? for ccw guys, to shoot or not to shoot
- Thread starter ohihunter2014
- Start date
Eugene Canterbury
New member
If a cop or even an off duty cop was in the store and shot a robber that was pointing a gun at the clerk, most everyone would call him a hero. I can't see why it would/should be any different for a citizen. It seems to me once you point a gun at anyone, while robbing a store, all bets are off. The only question should be your own moral one about killing another human. When you pull an armed robbery you should expect to get shot. This happened in Milwaukee a few years ago at a higher end food market. And the customer in line pulled out his Steyr pistol and killed one guy and wounded the other I think it was. They had a sawed off shotgun. Found out later it wasn't even loaded. But he didn't get in any trouble. Police chief Flynn, a huge anti gun worthless police chief just made it difficult to get his gun back. Until a gun rights group took up the charge. I understand no good deed goes unpunished, but pointing a gun at someone while robbing a store is a no brainer. State laws I know very, but I just can't believe if you shot the guy you could be charged with anything, while saving a life. If it's a good shoot for the cop, it should be a good shoot for the citizen. While I agree it's not worth dealing with ungrateful idiots who may blast your decision, I find it hard to believe the law is not on your side in every conceal carry state, under the scenario laid out. Quite frankly, if more of these idiots started taking fire, I see that as a good thing. Again, morally its up to you, but the law is on your side in a state that allows conceal carry I would bet. Almost seems like it would be the best time to shoot him, since he isn't focused on you, you could put a few well aimed shots on target. That said I'm not sure what I would do. Most of these stick ups only net a few hundred bucks, if that.
Predburner
New member
Originally Posted By: WareagleIn today's litigious society anyone with a shred of common sense and care for their family would walk away if there is anyway possible. Pulling the trigger must be the absolute last resort and even then you'll go through [beeep] proving it. As will your family.
Best post in the thread.....
Best post in the thread.....
GC
Well-known member
EC,
The cop has a sworn duty and obligation to handle the situation in a manner that best protects innocent lives. That isn't automatically to engage in a movie HEAT type gunfight in a public place with many innocent people around. A citizen does not have that same obligation to engage bad guys. So when you decide to do so it might, or might not, put you at serious risk after the fact. It is something that demands serious thought. These "I'd shoot him in the back while he was pointing a gun at someone else because I assume..." posters need to think about what happens when the bad guy convulsively tightens as he is shot. When that happens and bad guy now shoots innocent person on the receiving end of his gun, who catches the he11 for that? I assume you know the answer. Of course I forget that most people on the Internet are snipers and capable of perfectly hitting medulla oblongata with a concealed carry pistol in the heat of the moment thus preventing such a disaster.
I'm not saying it is wrong in every situation, rather that to cover every type incident with a blanket thought that good guys slap leather and engage automatically might not always turn out the way you daydream it will. It doesn't work that way for cops. Look how the media vilify's nearly every law enforcement shooting. The media portrays cops as racist Rambo wannabes that failed to use good judgement and caution while using excessive force that resulted in a wrongful death. The goal is a big payout and possible prison time. Why would a CCW holder be treated any different? Even if your actions stand in court (assuming it goes to court) and you escape prison time and a settlement, you still lose. Lawyers don't work for pennies and lives and reputations are hard to rebuild. If you think you would be treated differently I have two words for you - George Zimmerman.
The cop has a sworn duty and obligation to handle the situation in a manner that best protects innocent lives. That isn't automatically to engage in a movie HEAT type gunfight in a public place with many innocent people around. A citizen does not have that same obligation to engage bad guys. So when you decide to do so it might, or might not, put you at serious risk after the fact. It is something that demands serious thought. These "I'd shoot him in the back while he was pointing a gun at someone else because I assume..." posters need to think about what happens when the bad guy convulsively tightens as he is shot. When that happens and bad guy now shoots innocent person on the receiving end of his gun, who catches the he11 for that? I assume you know the answer. Of course I forget that most people on the Internet are snipers and capable of perfectly hitting medulla oblongata with a concealed carry pistol in the heat of the moment thus preventing such a disaster.
