Man Open Carrying NOT robbed

[Hawkeye638]

Originally Posted by Booga

I'd say that telling someone shouldn't carry if they aren't willing to execute someone on the spot is overly harsh.

"Stop the threat immediately" does not translate to "execute someone on the spot." There are plenty of examples where telling someone "stop or I'll shoot" or "drop your gun" has had tragic results. First let me say that I am not advocating immediately pulling the trigger every time you draw your weapon but there examples like this where it is necessary. When you give a warning to someone who just shot somebody without provocation and he has the very real, very immediate potential to do it again you are telling him he has the tactical advantage because you are reluctant to do what he is willing to do and that is to pull the trigger without hesitating. That is not an execution, it is stopping the threat.

[BradAnderson]

Originally Posted by Booga

Everyone reacts differently to a situation.

Everyone reacts the way they train-- and some ways are better than others.

He tried to stop the bad guy with a threat, but was unsuccessful.

Because that's one of the worse ways.

Had that worked, he might have been able to disarm the bad guy and keep him under watch while someone else tended to the store owner and/or called 911.

As he would, if he had emptied his magazine-- with the difference that it would have worked.
However if the warning had worked, then the BG's accomplice could still have shot the GO, thus precluding the above as well.
You say that the BG didn't have an accomplice? That's 20/20 hindsight.

I don't think there's an easy answer in a situation like this, but I will lean toward the thoughts of: "He just killed someone! I could be next, or anyone else here could be next. I'm not going to wait, this guy is history..." Even so, I don't know if that would be my instant reaction.

Because you didn't train with a particular reaction.
Well here's the best one: if you have a clear shot, TAKE IT.

I'd say that telling someone shouldn't carry if they aren't willing to execute someone on the spot is overly harsh.

But if you carry, then you SHOULD train yourself to shoot someone on the spot. You don't have to execute, just shoot staight and deadly-- the bullets will do the reast.

This guy saved lives. The only fatality, indeed, the only casualty other than the bad guy was cause by the bad guy before any reaction could take place. I'd say that's about as good as it gets.

If you believe in pressing your luck-- and as Murphy's law says, "if anything can go wrong, it will."
That's why Murphy's Laws of Combat say "when in doubt, empty your magazine."

Originally Posted by S&WM&P40

Now i have to ask. He someone comes in and shoots someone right off the bat. Would you really have to tell them to drop it before you shot them. It seems clear that if he had shot the BG the gun battle would have not taken place?

Yep, I'd tell them to drop it-- and if they didn't, then I'd shoot the gun out of their hand, jump on my horse and let out a hearty "Hiyo SILVER, AWAY!" and ride off with my faithful indian sidekick Tonto smoking a peace-pipe.

The moral is, THIS AIN'T A WESTERN-- IT'S REALITY. Empty your magazine, and shoot to kill.

[S&WM&P40]

Originally Posted by BradAnderson

Everyone reacts the way they train-- and some ways are better than others.



Because that's one of the worse ways.


As he would, if he had emptied his magazine-- with the difference that it would have worked.
However if the warning had worked, then the BG's accomplice could still have shot the GO, thus precluding the above as well.
You say that the BG didn't have an accomplice? That's 20/20 hindsight.



Because you didn't train with a particular reaction.
Well here's the best one: if you have a clear shot, TAKE IT.


But if you carry, then you SHOULD train yourself to shoot someone on the spot. You don't have to execute, just shoot staight and deadly-- the bullets will do the reast.



If you believe in pressing your luck-- and as Murphy's law says, "if anything can go wrong, it will."
That's why Murphy's Laws of Combat say "when in doubt, empty your magazine."



Yep, I'd tell them to drop it-- and if they didn't, then I'd shoot the gun out of their hand, jump on my horse and let out a hearty "Hiyo SILVER, AWAY!" and ride off with my faithful indian sidekick Tonto smoking a peace-pipe.

The moral is, THIS AIN'T A WESTERN-- IT'S REALITY. Empty your magazine, and shoot to kill.

