How would you know whos the bad guy?

[mustang_steve]

When unsure, get the hell out of there and only shoot at anything that's going after you for trying to flee, as that would be a bad guy...may not be the only one though.

Never assume with deadly force.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

DNS - I'd hardly describe what happened that morning as a fairly easy decision.

You are right. It was a hard decision to determine who the shooter was and Zamudio failed. He had to have another citizen tell him that the person with the gun wasn't a bad guy, which was lucky for Zamudio because he could have ended up like Dan McKown had the person with the gun been the shooter.

He did have the benefit of having that citizen tell him the person with the gun wasn't the shooter, a bit of information people responding to such situations often don't have.

 

[chrisnoel27]

OK, to add a wrinkle here. So most of you would stay out away from bad guys shooting at each other? You know for a fact these are bad guys. What if someone dies by one of their stray bullets? Could you live with yourself knowing you could have stopped them?

 

[WoodyTX]

Hypotheticals are misleading; we all read into them what we want to see.

For instance, someone prone to shoot may think "OK, I have the drop on these two lead-spraying punks; of course I'd shoot." But someone hesitant to shoot may think "What, and draw their fire?"

Like most discussions that I've seen here, the hypothetical isn't real. We need details, or perhaps an open-ended question, where we can fill in our own blanks. I'll go start a thread...

 

[Sam1911]

What if someone dies by one of their stray bullets? Could you live with yourself knowing you could have stopped them?

What if someone dies from one of my stray bullets as I engage them ... or by one of their stray bullets from when they turn to engage me? No reason to concern yourself with what-ifs.

 

[hirundo82]

see gun does not = shoot.

Someone needs to tell that to the Rice University and Texas State University police chiefs. They're both on the record opposing campus carry, saying that they instruct their officers to shoot anybody with a gun in the event of a school shooting.

 

[sm]

Training and experience.

Some excellent replies above...

Still like most things in life, one does not know, without training and life experiences.

I suggest training, before the real deal, life experience though...

 

[chrisnoel27]

Don't concern yourself with what if's? So, is that the easy way to get out of answering the question? As far as one of my strays killing someone, Says You. The odds of one of my bullets being stray is far less then two crackheads battling it out in the middle of my neighborhood. I'm not trying to be confrontational or strike a negative tone, I just don't agree with some of the views here.

 

[Sam1911]

As far as one of my strays killing someone, Says You. The odds of one of my bullets being stray is far less then two crackheads battling it out in the middle of my neighborhood.

I'm glad you are confident in your abilities. I'm not so confident in mine, or in my legal standing***, nor in the results of drawing their fire toward me and mine, to do such a thing without a very compelling reason.

Further, the scenario of several "crackheads" engaged in a gunfight of such duration that I'd have time to notice, comprehend what was happening, who the actors were, the "bad-guy/good-guy" status of both, get myself out of harm's way, get my loved ones out of harm's way, maneuver to a position of cover and advantage, take cool aim, and dispatch one or both of them ... whew ... is highly unbelievable. A couple of "crackheads" firing two or three frantic shots and then running? Yeah. A drive-by that's over in a couple of seconds, sure. But I'm not going to have time to react to those. What are these hypothetical "crackheads" doing? A formal duel? I don't see it.


*** And what IS my legal standing for shooting/killing either of them? If my life was not in danger, what justification do I have for taking their life (or worse, lives)? I can't execute them because they're hurting each other. I can only shoot to defend my life, prevent certain forcible felonies, or save the life of another. If these "crackheads" are trading shots, how can I kill one or both to reduce, arguably, the risk of a fairly unlikely collateral injury or death? What is that going to look like in court? "Your honor, one of their stray rounds might possibly have hurt or killed someone ... so I killed them."

 

[chrisnoel27]

So just put your in head in the sand huh? I guess that's where we will agree to disagree. Not only is my home sanctity but so is my neighborhood. I'm very fortunate to have the neighbors I have. What if you're surrounded by family? Wouldn't you feel compelled to protect them? "I can only shoot to defend my life, prevent certain forcible felonies, or save the life of another." Sounds about right........

 

[langenc]

""If you're on the scene seeing something happen, see gun = shoot is not an appropriate response. "" from post #13

Not appropriate for anyone inc LEO.

 

[daorhgih]

"Aftermath"

If you were my son, IMHO, with your site-name, and experience, I'd advise you, if you were in my family, NOT to carry for a few years until your imagination stops running rampant at possible WalMart scenarios. I'd advise my son to read more books, and watch fewer video-games. YMMV. If my son did mange to kill the B.Guy, I'd advise him to lay the weapon he used down on the ground, get his CCW out, and be prepared to b cuffed-and-ruffed by the first responding LEO. Dao.