I'm not saying it is wrong in every situation, rather that to cover every type incident with a blanket thought that good guys slap leather and engage automatically might not always turn out the way you daydream it will. It doesn't work that way for cops. Look how the media vilify's nearly every law enforcement shooting. The media portrays cops as racist Rambo wannabes that failed to use good judgement and caution while using excessive force that resulted in a wrongful death. The goal is a big payout and possible prison time. Why would a CCW holder be treated any different? Even if your actions stand in court (assuming it goes to court) and you escape prison time and a settlement, you still lose. Lawyers don't work for pennies and lives and reputations are hard to rebuild. If you think you would be treated differently I have two words for you - George Zimmerman.
Predburner
New member
Jerome Ersland might be a bit of a better example...The one he shot was armed....
Eugene Canterbury
New member
Originally Posted By: GCEC,
The cop has a sworn duty and obligation to handle the situation in a manner that best protects innocent lives. That isn't automatically to engage in a movie HEAT type gunfight in a public place with many innocent people around. A citizen does not have that same obligation to engage bad guys. So when you decide to do so it might, or might not, put you at serious risk after the fact. It is something that demands serious thought. These "I'd shoot him in the back while he was pointing a gun at someone else because I assume..." posters need to think about what happens when the bad guy convulsively tightens as he is shot. When that happens and bad guy now shoots innocent person on the receiving end of his gun, who catches the he11 for that? I assume you know the answer. Of course I forget that most people on the Internet are snipers and capable of perfectly hitting medulla oblongata with a concealed carry pistol in the heat of the moment thus preventing such a disaster.
I'm not saying it is wrong in every situation, rather that to cover every type incident with a blanket thought that good guys slap leather and engage automatically might not always turn out the way you daydream it will. It doesn't work that way for cops. Look how the media vilify's nearly every law enforcement shooting. The media portrays cops as racist Rambo wannabes that failed to use good judgement and caution while using excessive force that resulted in a wrongful death. Why would a CCW holder be treated any different? If you think you would be I have two words for you - George Zimmerman.
While your post is rather condescending to citizens I'll still reply. Where I live, a person can act if a reasonable person would fear for his life. It's seems a guy sticking a gun in the face of somebody is reasonable fear. And I'll grant you the point of bullets going everywhere. Because as you high speed professionals know, you only hit 30% of your targets on average during a shooting. And your analogy about Zimmerman isn't even close to what the original post was regarding. Zimmerman protected himself in a fight that it seems he initiated. This is about being in a store being held up. If you have any experience in a similar case, I'd like to read about it so we can all maybe learn what the DA said about the armed robber being shot. A citizen has a duty to protect himself. A reasonable person can see that a guy pointing a gun at someone is taking a chance that he could be shot. Seems to me this is a classic example of reasonable doubt. And no charges being brought. when you commit an armed robbery, the benefit of the doubt does not go your way. And most young cops I know are Rambo wannabes. At least in this scenario there is a gun being pointed in the face. Not some cop saying I thought I saw a guy reaching in his pocket. It's odd how an average citizen is held to a higher standard than a highly trained professional law enforcement officer. How would you feel if a suspect had a cop held at gunpoint? Should we just walk away and let you smooth talk him, or at least try to save your life? Actually I'll let you handle it yourself after seeing how cops think.
The cop has a sworn duty and obligation to handle the situation in a manner that best protects innocent lives. That isn't automatically to engage in a movie HEAT type gunfight in a public place with many innocent people around. A citizen does not have that same obligation to engage bad guys. So when you decide to do so it might, or might not, put you at serious risk after the fact. It is something that demands serious thought. These "I'd shoot him in the back while he was pointing a gun at someone else because I assume..." posters need to think about what happens when the bad guy convulsively tightens as he is shot. When that happens and bad guy now shoots innocent person on the receiving end of his gun, who catches the he11 for that? I assume you know the answer. Of course I forget that most people on the Internet are snipers and capable of perfectly hitting medulla oblongata with a concealed carry pistol in the heat of the moment thus preventing such a disaster.
