Some peopel are Wusses and...

[Black Caesar]

.....Some Ain't! (http://blogs.pe.com/news/digest/2009/12/man-arrested-after-fight-with.html)

Nice job by casino security and the one passeryby. The people who did nothing I find disgusting.

[ScottFree]

BC, there are just some people i wouldnt want to get involved, so i have to say not blanket disgust, but if you were able bodied, and you didnt help a man fighting for his life, especially a LEO, you are truly a waste of air.

Score one for the good guys, and thank God everyone got to go home at the end of it.

[FireRanger]

BC, there are just some people i wouldnt want to get involved, so i have to say not blanket disgust, but if you were able bodied, and you didnt help a man fighting for his life, especially a LEO, you are truly a waste of air.

Score one for the good guys, and thank God everyone got to go home at the end of it.

Scott, all they had to do was go to the officers squad car, get on the radio and call for help. Most departments if not all have radio ID's so when the radio transmits the dispatch center knows what car it belongs to. Also I have to say that if a criminal is willing to assualt a LEO, then that is one fight I would have to get involved in, because a criminal without fear of a LEO is a criminal who will easily kill or prey on my family. And BC, it should be some people are sheeple, some are wolves and the lucky few are sheepdogs. Thankfully for society and this deputy, there were several other sheepdogs around that day.

[ScottFree]

FireRanger i am shamed for not being alert enough to realize the obvious. BC i retract my earlier post (or wish i could) and have to say that you guys are right on this one.

I was thinking i wouldnt want my girl to get involved in a tussle because the LEO has enough to worry about already, but i would have to say she would surely be on the radio.

I cant believe i am spread so thin at this moment i missed the obvious, but i can admit when i was wrong :D

I always think to myself the people that wouldnt lend any assistance to LEO in trouble need to get a busy signal when they call 911, but that would make me petty, and the pros here do a job, they dont pick and choose.

[Nauticus]

.....Some Ain't! (http://blogs.pe.com/news/digest/2009/12/man-arrested-after-fight-with.html)

Nice job by casino security and the one passeryby. The people who did nothing I find disgusting.

The guy had a gun. I'm not totally surprised that several people didn't assist. I don't agree with their decision, but I'm not surprised by it.

[YANG]

If I were there and passing by, I'd tell my wife to get as far as possible and call 911 and then I would go hands on. Gun or not, I'm there. But hey, thats me.

May differ with different people, but I would've gone hands on.

[doulos Christou]

If I were there and passing by, I'd tell my wife to get as far as possible and call 911 and then I would go hands on. Gun or not, I'm there. But hey, thats me.
May differ with different people, but I would've gone hands on.

Alot of people say this, almost none of them have ever been put in a situation where they had to back it up. Not saying that's you, but a general rule. I've been shot before and I'll be damned if I'm going hands-on, unarmed against an MWAG ever again.

[Acer]

Alot of people say this, almost none of them have ever been put in a situation where they had to back it up. Not saying that's you, but a general rule. I've been shot before and I'll be damned if I'm going hands-on, unarmed against an MWAG ever again.

I agree for the most. However, it would depend on the situation. If I felt that I could handle the situation knowing for sure I could handle it, without getting hurt myself, I might do something unarmed. But as I said, that depends on the situation.

Like you, I have seen the type of things you have mentioned. But, if I know for sure (or feel I have a chance) I will take the opportunity to solve the problem.

It is not matter if I am paid for that, happy with my job or not, but more of who I am as a person.

[doulos Christou]

I agree for the most. However, it would depend on the situation. If I felt that I could handle the situation knowing for sure I could handle it, without getting hurt myself, I might do something unarmed. But as I said, that depends on the situation.

Like you, I have seen the type of things you have mentioned. But, if I know for sure (or feel I have a chance) I will take the opportunity to solve the problem.

It is not matter if I am paid for that, happy with my job or not, but more of who I am as a person.

I don't think I was clear enough. What I meant to say, basically, is that I won't go in unarmed intentionally. If I am carrying, I will not hesitate, nor will I hesitate if I know I can get a jump on the MWAG. Of course, other factors like the victim come into play. If it's family or someone that matters, my safety kind of goes out the window. That's how I got shot, after all.

[PPOinCA]

I have a CCW so it changes my perspective a little bit. Hands on.... probably not. He's got the deputys gun in his hands? If so, two to the chest, 1 to the head.

[Sgt.Campbell]

He's got the deputys gun in his hands? If so, two to the chest, 1 to the head.

:rolleyes: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[doulos Christou]

:rolleyes: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Sorry, but you could please explain the humor of shooting someone?

[caguard]

What I actually found refreshing about this case was security was actually praised by the Riverside County Sheriff's dept in their press release regarding this matter. I can't seem to find the press release now on their website or I would post the link.

Nice to see LE formally praise security every once in awhile.:)

[Maelstrom]

I have a CCW so it changes my perspective a little bit. Hands on.... probably not. He's got the deputy's gun in his hands? If so, two to the chest, 1 to the head.


For once (reading one of your posts) I'm liking what I see... keep up the good work! :D

[doulos Christou]

Sorry, but you could please explain the humor of shooting someone?


Still waiting...

[Midol]

I have a CCW so it changes my perspective a little bit. Hands on.... probably not. He's got the deputys gun in his hands? If so, two to the chest, 1 to the head.

Really?

That'd probably land you in jail here. Three to the chest wouldn't, two to the chest and one in the head probably will. In my weapons training I was told if I ever shot someone in the head whilst a larger body mass was visible that I'm almost gauranteed to be charged over it.

