I've been in a shooting. I know that the mind doesn't work the same way it does when you can focus at a shooting range or sit and imagine what you'd do in a conflict. Even highly-trained police only hit their target about 15% of the time in a firefight. Do you think the typical citizen with a gun can be even that accurate? Or make snap judgments about who's the guilty one and who isn't? Or decide when someone should live or die? I don't want to be anywhere near one of these yahoos when they decide to take the law into their own hands.
Here's one recent example where a man witnessed a purse robber, then took matters into his own hands to chase the guy down and then shoot him dead. Is the robbery of a purse from an old woman worth killing someone over? Is this sort of vigilante justice what we want in America?
Oh, sure, the gun guys deny wanting to play "Wyatt Earp." For instance, when I've brought this up before, one Anonymous commenter suggested:
[T]hose of us with CCPs do not want to be Wyatt Earp. If we did we go into Law Enforcement. My wife and I carry so as to protect ourselves. Period. My first thought if someone is shooting is to protect my family first and foremost. If we can leave and escape safely we will do so without drawing or shooting our weapons. However, if the threat is immediate and life threatening to my family or I than I will remove the threat.
Another, "18Echo", commented:
No one that is carrying openly or otherwise is "playing" at anything. Your statement is insulting. We all understand the potentially lethal ramifications of carrying a firearm. None of us are looking for a gunfight, as your Wyatt Earp comment implies nor are we looking to do the job of the police. In fact, all we want is to go about our lives in peace.
I hope they were telling the truth. Probably most who carry don't have the desire to "play police." But enough do that it worries me. Sorry, 18Echo, but you'll see how wrong you are when you read below.
This all came up again when the California Brady Campaign released an email alert about the Open Carry protesters there. As you'll see, these gun extremists have no problem picking a fight with otherwise peaceful people, in the hope of causing a riot and getting an excuse to "play Wyatt Earp":
Open Carriers to Bring Long Guns to Occupy Protest After Being Asked to Leave--CA Brady Campaign Urges Families to Stay Away from Todos Santos Park in Concord on Saturday, December 17th
CONCORD--According to their website, Open Carriers plan to bring long guns to an Occupy Protest (where they had previously been asked to leave) scheduled at Concord’s Todos Santos Park on Saturday, December 17, from 12 – 1 pm. From the following statement on their website it appears they are attempting to police the protesters’ behavior. The California Brady Campaign is concerned that what was previously billed as a gathering of gun owners to make a political statement about their gun rights, is now becoming a vigilante activity of attending other groups’ events. This dangerous provocation could lead to clashes resulting in accidental or intentional shootings.
(From website): “Apparently the last time we showed up to the occupy movement for a moment "took away" from the message of the occupy movement and the leaders of occupy asked Concord PD to ask us to leave. Well officers said sorry that is also free speech. Maybe Open Carry can show that we have the ability to protect ourselves and our community in case of riots. We do not need civil unrest conducted in our communities which hurts small business even though we encourage free speech.”
After the State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a bill to ban the open carry of unloaded handguns in California, groups of Open Carriers have staged gatherings around the state displaying unloaded long guns and ammunition. Long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, are designed to be fired braced against the shoulder, in contrast to a handgun. The protests are directed at the signing of AB 144 (Portantino), which refers only to handguns.
Said Dr. Dallas Stout, President of the CA Brady Campaign: “This vigilante behavior is irresponsible and dangerous because they are putting the community at risk in protest of a law that was sponsored and championed by law enforcement. Especially after the recent massacres in Cupertino and Seal Beach, to have Open Carriers walking around with lethal long guns and live ammunition intimidates and scares people.”
The CA Brady Campaign is urging people for their own safety to stay away from any location where the Open Carry meet-ups are taking place; and urging business and restaurant owners to enact their private property rights and forbid any guns on their premises for the safety of their employees and customers. Upon learning of any Long Gun Open Carry meet-ups the CA Brady Campaign will send out a news release to warn the community in advance.
These pro-gun extremists call their group "Responsible Citizens of California," but picking a fight so they can shoot peaceful protesters hardly seems "responsible" to me. There is no doubt about it: these are armed bullies who wish to threaten and harm peaceful people, and they need to be called out on it. If they think they're helping their "cause", they are sorely wrong. It's easy for the rest of us to see their radical extremism on display.