 

[Losov]

OK, to add a wrinkle here. So most of you would stay out away from bad guys shooting at each other? You know for a fact these are bad guys. What if someone dies by one of their stray bullets? Could you live with yourself knowing you could have stopped them?

Yes. I am not responsible for what I could not know, and I'm not about to act with deadly force on what I think I know. My previous post said it all: Stay out of it.

 

[Sam1911]

So just put your in head in the sand huh?

Did I really say that? No...

What I said was: "...comprehend what was happening, who the actors were, the "bad-guy/good-guy" status of both, get myself out of harm's way, get my loved ones out of harm's way, maneuver to a position of cover and advantage..." That is not putting your head in the sand. That is taking care of priorities.

Not only is my home sanctity but so is my neighborhood.

But you don't have any legal authority to shoot someone to protect the sanctity of "your neighborhood." What does that even mean? You've offered the statistically unlikely (though not impossible) chance that these hypothetical "crackheads" might put a stray bullet accidentally into a bystander. You can't shoot either or both of them to prevent their negligence. Your assault or homicide of either or both of those people has no legal affirmative defense. You would be tried and convicted of manslaughter, at least. "I killed them because I thought there was a chance they might accidentally kill someone else," is not an affirmative defense. The state recognizes that those "crackheads" have a right to live, even if they've committed or are committing felonious acts, and you may only shoot them to prevent an immediate and certain death or grievous injury (or forcible felony) of a specific person. (If your state laws even allow that. Much depends on specific statute.) Not because you're defending "your neighborhood."

What if you're surrounded by family? Wouldn't you feel compelled to protect them?

Again, what does this mean? Is my family member standing in front of one of the "crackheads," so that their injury or death is immediately imminent and certain if I don't stop the shooting? Or are they in their home, back yard, a car down the street, etc, where they maybe could catch a bullet in a sort of one-in-a-million kind of way? I may have an affirmative defense for the ADW or homicide of one (or both?) of the "crackheads" IF I can prove that I was trying to preserve the life of a specific person who was in immediate, direct, certain, (and I would argue, purposeful) danger. But I have none if I killed them to protect "the neighborhood" in general.

"I can only shoot to defend my life, prevent certain forcible felonies, or save the life of another." Sounds about right........

Yes. And those are very specific sets of circumstances and conditions. Killing one or two "crackheads" because they were endangering your "neighborhood" isn't going to come close to cutting it.

 

[wannasupra]

i stopped reading after losov's post. pretty much nailed it

 

[chrisnoel27]

I like how everyone is in the know, my point is invalid, childish, dangerous, reckless and the list goes on and on. Give up my right to carry for a few years and stop playing video games? OK, sure thing buddy. I must be delusional to have such a twisted view of life, oh well, back to the drawing board.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by chrisnoel27: So most of you would stay out away from bad guys shooting at each other?

I would sure hope that everyone other than a sworn officer would make that decision.

You know for a fact these are bad guys.

Really?

How about undercover officers engaged in an arrest?

What if someone dies by one of their stray bullets? Could you live with yourself knowing you could have stopped them?

If someone is injured by one of mine, I might have a lot of spare time to reflect upon the question.

As far as one of my strays killing someone, Says You. The odds of one of my bullets being stray...

The odds of several of your shots being stray are actually pretty darn high; whether they kill or injure someone is another question.

However, the potential consequences would be extremely severe. They range from astronomically high civil judgments and court costs, against which you are neither indemnified nor insured, to potential liability for criminal negligence.

Also keep in mind that shooting "bad guys" to reduce the chance that they might inadvertently hit an innocent person would not constitute using deadly force to lawfully defend a third party from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and it is therefore is not lawful, anywhere in this country. Nor would your belief that they were "bad guys" get you very far in your defense in a murder trial, should you kill one of them, particularly if your victim turned out to be a police officer or a citizen who, regardless of his character, had been engaged in an act of lawful self defense.

 

[Sam1911]

I like how everyone is in the know, my point is invalid, childish, dangerous, reckless and the list goes on and on. Give up my right to carry for a few years and stop playing video games? OK, sure thing buddy. I must be delusional to have such a twisted view of life, oh well, back to the drawing board.

Chris, one person -- perhaps unfairly -- made some strong and maybe overly judgmental statements in response to you.

However, Kleanbore and I have given very clear answers based in the law and practicality. Have you read and thought about the points we made? Do you have any counter-points or further thoughts which might invalidate any of the things we said?

