Hurray for gun nuts!!

[slag]

He tried to foil a robbery by disabling the getaway car.

Did he think it out ... that it might lead to a car jacking?

Probably not.

But whether he elevated the danger for others beyond what it would have been had the police confronted the guys instead of him is debatable.

Probably better to leave it to the police, but the fact is, no one got hurt but the robber.

I was in the subway by myself in the middle of the day about 20-25 years ago when I was in better shape. Nobody but me on the platform, and I thought I saw a guy stabbing a woman in the entrance to the tunnel ... I started walking toward it, realized all I had was a briefcase and hesitated ... the guy moved toward the light and I saw that it was two drunks, the man was helping pick up the woman who was half passed out.

What are you supposed to do in that situation?

I had no time to call anyone ... but I imagine he also struggled to decide how much to get involved.

3-2-1 ... I would have shot an innocent guy if I had a gun, right?

[common wealth]

So when you find out he did the non violent thing that you suggested, and only fired when a gun was pointed at him, then taking the keys and alerting the police was the wrong thing to do?

It just seems like no matter what he did, you will find a way to disagree with it.

[TerpEagle]

So when you find out he did the non violent thing that you suggested, and only fired when a gun was pointed at him, then taking the keys and alerting the police was the wrong thing to do?

It just seems like no matter what he did, you will find a way to disagree with it.

I very sarcasticly said having done that and calling the police would have been too non-violent in response to the litreal cheer for the death of a human.

That at the time seemed like a less reckless action. After learning more, he made a poor decision regarding the car as well. "Luckily" only one person died because he got directly involved.

Given what I've read, our vigilante hero's actions resulted in a second confrontation between armed thieves and the bank victims, a car jacking at gunpoint, and a dead person. Color me unimpressed.

[TerpEagle]

He tried to foil a robbery by disabling the getaway car.

Did he think it out ... that it might lead to a car jacking?

Probably not.

But whether he elevated the danger for others beyond what it would have been had the police confronted the guys instead of him is debatable.

Probably better to leave it to the police, but the fact is, no one got hurt but the robber.

I was in the subway by myself in the middle of the day about 20-25 years ago when I was in better shape. Nobody but me on the platform, and I thought I saw a guy stabbing a woman in the entrance to the tunnel ... I started walking toward it, realized all I had was a briefcase and hesitated ... the guy moved toward the light and I saw that it was two drunks, the man was helping pick up the woman who was half passed out.

What are you supposed to do in that situation?

I had no time to call anyone ... but I imagine he also struggled to decide how much to get involved.

3-2-1 ... I would have shot an innocent guy if I had a gun, right?

Your position is that he didn't think it out? He didn't think out his actions to act as a vigilante and it resulted in a death and heightened danger for others? I agree.

And like is said - Brilliant.

And I guess it's a good thing you didn't have a gun, huh?

[slag]

You're such a jackass

[TerpEagle]

You're such a jackass

Ok. You even said he probably didn't think it out and someone died.

As for your experience, it's a good thing you didn't have a gun if you think you'd have reacted off a gut feeling in 3 2 1... that proved to be incorrect. You investigated the situation and it was one were you believed immediate violence was occuring. That's not what happened in Arizona. That was a situation where insured money was being stolen and the outside involvement is what propagated the increased threat of violence.

It's bad enough that trained law enforcement can be trigger happy when put in stressful situations. Praising a vigilante for killing a thief seems pretty ridiculous to me.

[Eagle Road]

Your position is that he didn't think it out? He didn't think out his actions to act as a vigilante and it resulted in a death and heightened danger for others? I agree.

And like is said - Brilliant.

And I guess it's a good thing you didn't have a gun, huh?

Here is where I have a problem with your train of thought Terp, you assume that as soon as 911 is called the situation is handled and can get no worse, I for one don't see it that way.


What if the cops were called as you suggested, and as they come pulling into the parking lot the felons see that they can't make it to their car, so they run back into the bank and now hold 10 hostages?


There are never any guarantees how something like this will turn out any more than Monday morning QB's have all the answers.


Now the one thief that got killed will never steal again, and his buddy will not only serve time for armed robbery, but also for manslaughter since his actions were responsible for a death.


But to think that the cops will ALWAYS get it right, is to live in fantasy land.

[slag]

You assume I would have shot that guy before going over and finding out that it was just a couple of drunks? Like I did without a gun.