And for the rest of the pro-gun crowd who has the daydream of playing "Wyatt Earp," think again. Keep your daydreams in your head. Leave your gun at home. Don't endanger the rest of us. America doesn't want vigilante justice.
UPDATE (12/16/11 ): These same Open Carry protesters showed up at a mall today and ate as a group at a BJ's restaurant which had already announced that they weren't welcomed (but didn't turn them away). Open Carry of handguns (but not long rifles) becomes illegal in California on Jan. 1: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_19555955
UPDATE (12/16/11 ): These same Open Carry protesters showed up at a mall today and ate as a group at a BJ's restaurant which had already announced that they weren't welcomed (but didn't turn them away). Open Carry of handguns (but not long rifles) becomes illegal in California on Jan. 1: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_19555955
Great post. Thanks for writing it. The same commenters on my blog told me when I wondered about why people with gun permits sometimes choose to get away from the scene or not use their guns, that the purpose of their carrying is for their own self defense. But in reality, I believe they do have some sort of idea in their heads that they will "save the day" in a dangerous situation. That is the reason they have used when trying to get their permit to carry laws passed and loosened all over the country- that if only someone with a gun is on the scene, shooters will be stopped and citizens will be saved. But when pushed about it, they come back and say that their guns are merely for their own personal safety and that of their families. There is a contradiction here that needs to be examined.
ReplyDeleteIf they aren't looking for a gunfight, or at least expecting on, why carry a gun at all?
ReplyDeleteMaybe they don't see the logic in "If they aren't looking for a fire, or at least expecting one, why put batteries in a fire alarm at all?
ReplyDeleteI'll agree with you wholeheartly that this sort of intentionally provacative open carry does not advance the cause. However, not wise does not equal illegal, nor does it equal "vigilantism."
ReplyDeleteYou've provided no evidence whatsoever that a single one of these folks you fear so much was "picking a fight so they can shoot peaceful protesters." None.
They, like the "occupy" folks (hardly entirely peaceful people in their own right, BTW), have a right to be heard. And a right to express their views. Even when others disagree. Even when others are offended. Even in ways others find offensive.
Sorry, there is no right not to be offended.
That they carry a weapon - legally - may not be wise, but is not illegal. It may make people nervous (and again, I don't think their actions are politically a good idea), but it's not criminal. Call me when they commit a crime. Until then, it's not really any of our business.
It's no more appropriate for you, or law enforcement, to silence the open carriers (no matter how much I may disagree with their tactics) as it is to silence OWS.
For the record, they do not represent the vast majority of the gunnie community, any more than the "occupy" people truly represent the mythical "99%."
Perhaps, Baldr, you need to look up the definition of "vigilantism." What you've described here does not qualify. Indeed, perhaps you need to go read all the facts in the Minnesota incident you cite; the facts were not as you apparantly assume them to be. If the facts are as reported (and there is no evidence to the contrary) his shooting was entirely justified.
Moreover, police are hardly as "highly trained" as you thnk they are. Indeed, you'd be surprised just how little firearms training there typically is - and yes, I know of which I speak. Moreover, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that non-LEO shooters are substantially less likely to hit their targets than police. Indeed, IIRC, the stats seem to indicate that non-LEO self-defense shooters are MORE likely to score hits than the average officer shooting incident. However, comparing the two is the classic "apples to oranges," the circumstances are quite different.
Bottom line: that civilian defensive possession of firearms has a measureable net social benefit is not credibly in dispute.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
In short, this post is the kind of half-truth, alarmist rhetoric that makes anti-gun cultists not credible.
Why, next you'll be touting "statistics" from the VPC. ;-)
To paraphrase an old classic, I've read 18Echo. 18Echo I would consider quite credible in his analysis and views (and quite moderate, BTW; more so than I).
You're no 18Echo. ;-)
When we deal in facts and not emotional responses, gun rights win. And we're winning. And we'll continue to win. Why, then, should we "compromise" now?
japete? Really? This "contradiction" exists only in her mind, not in reality. Go read her blog. 'nuff said. Yeesh.