[craig333]

Totally going to be how it comes across. If its a "why didn't you just taser the guy" thing then you might have problems. If its a "the nutcase was killing civilians" then I doubt anyone will care how you did it.

[doulos Christou]

Really?

That'd probably land you in jail here. Three to the chest wouldn't, two to the chest and one in the head probably will. In my weapons training I was told if I ever shot someone in the head whilst a larger body mass was visible that I'm almost gauranteed to be charged over it.

That has got to be the dumbest thing I have read today. A gunshot is a gunshot, regardless of where or how many times it strikes. :rolleyes: Oh yea...there is also the fact that it would have been a legally-armed citizen saving a cop who was obviously in mortal danger.

[Midol]

That has got to be the dumbest thing I have read today.

You must not read very much.

The way it was explained to me, in my country, was that if you aim for the head when a larger body mass is present this demonstrates that you shot them with the intent to kill them rather than shot them to prevent them from hurting you or someone else. The difference is pretty major.

The reason I asked was because I wanted to know if it is the same in the US - I should have expected a smart arse response from someone like you though.


A gunshot is a gunshot, regardless of where or how many times it strikes.

No, it's not. At least not over here. But of course, according to you, the way things work in the US is the right way and anyone who does things differently is wrong. My apologies.


:rolleyes:

Touche.

Craig, over here where guns and shooting people isn't so common how it is done would come under scrutiny. Shooting in the head when a larger body mass (the chest) is present shows you intended to kill him rather than shoot to stop. The outcome could be the same, death, but how he reached that stage would not be glossed over.

[Curtis Baillie]

The guttersnipe tactics has got to come to an end. Either clean it up or this topic goes away.

[5423]

Midol, I've lived and worked in several states here in the US, but never out of country... firearm (and shoot-to-defend) laws are written and interpreted so differently from state to state here that its pretty hard to generalize.

In some states, a legally armed citizen can only shoot to defend the interior of his home, and from an armed assailant intent on doing great bodily harm. In others, Castle Doctrine extends to the exterior of his home and (real) property. In yet others, he can (and is expected to) defend... well, the community at large.

In CA, for instance, if you shot an intruder in your home, (1) the body'd better be inside your locked residence, (2) he'd better have a weapon (means and implied intent to do harm) superior to your own (a crook with a grenade launcher might give you a reasonable chance at defending yourself in court in CA), and (3) wounds only in his body (no "surely fatal" targetting). Otherwise, you'd have a rough time in court.

In AZ (an open carry state), you are required by interpretation of the law to carry your piece loaded. So take a guess how a shooting such as the OP describes would be viewed in AZ...

Here in NV (outside of Las Vegas and Reno areas), you'd be given a medal, the keys to the county, and a gift certificate to the local taxidermist in case you wanted to mount your bag... OK, so that one's a little tongue-in-cheek, but not much.

There was a similar shooting here in town a couple of years ago; the BG ended up dead, and the citizen (who had a CCW) was taken into protective custody by local law, told "Good job", and released without charges when enough of his friends could assemble to get him home in one piece (he'd interceded in a 100+ year old 'banger feud when bystanders started going down).

So here in the US, I'd say that in some states, yes, a hole in the head would look pretty bad in court. In others, IF you'd fired a triple-tap with no delay, it'd just be viewed as good defensive shooting technique. (The citizen here in town put seven .45 JHP's in the 'banger, from 3 feet - from beltline to bridge of nose - and it wasn't an issue).

On the other hand, in pretty much any state in the US, if you were to drop the BG with two in the torso, then walk up to his prone body and calmly put an aimed round in his head, you'd probably find yourself looking at charges... regardless of circumstances.



(On a side note, I've personally wtinessed two different BG's put down with solid head hits (9mm, 119 gr JHP) at about 10 to 25 feet (incidentally, both were fired by the same cop); both BG's are still walking around today. Even a "solid" head hit isn't automatically fatal...)

Hope that as confusing as my rambling is, it helps to answer your question...

[inman]

I work armed security, and am also a CHL holder here in Texas, so if I had a clean shot, I would take it to end the situation, and answer questions later.

[Midol]

Thanks 5423 - I appreciate the response.

[5423]

Sorry, Inman; I'd meant to mention TX self-defense laws... ya gotta like a citizen's options for self defense in a state where death row has an express-lane... :D

(For those cretins who've never heard it, that's a joke shamelessly pliagiarized from a native son of Texas: Comedian Ron White.)

[doulos Christou]

You must not read very much.

Actually, I do. However, everything you post seems to take a very similar tone. It tends to lack intelligence, hence my response.


The way it was explained to me, in my country, was that if you aim for the head when a larger body mass is present this demonstrates that you shot them with the intent to kill them rather than shot them to prevent them from hurting you or someone else. The difference is pretty major.

Again, dumbest thing ever. A COM shot is showing intent to kill. So is a head shot. Actually, any gunshot is intent to kill. "Shooting to wound" is for movie bull crap.


The reason I asked was because I wanted to know if it is the same in the US - I should have expected a smart arse response from someone like you though.

How many times must it be posted that the US and OZ are completely opposite in their laws regarding SD? Only a complete dumbass would have missed that by now.


No, it's not. At least not over here. But of course, according to you, the way things work in the US is the right way and anyone who does things differently is wrong.

Where have I EVER said that? I'll give you a hint: I haven't. You really should check out Chopper Read, btw...I think he has some excellent advice for you. Look it up on youtube...

[Curtis Baillie]

? Only a complete dumbass would have missed that by now.

As I warned earlier "The guttersnipe tactics has got to come to an end. Either clean it up or this topic goes away." This topic is now locked.