I'm not saying it is wrong in every situation, rather that to cover every type incident with a blanket thought that good guys slap leather and engage automatically might not always turn out the way you daydream it will. It doesn't work that way for cops. Look how the media vilify's nearly every law enforcement shooting. The media portrays cops as racist Rambo wannabes that failed to use good judgement and caution while using excessive force that resulted in a wrongful death. Why would a CCW holder be treated any different? If you think you would be I have two words for you - George Zimmerman.
While your post is rather condescending to citizens I'll still reply. Where I live, a person can act if a reasonable person would fear for his life. It's seems a guy sticking a gun in the face of somebody is reasonable fear. And I'll grant you the point of bullets going everywhere. Because as you high speed professionals know, you only hit 30% of your targets on average during a shooting. And your analogy about Zimmerman isn't even close to what the original post was regarding. Zimmerman protected himself in a fight that it seems he initiated. This is about being in a store being held up. If you have any experience in a similar case, I'd like to read about it so we can all maybe learn what the DA said about the armed robber being shot. A citizen has a duty to protect himself. A reasonable person can see that a guy pointing a gun at someone is taking a chance that he could be shot. Seems to me this is a classic example of reasonable doubt. And no charges being brought. when you commit an armed robbery, the benefit of the doubt does not go your way. And most young cops I know are Rambo wannabes. At least in this scenario there is a gun being pointed in the face. Not some cop saying I thought I saw a guy reaching in his pocket. It's odd how an average citizen is held to a higher standard than a highly trained professional law enforcement officer. How would you feel if a suspect had a cop held at gunpoint? Should we just walk away and let you smooth talk him, or at least try to save your life? Actually I'll let you handle it yourself after seeing how cops think.
GC
Well-known member
I apologize if my post had that tone. That was not and is never my actual attitude. One of the reasons I continually tried to communicate that I was responding in general terms and that other posters weren't necessarily wrong but that I only wanted to jog the thought process here that every situation is fluid and rapidly changing. Surviving after the gun smoke is important too. I have often said that some of the biggest goofballs I've seen on the range were cops and military folks. But that should be no surprise because cops and military guys are nothing more than a cross section of the American public. So there it is, sorry if I came across as anything less than sincere.
To your reply on topic, a CCW holder certainly has a right to protect them self. There is no legal duty to protect others. That's a different ballgame...
To your reply on topic, a CCW holder certainly has a right to protect them self. There is no legal duty to protect others. That's a different ballgame...
Originally Posted By: GCThese "I'd shoot him in the back while he was pointing a gun at someone else because I assume..." posters need to think about what happens when the bad guy convulsively tightens as he is shot. When that happens and bad guy now shoots innocent person on the receiving end of his gun, who catches the he11 for that? I assume you know the answer. Of course I forget that most people on the Internet are snipers and capable of perfectly hitting medulla oblongata with a concealed carry pistol in the heat of the moment thus preventing such a disaster.
This is exactly what I was trying to articulate, but GC did it much more eloquently!
Originally Posted By: hm1996 I'm going to throw some stuff in the game here. Suppose the bad guy is, at this point in time, merely holding a gun on the clerk, no shots fired as of yet. You choose to shoot the bad guy but for whatever reason, miss, bad shot, perp high on drugs, whatever, and then, after you shoot, the perp shoots the clerk or others in the store?
Quote:Shoot, then call your lawyer.
At this point, you need to go heavy on the "call your lawyer", which is good advice even if you are 100% successful in disabling the perp w/no further shots fired.
Regards,
hm
This is exactly what I was trying to articulate, but GC did it much more eloquently!