ReplyDeleteAs to Laci "If they aren't looking for a gunfight, or at least expecting on, why carry a gun at all?" the dog:
You do understand political demonstration, don't you? It's to make a point.
Further, let's try this same logic in other contexts:
If they aren't looking for a traffic accident, why have a seatbelt at all?
If they aren't looking to start a fire, why have an extinguisher at all?
If they're not looking to get injured, why have a first aid kit at all?
If they're not looking to sink the ship, why have a life jacket at all?
If they're not looking to crash the plane, why have a parachute at all?
Need I go on? Yeesh.
@GMC: I never said what the Open Carry people were doing was illegal -- it isn't -- but it IS wrongheaded and dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about how you disagree with my statement that the Open Carry zealots aren't "picking a fight so they can shoot peaceful protesters." Let's see... they're planning to show up where they aren't wanted, at a camp of unarmed and peaceful protesters, with loaded weapons, and saying on their website "Maybe Open Carry can show that we have the ability to protect ourselves and our community in case of riots." (in other words, preparing themselves for a potential riot, that they help create, where they can shoot people, thus giving them a way to exercise their "Wyatt Earp" vigilantism.) I don't see how it could be more clear.
Sorry you have such a low opinion of police. Those I know are highly trained in ways that you probably are not. I haven't found any statistics about how often civilians hit their targets during shootouts. I don't think they exist, but if you have some numbers to share (and aren't just talking out your ass), then please share.
(and GMC, if you link to any pro-gun propaganda pieces like that one again I'll not post the comment)
@ GMC: regarding your refutation of Laci's comment, your counter-examples suggest that the Open Carry people will have their guns for self-defense, not protest. The idea of purposely carrying around a long gun for self-defense is stupid and alarmist. As for using the long guns as a way of expressing protest... haven't these people ever heard of signs? Must they endanger or alarm everyone around them to make their point? Must they try to incite a riot, with lethal weapons, to make themselves heard? Sure signs of radical extremism more typical of third-world countries.
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure though, that with an estimated 6 million CCW holders in the US, you can provide us with a plethora of examples of this vigilante justice, other than ONE where the shooter was JUSTIFIED?
I followed your link, but here's one without all the slant and paints a bit different picture of the situation:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/10/28/woman-whose-brother-was-shot-charged-with-robbery/
And here's more 'proof' of all of those Wyatt Earps......
According to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, there are 88,350 active permits to carry handguns in Minnesota. Fifty-eight of those permits have been revoked, and only one person has been convicted of using a conceal-and-carry gun in a homicide.
CCW's murdering people in MN:
1 / 88,350 = 0.0000113%
I personally would never have chased the dirtbag down, but, again....if the cops didn't find justification to file charges, then what's the problem here?
"As for using the long guns as a way of expressing protest... haven't these people ever heard of signs? Must they endanger or alarm everyone around them to make their point? Must they try to incite a riot, with lethal weapons, to make themselves heard?"
ReplyDeleteI know, right? I mean, look how many people were killed, raped, overdosed, at those armed Tea Party protests as opposed to those killed at the "peaceful" OWS protests.
Wait....wha......what was the question??
Baldr: "Even highly-trained police only hit their target about 15% of the time in a firefight. Do you think the typical citizen with a gun can be even that accurate?"
ReplyDeleteBaldr may be right: the typical citizen with a gun may be worse. Now imagine how much worse it would be if that citizen was limited to a gun holding only 10 rounds or less? This is the main reason most police carry guns holding 15 rounds or more.
"Even highly-trained police only hit their target about 15% of the time in a firefight. Do you think the typical citizen with a gun can be even that accurate?"
ReplyDeleteYes. Whenever my buddy (who has his FFL) gets police trade-in handguns, I always ask him for first dibbs on snatching them up. Other than holster wear, they're usually in pristine condition and look like they've never been shot....well, other than those 100 or so rounds per year run through them for qualifying.
(and GMC, if you link to any pro-gun propaganda pieces like that one again I'll not post the comment)
ReplyDeleteHmmm. It's "propaganda" because you disagree with it? I note you made no attempt to refute the positions expressed. That says a lot.