Like I said, you're such a jackass.

If I had a carry permit and a gun it would have been a lot less stressful for me to decide what to do, actually.

The point is that unless you've been in a situation like that you don't know what it's like.

And I've had enough of your Monday Morning moralizing.

[slag]

Who's talking about being impressed aside from that gun blog?

The problem I and others here have is you placing your comfortable view from your armchair into this as if it's gospel.

You're just the flip side of a gun blog over glorifying it ... and the truth is likely in between.

[Riccardo]

Can't believe I agree with terp

Ok. You even said he probably didn't think it out and someone died.

As for your experience, it's a good thing you didn't have a gun if you think you'd have reacted off a gut feeling in 3 2 1... that proved to be incorrect. You investigated the situation and it was one were you believed immediate violence was occuring. That's not what happened in Arizona. That was a situation where insured money was being stolen and the outside involvement is what propagated the increased threat of violence.

It's bad enough that trained law enforcement can be trigger happy when put in stressful situations. Praising a vigilante for killing a thief seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Deadly force should only be used when life is in danger IMO.

I'm at MIT fir a conference, maybe all the libs here are rubbing off on me.

[Eagle Road]

Deadly force should only be used when life is in danger IMO.

I'm at MIT fir a conference, maybe all the libs here are rubbing off on me.

Must be the beta-caryophyllene in the air, are you getting hungry?

[slag]

Who doesn't think deadly force requires a threat to one's life?

[TerpEagle]

You assume I would have shot that guy before going over and finding out that it was just a couple of drunks? Like I did without a gun.

Like I said, you're such a jackass.

If I had a carry permit and a gun it would have been a lot less stressful for me to decide what to do, actually.

The point is that unless you've been in a situation like that you don't know what it's like.

And I've had enough of your Monday Morning moralizing.

You implied you might have shot if you had had a gun. That was how I interpreted the end of that post. If that was incorrect, I apologize.

Your actions to investigate were far more responsible than what happened in Arizona so I don't see a strong correlation regardless.

My point is that some random hero decided to get involved and things escalated beyond where they likely would have and escalated to the point of someone being killed.

When a gun was eventually pointed at him there is more justifiable reason to shoot in self-defense. But that very likely situation only occurred because of other actions by the hero.

I don't see any reason to herald these acts. Split decision or not, it turned out to be a poor decision and the hero shouldn't have gotten himself that far involved but rather tried to provide information to law enforcement.

That's my opinion. I guess that means I consider it to be gospel? Probably since it's my opinion.

Anyway, the topic is "Hurray for gun nuts!!" I responded to that sentiment. Maybe I misinterpreted sarcasm behind it. Even so, there are plenty of people who think this guy acted responsibly and somehow was making his community safe. I disagree.

You're free to disagree with me.

[TerpEagle]

Here is where I have a problem with your train of thought Terp, you assume that as soon as 911 is called the situation is handled and can get no worse, I for one don't see it that way.


What if the cops were called as you suggested, and as they come pulling into the parking lot the felons see that they can't make it to their car, so they run back into the bank and now hold 10 hostages?


There are never any guarantees how something like this will turn out any more than Monday morning QB's have all the answers.


Now the one thief that got killed will never steal again, and his buddy will not only serve time for armed robbery, but also for manslaughter since his actions were responsible for a death.


But to think that the cops will ALWAYS get it right, is to live in fantasy land.

I certainly don't think that the cops always get it right. And when they don't, they should accountable.

Cops are human and have human flaws but at the very least there is a public trust that they're trained in how to handle situations such as this. Is a vigilante trained to handle this situation? Maybe? Even if he is, does anyone else know that?

His actions brought added chaos to the situation.

As to you end justifies the means point - I don't think they do. Death is not a penalty for theft. And the most apparent reason that death occurred is because the situation was escalated.

[Eagle Road]

I certainly don't think that the cops always get it right. And when they don't, they should accountable.

Cops are human and have human flaws but at the very least there is a public trust that they're trained in how to handle situations such as this. Is a vigilante trained to handle this situation? Maybe? Even if he is, does anyone else know that?

His actions brought added chaos to the situation.

As to you end justifies the means point - I don't think they do. Death is not a penalty for theft. And the most apparent reason that death occurred is because the situation was escalated.

Sorry, but I guess I just have a hard on for thieves, maybe because I have had things near and dear to me stolen.


As far as escalating the situation? How about never starting the situation?