That's what i was getting at people watch way to much tv/movies. As you can see here doing so will not only endanger your self but everyone in the store when a full on gun battle starts. I have no idea about the rest of you but i don't know if i would be able to shoot a spinning moving target before he gets off a shot at me or someone else. I think the only time i would tell someone to drop it would be if they had a knife or a baseball bat. But if someone walks in with a 12G ot a Mac 10 or any gun i think i would wait to see what happens and how he acts. If he comes in shooting and shoots someone i would shoot them. But if they came in acted cool and got the money and left instead of endangering my self and others by starting a gun battle or by shooting him. I would study them and be the best witness i could be for the police.

[AZSATT]

That's based on a level of trust that the "calm, cool and collected criminal" is ok with leaving witnesses that could potentially ID him to/for the police.

I trust criminals with my life about as much as I trust the gov't with my life... oh wait. Redundant statement.

[BradAnderson]

Originally Posted by AZSATT

That's based on a level of trust that the "calm, cool and collected criminal" is ok with leaving witnesses that could potentially ID him to/for the police.

I trust criminals with my life about as much as I trust the gov't with my life... oh wait. Redundant statement.

Bingo. There HAVE been cases of criminals who simply decide that they don't want any witnesses, and so they just start shooting even after they've gotten their victims TIED UP.

Criminals aren't the most long-term thinkers in the world-- in fact they tend to be IMMEDIATE thinkers who act on the spur of the moment, and react to immediate circumstances. That's why they ARE criminals, i.e. since virtually anyone can tell you that ALL criminals get caught eventually; and so committing a crime, is the same as going to jail.

But they commit crimes anyway-- NOT because they think they're never going to get caught, but simply because their brains simply don't think that far ahead. So it's entirely possible that they'll rob first, and think about what to do with witnesses later-- and then shoot; or they might simply shoot first.

[doming83]

Thier's a lot of talk here about how the go warned the bg first, which resulted in a gun battle. No one knows exactly how he or she would react in a situation like that, even if you train for a situation like that it still doesn't mean you would shoot the bg in the back with out a warning. It's really easy to speak in he should of's , but you werent thiere, and i think he did just fine.

[Beretta8045]

Sure, the GO made some mistakes, but in the end it all worked out. Everyone deserving of the air they breathe is still here. Hopefully he'll learn from the situation and fortunately for us, we can all learn from it too.

+1 for law abiding citizens with guns.

[guncat]

having been on the receiving end of a robbery I cannot complain that the Gun owner helped clean up the environment a little bit, so he did not do the perfect text thing no one is perfect.

[mbass]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye638

"Stop the threat immediately" does not translate to "execute someone on the spot." There are plenty of examples where telling someone "stop or I'll shoot" or "drop your gun" has had tragic results. First let me say that I am not advocating immediately pulling the trigger every time you draw your weapon but there examples like this where it is necessary. When you give a warning to someone who just shot somebody without provocation and he has the very real, very immediate potential to do it again you are telling him he has the tactical advantage because you are reluctant to do what he is willing to do and that is to pull the trigger without hesitating. That is not an execution, it is stopping the threat.

Good argument...

[6shootercarry]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye638

"Stop the threat immediately" does not translate to "execute someone on the spot." There are plenty of examples where telling someone "stop or I'll shoot" or "drop your gun" has had tragic results. First let me say that I am not advocating immediately pulling the trigger every time you draw your weapon but there examples like this where it is necessary. When you give a warning to someone who just shot somebody without provocation and he has the very real, very immediate potential to do it again you are telling him he has the tactical advantage because you are reluctant to do what he is willing to do and that is to pull the trigger without hesitating. That is not an execution, it is stopping the threat.

In the case of LEO if the BG shot first you can bet the LEO would have fired at the BG with little or no warning to stop anyone else from being harmed or killed (That's what they are trained to do). In that situation I would have drawn and fired since the initial action of the BG was to shoot. I'm sure the witnesses in the store and the store owner would have gotten the story right. And to think there are people out there who believe that we (armed citizens) should not have the right to keep and bear arms... Well.. Score one for the “Guy in the White Cowboy Hat”...