Linking to anti-rights propaganda such as VPC(which actually IS "propaganda," as we usually use the term) is acceptable however. Fair enough, it's your blog.
Noted.
As to 'horrors' of the protest. First, the weapons were not loaded. Doing so would be illegal under the laws of the Left coast.
Second, while provocative (and that is the point of a protest, isn't it? Isn't that why the OWS fools "occupy" property in the first place?), I see nothing which indicates "incitement" to riot. Nor would an unloaded firearm be particularly useful in such a case. If you can point out such a stated intent (to incite riot in order to shoot rioters), I'm listening. And if you can figure out a way to play "Wyatt Earp" with an unloaded firearm, cue me in; I'd save a bundle in ammo costs at the range.
Third, having trained with police, and shot the qualifying courses on numerous occasions, I can state without equivocation that police are not as "highly trained" as you seem to think. You are incorrect, however, in your assumption that I think little of police. In general, I have great respect for police; they run toward trouble when sane persons run away.
But let's not imagine that there's anything magical about their abilities to use a firearm; their isn't. The vast majority of street officers, in my experience (and I've been working with officers for some 15 years) recognize that, and support legal concealed carry. Politicians in charge of departments do not, but then, they're politicians. They don't deal with the real world.
@ GMC: The guns may be unloaded, but it only takes a moment to do so.
ReplyDeleteAs for "provocation," having a presence and occupying a location is one thing. Brandishing weapons is a whole other level of provocation.
Regarding police, all I can say is that your experience with police is very different from mine, apparently.
56,000 more 'Wyatt Earps' in WI.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/conceal-carry-permit-applications-swamp-state-agency-aq3eo5m-135840133.html
No doubt, Insurrectionist! Extremists!
@ Molon: Stop putting words in my mouth. I don't think all conceal carry gun owners are insurrectionists, extremists, or "Wyatt Earp" wannabe's, but some clearly are.
ReplyDelete@ Molon: Stop putting words in my mouth. I don't think all conceal carry gun owners are insurrectionists, extremists, or "Wyatt Earp" wannabe's, but some clearly are.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm.
I don't think all anti-gun cultists would ban all guns given the opportunity, but some clearly would.
Well, probably most.
BTW - I know what "extremist" means to you, Baldr; it means "disagrees with me." But what exactly is an "insurrectionist?"
And to prove your point, you use one situation of justifiable homicide.
ReplyDeleteAgain, with all these CCW holders in the US, shouldn't these Wyatt Earp scenarios be commonplace instead of an aberration?
You say "vigilante" several times yet fail to point to single example of anybody acting like one. Why is this?
ReplyDelete@GMC: "insurrectionist": in this case, someone who mistakenly believes the Second Amendment was written to allow home gun ownership for the purpose of allowing anyone who disagrees with the government the right to overthrow that government.
ReplyDeleteTo quote my friend, JadeGold:
"First, such a position requires us to believe the Founders decided to place a 'self-destruct' clause into the Constitution. Basically we're being asked to believe the Founders created a framework for Government, democracy and society only to have some clause that says citizens can use mob violence to get the results they desire.
Second, while the 2A is ambiguously worded--Artile III Section 3 isn't. Article III Section 3 is crystal clear--it declares treason as waging war against the US or in providing its enemies aid and comfort."
(quoted from comments at: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/07/insurrectionist-idea.html )
@ benminer: I gave you an example already. A conceal carry holder, seeing an assault and robbery of an old woman for her purse, decided to play the role of vigilante and go after the bad guy. He then shot the robber in an alley, claiming the robber pulled his gun on him. Thus it was ruled justifiable (it's the gun owner's word against the word of the dead guy). But no shooting needed to take place if he hadn't decided to play "Wyatt Earp". Do you deny that the gun owner was playing the role of vigilante?
ReplyDelete@ Molon: No, I wouldn't say that it should be commonplace. Most gun owners, including conceal carriers, are not stupid enough to engage in vigilante justice and play "Wyatt Earp". However, it does happen, and a disturbing number of extremists cite the potential as a reasonable reason for conceal carry.
