My bad, I misread it. But as Wade Garret said in Roadhouse "When a man sticks a gun in your face you either stand there and die or you kill the M****f*****
There are many who prefer to die. I respect their right to make that choice for themselves, but not for me.
I think Yellowstone is French by birth.. Raise the white flag and let someone else do the job of protecting oneself and family. Just call 911 and hope the police come in time.
History - not Hitler. There's also Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Amin, Duvalier, et al. If all you have is "oh, it's Hitler so I can ignore it" you haven't learned a damn thing from history. It's happened before, repeatedly. Yet for some reason you think it's impossible for it to ever happen again. No, couldn't possibly happen - not here.
I don't mind you not learning frcom history, but I don't want to be the one repeating it because of your willful ignorance.
Ooohhhhhhh, I total misunderstood your reference ...
You completely missed the point I was making. I think it's reckless to get into (what I see as a) completely avoidable firefight over some cash and video games and therefore endangering bystanders in a public place (mall). I also think that it's not right to kill someone over a robbery. Punishment for robbery is not the death penalty and a private citizen is not a court of law and an executioner rolled into one.
Just for the record, neither are the police, but they use lethal force quite frequently--and very very rarely go in front of a grand jury. .
The immediate threat was the criminal pointing a pistol at him. Don also said the TV story said the criminal fired first. To make the veteran at fault, you'll have to use the "he shouldn't have been there" excuse. It's effective for anyone who's ever been involved in a crime. Just don't be there.
"According to my handgun class" "The laws in Texas may be different"
Maryjane's link showed that the laws are different. Not sure what your point is.
[This message has been edited by Boostdreamer (edited 05-30-2014).]
Originally posted by yellowstone: I'm opposed to individuals owning firearms (some exceptions apply). I think that in balance they do more harm than good in the hands of individuals.
I can not understand this thought. "In balance", ? I have owned property on Medina Lake in Bandera County TX since 1994. I don't remember one gun crime in the whole county. There may have been one but I am almost positive not one firearm death crime was committed. Perhaps ... maybe so. I guarantee you, the setting is rural ranch and I would bet 80% of citizens own guns. I bought my home in Kerrville in 2004. I don't remember one gun crime in the whole of Kerr County, nor Kerrville city. There may have been one but I am almost positive not one firearm death crime was committed. Perhaps ... maybe so. Likewise, Kerr County has a ranch setting and I would think it has an 80% gun ownership. In balance ?
Originally posted by Red88FF: Jay walker! shoot him! heh
quote
Originally posted by carnut122: I didn't want to say it, but that was exactly what I was thinking.
I almost did say it as well, but thought better of it after the BS I got from my college kids Jay Walking thread, it is just a tad over the top, just a tad.
A truer statement has never been made!
quote
Originally posted by Cooter:
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
not to go back to the Hitler picture and offend you Yellowstone but just where would we all be if there had been no local resistance to Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Amin, Duvalier, et ? I know Hitler is a sore point with many Germans but so are those other people of their country's as well as Americans.
As posted by Cooter,
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Some one points a gun at me, they dam well better be a better shot than me and pull the trigger first because I am dam well shooting at them as fast as I can and I will not miss!
And to get back to the topic at hand (which is not if an armed citizenry would have prevented the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao; I don't think so BTW) I can only repeat what I said before:
1) I think it's reckless to get into (what I see as a) completely avoidable firefight over some cash and video games and therefore endangering bystanders in a public place (mall) 2) I also think that it's not right to kill someone over a robbery. Punishment for robbery is not the death penalty and a private citizen is not a court of law and an executioner rolled into one.
And to get back to the topic at hand (which is not if an armed citizenry would have prevented the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao; I don't think so BTW) I can only repeat what I said before:
1) I think it's reckless to get into (what I see as a) completely avoidable firefight over some cash and video games and therefore endangering bystanders in a public place (mall) 2) I also think that it's not right to kill someone over a robbery. Punishment for robbery is not the death penalty and a private citizen is not a court of law and an executioner rolled into one.
While the resistance did not stop completely those evil men they did help in the fight against them, but as you said it is better to hide away from what is happening around you than to fight. I wonder where those people in those countries would be today had not the US, Brittan and other counties just hid and not tried to help?
in this case the man did not confront them, he hid behind something and was watching now wasn't he from what the news and witnesses and the news said and only after one of the perpetrators pointed a gun at him, or possibly shoot at him, I can't remember the entire article, did he fire his own gun, at least that is what the news and eye witnesses have said now isn't it? its not like he walked up to them and stuck his gun in their face first now is it, he was hiding and watching not running up to them and trying to stop them.
I can not understand this thought. "In balance", ?
Let me explain. There are pros and cons to almost everything and opinions are usually (hopefully?) formed by weighing pros and cons against each other and coming to a conclusion.
In terms of individual gun ownership pros and cons can be (not an exhaustive list):
Pros - Personal prtection, sense of security and protection, deterrent - Defense against a potentially dictatorial government - Increased chances of survival in case of a Zombie apocalypse - Hunting - ...
Cons - Increased risk for accidents - Increased risk for impulse suicides - Risk to bystanders in unnecessarily escalating situations - Legal ownership of guns by people who develop mental issues later - Combination of guns and highly emotional situations and/or alcohol leading to avoidable injury and death - ...
Based on such a process I have concluded for myself that in balance I'm against individual gun ownership.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-31-2014).]
Let me explain. There are pros and cons to almost everything and onions are usually (hopefully?) formed by weighing pros and cons against each other and coming to a conclusion.
In terms of individual gun ownership pros and cons can be (not an exhaustive list):
Pros - Personal prtection, sense of security and protection, deterrent - Defense against a potentially dictatorial government - Increased chances of survival in case of a Zombie apocalypse - Hunting - ...
Cons - Increased risk for accidents - Increased risk for impulse suicides - Risk to bystanders in unnecessarily escalating situations - Legal ownership of guns by people who develop mental issues later - Combination of guns and highly emotional situations and/or alcohol leading to avoidable injury and death - ...
Based on such a process I have concluded for myself that in balance I'm against individual gun ownership.
"In balance"? Even subliminally, this is how you are hardwired. Many find it confusing.
Let me explain. There are pros and cons to almost everything and onions are usually (hopefully?) formed by weighing pros and cons against each other and coming to a conclusion.
In terms of individual gun ownership pros and cons can be (not an exhaustive list):
Pros - Personal prtection, sense of security and protection, deterrent - Defense against a potentially dictatorial government - Increased chances of survival in case of a Zombie apocalypse, You have issues - Hunting - ...
Cons - Increased risk for accidents, every risk increases ones responsibility to be more careful - Increased risk for impulse suicides, More should be done to help those people who have mental problems, not take more rights away from others. - Risk to bystanders in unnecessarily escalating situations And what is the risk to those bystanders in cases like the most resent shooting by that kid who killed all those college girls, seems no one had a gun to stop him because it was a gun free zone on campus and a lot of people died, because no one intervened. - Legal ownership of guns by people who develop mental issues later Sh!t happens sometimes in everyone's lives, no one can foresee everything that will happen today or tomorrow, but to take everyone's guns away because some people are afraid is overkill, no pun intended, or maybe there was. - Combination of guns and highly emotional situations and/or alcohol leading to avoidable injury and death and so can the combination of drugs and alcohol by themselves simply by themselves without any guns, want to outlaw them next? - ...
Based on such a process I have concluded for myself that in balance I'm against individual gun ownership.
?
Even subliminally, this is how you are hardwired. Many find it confusing.