Originally Posted By: hm1996 I'm going to throw some stuff in the game here. Suppose the bad guy is, at this point in time, merely holding a gun on the clerk, no shots fired as of yet. You choose to shoot the bad guy but for whatever reason, miss, bad shot, perp high on drugs, whatever, and then, after you shoot, the perp shoots the clerk or others in the store?
Quote:Shoot, then call your lawyer.
At this point, you need to go heavy on the "call your lawyer", which is good advice even if you are 100% successful in disabling the perp w/no further shots fired.
Regards,
hm
NdIndy
New member
Yes! No! Maybe!
All are the correct answer
You can't really decide today, that in x situation you would do Y. There's too many variables that you aren't aware of when you're neck deep in X, the biggest is your personal body, how adrenaline will affect you, your state of mind in a true Oh S situation.
*Most* of the time, the safest bet in a robbery is to let the robbery happen. It's only money, and money doesn't matter. It's easily replaced. *Most* robbers want money, not murder. Let them get the money and leave. If they want to actually kill a robbery is 100x simpler if you just whack everyone right off the bat and then take the money. Less stress and you just grab the wallets on your way out. If put in a position of danger *most* non murdering robbers will start shooting back.
What you definitely don't want to do is wait until the robber leaves, then start shooting at their car as they leave. 99% of the time, you will face criminal charges. There's a difference, pretty stark one, to most DA's between self defense/defense of another, and shooting at someone who is no longer a threat.
All are the correct answer
*Most* of the time, the safest bet in a robbery is to let the robbery happen. It's only money, and money doesn't matter. It's easily replaced. *Most* robbers want money, not murder. Let them get the money and leave. If they want to actually kill a robbery is 100x simpler if you just whack everyone right off the bat and then take the money. Less stress and you just grab the wallets on your way out. If put in a position of danger *most* non murdering robbers will start shooting back.
What you definitely don't want to do is wait until the robber leaves, then start shooting at their car as they leave. 99% of the time, you will face criminal charges. There's a difference, pretty stark one, to most DA's between self defense/defense of another, and shooting at someone who is no longer a threat.
NdIndy
New member
FWIW, the 1st round fired is a warning shot. But only if you miss
Very very few gunfights end with 1 shot and the other guy ceasing to be a threat. Unless you hit a very specific part of the brain, any person hit with a pistol caliber is a very viable threat for quite a while. So you have to expect an injured person to start putting donut shaped muzzle flashes in your direction, and at any other potential target including totally innocent bystanders.
Risk vs reward, changes by the moment.
Risk vs reward, changes by the moment.
CAFR
New member
First, you must be aware of the whole situation before drawing your handgun. Is the robber acting alone, or does he have backup standing behind you with a shotgun? You don't deserve to die because of "Stupid's" decision to rob a store. Even if you prevent Stupid from hurting someone else by shooting him and you are not charged with a crime, Stupid's family will sue you into oblivion. If you are lucky enough to beat them in court, you will most likely be wiped out financially by legal fees. Consider being a good witness from a concealed position and control your impulse to leap to the rescue. Self defense is exactly that, and is much easier to defend in a civil action than coming to the aid of the unprepared. My advice to my daughter when she got her CCW was; A. Retreat to a safer and concealed position, B. Draw your handgun and prepare to defend yourself, C. Remain concealed until the threat is over or until the threat is directed at you, D. If the threat is directed towards you, Shoot to kill, wet your pants, and vomit if possible. The aforementioned actions are your best defense in both a criminal or civil court.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hm1996 Originally Posted By: GCThese "I'd shoot him in the back while he was pointing a gun at someone else because I assume..." posters need to think about what happens when the bad guy convulsively tightens as he is shot. When that happens and bad guy now shoots innocent person on the receiving end of his gun, who catches the he11 for that? I assume you know the answer. Of course I forget that most people on the Internet are snipers and capable of perfectly hitting medulla oblongata with a concealed carry pistol in the heat of the moment thus preventing such a disaster.