Sometimes folks get a little bent out of shape because of an intemperate response, and I can understand that. But some folks also like to cling to a pet belief in their "duty" or "right" to act/respond a certain way, and get bent out of shape when someone rightly explains that there are flaws and misunderstandings there that should not be ignored. Please don't make that mistake.

Have KB's and my statements helped you? Do you disagree with some part of what either of us said?

 

[chrisnoel27]

The points you and KB have made were thought provoking. I will admit that my views were flawed and have come to the conclusion, after some research, that you say is true and I'm disappointed in my self for not knowing the law. Will I stop carrying, absolutely not. But I can promise that I have really begun to look deeply into the matter at hand and have already adjusted many of my beliefs. I'm glad we had this discussion. Now, off to play some video games.....

 

[DammitBoy]

Since most of us advocate concealed carry for teachers on campus, saying that these teachers might help prevent another columbine or va. tech incident...

How do you reconcile that with the idea that those teachers should ignore what's happening and just save themselves?

If you were at such an incident, would you just concern yourself with getting away or try to stop the slaughter of innocents?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Since most of us advocate concealed carry for teachers on campus, saying that these teachers might help prevent another columbine or va. tech incident...

How do you reconcile that with the idea that those teachers should ignore what's happening and just save themselves?...

[1] The real point of this discussion is "Do you really know what's happening?"

There have been school shooting situations in which a vice principal who was able to get access to a firearm, or in which a couple of students who were able to get access to firearms, or an on-site LEO who had a gun, indeed actually knew what was going on and took appropriate action. But it seems that too many gun owners are too quick to want to intervene, but don't necessarily really know what's going on.

So, do you really know what's happening? Do you really have the skills and knowledge to take appropriate action, within the law? And do you really understand that if you intervene and make a hash of things by, for example, wasting nice old Mrs. Smith, no one is going to pat you on the back and tell you what a splendid fellow you are for trying?

[2] In the case of a teacher on campus, a teacher does have special, legally recognized, responsibilities for the welfare of students. It would be interesting to see how the legal scope of those responsibilities might expand, or if they would, if teachers are permitted to be armed for the protection of students.

 

[BLB68]

I think that's a different scenario than many that have been discussed in this thread. If you have an active shooter in a school like at VA Tech or Columbine, then it's pretty clear what's going on.

Whether you engage or not, is up to you, and your assessment of the situation as it unfolds. I don't think anybody could make that decision beforehand.

 

[Sam1911]

Will I stop carrying, absolutely not.

Good! Getting a clearer and more complete understanding is important. Disarming would seem to be counter-productive!

Good luck!

 

[Steel Talon]

Diggers and Losov have your answer pretty well nailed.

You aren't a sworn law officer. You aren't a ... ahem ... "SheepDog."

If someone is threatening YOU with violence, you can proceed with escape and/or defense.

If someone is acting in a violent manner in your presence, but not with you as their target, you need to concern yourself with getting you and your loved ones out of harm's way. You don't have the training, the DUTY, or the authority to try and sort out a drug deal gone bad, a domestic disturbance turned violent, an undercover police operation, or (even thought it is painful to accept) a violent crime in progress. Your sidearm is for last-ditch defense of your life and those of your loved ones.

If you are contemplating an "active shooter" scenario in a public place, and want to consider how to respond in the one-in-a-billion chance you ever witness such, the answer is still largely the same: get you and yours out of harm's way. IF you do that and still find yourself in a position of needing to or being able to stop the violent events in progress, simple observation of behavior will tell you all you need to know to act -- or not.

Sage advice here!..

Ultimately your goal (CCW or not ) is to find or create an avenue of escape for you and yours and to take it.

 

[Steel Talon]

Si

nce most of us advocate concealed carry for teachers on campus, saying that these teachers might help prevent another columbine or va. tech incident...

How do you reconcile that with the idea that those teachers should ignore what's happening and just save themselves?

If you were at such an incident, would you just concern yourself with getting away or try to stop the slaughter of innocents?

If I may address one of the variables here..

A legally armed CCW elementary teacher of 5Th grade. In a contained main building classroom with 30 students. An active shooter has entered the school.

This teacher must not leave their classroom of 30 students to go engage the active shooter..That's not their responsibility, those 30 students are. If they can't safely exit the students. Then they must barricade, create cover for their students and take up a covered firing position on the classroom door/s and wait it out.


I'm for arming teachers, but they must pass firearms training and qualifications,and each school district needs to come up with a defence able policy and procedure outlining tactics, duties and responses.

Teachers, College instructors, University professors PACKING HEAT WILL FAIL because the majority of today's teachers and administrators are liberal agendists.......