This is exactly what I was trying to articulate, but GC did it much more eloquently!
Originally Posted By: hm1996 I'm going to throw some stuff in the game here. Suppose the bad guy is, at this point in time, merely holding a gun on the clerk, no shots fired as of yet. You choose to shoot the bad guy but for whatever reason, miss, bad shot, perp high on drugs, whatever, and then, after you shoot, the perp shoots the clerk or others in the store?
Quote:Shoot, then call your lawyer.
At this point, you need to go heavy on the "call your lawyer", which is good advice even if you are 100% successful in disabling the perp w/no further shots fired.
Regards,
hm
You are right about me throwing out a blanket statement about automatically slinging lead... I should not have thrown that out there like that... I said I should have toned it down by adding the situation putting me in a position where I am not free to leave at that exact moment... What I mean is that as long I am being forced into a situation where someone is threatening me with hostile intent with a firearm, don't turn your back on me... I will capitalize on the moment I have the edge... If it is a simple robbery and he is out the door fast then it's a good thing...
I know for myself that I have a fight or flight personality... I have a very hard time just submitting in such a situation and hoping for the best... "These "I'd shoot him in the back while he was pointing a gun at someone else because I assume..." posters need to think about what happens when the bad guy convulsively tightens as he is shot. When that happens and bad guy now shoots innocent person on the receiving end of his gun," There are thousands of different scenario that can play out... What if it goes the other way? Say I have a chance and freeze up and don't engage, next I find myself face down in the walk in cooler flinching to the sound of gunshots waiting for the one that turns out my lights... Or he shoots the clerk in the face, panics and runs out the door, no longer posturing hostile intent... What if the moon is actually made out of cheese...
Whatever action I choose to do is in defense of my own safety.. I am not in fear for the clerks life... I am in fear for my life...
Quote:
Why would a CCW holder be treated any different? If you think you would be I have two words for you - George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman chased after Trayvon Martin and shot him in his own distorted heroics..there is a clear line between running someone down and shooting them versus being held at bay in an active robbery by a perp with a gun posturing hostile intent... The problem is we've created a society where if a cop kills someone, we end up with furgeson... Criminals prey with confidence on gun free zones... Shits gets way out of hand and this becomes the norm in your community... The more thugs get away with, positively re-enforces their actions and the more they will commit... In turn their level of crime increases and creates an environment where there is a higher likelihood of you ending up in a situation like this...
This is exactly what I was trying to articulate, but GC did it much more eloquently!
Originally Posted By: hm1996 I'm going to throw some stuff in the game here. Suppose the bad guy is, at this point in time, merely holding a gun on the clerk, no shots fired as of yet. You choose to shoot the bad guy but for whatever reason, miss, bad shot, perp high on drugs, whatever, and then, after you shoot, the perp shoots the clerk or others in the store?
Quote:Shoot, then call your lawyer.
At this point, you need to go heavy on the "call your lawyer", which is good advice even if you are 100% successful in disabling the perp w/no further shots fired.
Regards,
hm
You are right about me throwing out a blanket statement about automatically slinging lead... I should not have thrown that out there like that... I said I should have toned it down by adding the situation putting me in a position where I am not free to leave at that exact moment... What I mean is that as long I am being forced into a situation where someone is threatening me with hostile intent with a firearm, don't turn your back on me... I will capitalize on the moment I have the edge... If it is a simple robbery and he is out the door fast then it's a good thing...
I know for myself that I have a fight or flight personality... I have a very hard time just submitting in such a situation and hoping for the best... "These "I'd shoot him in the back while he was pointing a gun at someone else because I assume..." posters need to think about what happens when the bad guy convulsively tightens as he is shot. When that happens and bad guy now shoots innocent person on the receiving end of his gun," There are thousands of different scenario that can play out... What if it goes the other way? Say I have a chance and freeze up and don't engage, next I find myself face down in the walk in cooler flinching to the sound of gunshots waiting for the one that turns out my lights... Or he shoots the clerk in the face, panics and runs out the door, no longer posturing hostile intent... What if the moon is actually made out of cheese...
Whatever action I choose to do is in defense of my own safety.. I am not in fear for the clerks life... I am in fear for my life...
Quote:
Why would a CCW holder be treated any different? If you think you would be I have two words for you - George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman chased after Trayvon Martin and shot him in his own distorted heroics..there is a clear line between running someone down and shooting them versus being held at bay in an active robbery by a perp with a gun posturing hostile intent... The problem is we've created a society where if a cop kills someone, we end up with furgeson... Criminals prey with confidence on gun free zones... Shits gets way out of hand and this becomes the norm in your community... The more thugs get away with, positively re-enforces their actions and the more they will commit... In turn their level of crime increases and creates an environment where there is a higher likelihood of you ending up in a situation like this...
Eugene Canterbury
New member
This same scenario just came up at a store in Georgia today on bearing arms. The guy shot the perp a few times. Only person facing charges is the robber and his driver. The guy even claimed to fire 2 more times at the perp as he headed out the door. The local sheriff was strongly supportive of the decision to shoot the perp. People are fed up he said.
http://bearingarms.com/open-carrying-veteran-did-what-he-had-to-do-saving-clerk-from-armed-robber/
http://bearingarms.com/open-carrying-veteran-did-what-he-had-to-do-saving-clerk-from-armed-robber/
MotoHunter
New member
I wouldn't draw and shoot him unless my life or the life of my family were threatened. I Would put distance between me and the threat. Sorry Mr Store Clerk, but saving you isn't worth putting myself in harms way. I'm not a cop, and I've seen first hand what happens to the "justified shooter" afterward. The dead perpetrator will be treated like the victim, and you will spend a lot of time, and $$$$ in court defending yourself. Not to mention the possible retaliation threat that will surely come your way.
MotoHunter
New member
The guy I mentioned above was not charged in the shooting, but the surviving wife of the dead perpetrator, the one he was going to surely kill with a knife inside the Walmart she was working at. sued the shooter and won a civil lawsuit for, get this, future lost income from the dead guy. He spent about $150,000 on defending himself, still lost, and got no help with the defense from the NRA either. Now he has to send $550 a month the the women he saved for the rest of his life.
Eugene Canterbury
New member
Motohunter, was that shooting you reference in Chicago, New York or LA? While I don't doubt your sincerity, it seems like there is a little bit more to the story than what this post was regarding.
tnshootist
New member
Originally Posted By: MotoHunterThe guy I mentioned above was not charged in the shooting, but the surviving wife of the dead perpetrator, the one he was going to surely kill with a knife inside the Walmart she was working at. sued the shooter and won a civil lawsuit for, get this, future lost income from the dead guy. He spent about $150,000 on defending himself, still lost, and got no help with the defense from the NRA either. Now he has to send $550 a month the the women he saved for the rest of his life.
I don't doubt the story for one minute. Time was I would have stepped right up to defend strangers or anyone. Still might when it comes right down to it. But this day and time I have little confidence winning would be a win for long. I am sorry I feel this way but I have little trust in my fellow man.
I don't doubt the story for one minute. Time was I would have stepped right up to defend strangers or anyone. Still might when it comes right down to it. But this day and time I have little confidence winning would be a win for long. I am sorry I feel this way but I have little trust in my fellow man.
NdIndy
New member
Well, yesterday my above scenario happened here. Guy walked into a shop, murdered 2 people, then committed a robbery. Shop owner was known to carry or have a shotgun concealed, drt and no evidence of an attempt at sd.
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2015/07/21/news/19local_07-21-15.txt#.Va6Gefm4eeM
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2015/07/21/news/19local_07-21-15.txt#.Va6Gefm4eeM
Originally Posted By: PredburnerJerome Ersland might be a bit of a better example...The one he shot was armed....
I do not think he is a good example;
I do not think he is a good example;