ReplyDelete"@ benminer: I gave you an example already. A conceal carry holder, seeing an assault and robbery of an old woman for her purse, decided to play the role of vigilante and go after the bad guy. He then shot the robber in an alley, claiming the robber pulled his gun on him."
ReplyDeleteYou're manipulating the facts to fit your agenda. The CCW holder pursued a dirt bag who pistol whipped, assaulted, and robbed an eldery woman. This only turned into a justifiable homicide scenario when the criminal CHOOSE to pull his weapon. I suppose had the criminal not pulled his weapon, he'd still be around to prove that he "was just a good kid who needs a 2nd chance" and the CCW holder would be heralded as a hero.
What's sad is that in order to try to devalue the actions of everyday citizens coming to the assistance of victims who may or may not use their legally carried firearms in self defense, gun-controllers inevitably have to be criminal apologists and attack the justified.
Again, I personally wouldn't have pursued. But in reality, karma's a B.
"Most gun owners, including conceal carriers, are not stupid enough to engage in vigilante justice and play "Wyatt Earp"."
ReplyDeleteVery telling statement. Reminds me of the Gabby Giffords tragedy where anti-gunners demonized that the CCW holder who exercised discretion and didn't pull his firearm and used it as an example as a failure of CCW.
I'm sorry that you equate discretion to simply "not being stupid enough..."
No statistics to back your claims, and worse yet, being disingenuous about the actual situations themselves.
@ Molon: I'm not manipulating facts nor being disingenuous. The facts are that the shooter, seeing the assault and robbery, chose to chase the criminal in an act of vigilantism. What happened afterward, including the robber supposedly pulling his gun on the shooter, is a direct result of the shooter's vigilantism choice. No one had to die, here, and there was nothing stopping the shooter from simply pulling out his phone and dialing 911.
ReplyDeleteWas the shooting justified? According to one professional gun trainer, it likely was not. Consider this quote (from the following article on the incident: http://goo.gl/dkkRa):
"Erik Pakieser, a military veteran who has trained police and civilians in the use of firearms and teaches Minnesota gun-permit classes, said state law and the courts generally look at four elements to determine whether a case is self-defense:
-- Whether the person was a "reluctant participant" and took steps to avoid the conflict.
-- Whether the person had a reasonable fear of immediate death or bodily harm.
-- Whether the person was faced with deadly force.
-- Whether retreat was impractical.
'The two issues I see are reluctant participation and retreat. If he chased the guy, he didn't retreat,' said Pakieser, who has taught courses for the American Association of Certified Firearms Instructors. "
More importantly, I would ask if the shooter had a legitimate reason for his vigilante behavior. The robber assaulted an old woman. Basically, he gave her a scratch on the head when he pistol-whipped her. Then he stole the purse. But is a scratch on an old woman's head and the value of a purse sufficient reason to kill a person (the reason for chasing the robber with a drawn gun)? Not at all. That's the problem with vigilante justice. The average citizen does not necessarily have an appropriate judgement over what is worthy of a life and death decision.
"But is a scratch on an old woman's head and the value of a purse sufficient reason to kill a person."
ReplyDeleteDefinitely not. But the escalated act of drawing a weapon on another individual with intent to kill or cause bodily harm most certainly is.
Listen, do I think this is a shining example of what the intent of CCW is? No. But your response is a microcosm of the overall anti-gun ideology which misses two key points. 1) None of this happens unless the criminal (most typically, a recidivist who in any 'common sense' judicial system, wouldn't be out on the streets anyway) makes the voluntary choice to place themselves in a position where there is the distinct possibility of someone not wishing to become a victim, and 2) scenarios like these are pumped with emotionalism and criminal apologist rhetoric by the anti-gun side in order to hide the reality that statistically, it's a non-issue compared to the times legally carried firearms are used with restraint, respect, and with justification.
Your target audience is the fence sitters. Those who read the "wyatt Earp" headline, not knowing fact one about guns, and immediately think, "yeah, I've heard about those Wild West Shootouts!(tm) on the Colbert Report! Guns are bad!"
All that time and effort attacking guns and gun owners. Meanwhile, the criminal machine keeps churning 'em out.
"Basically, he gave her a scratch on the head when he pistol-whipped her."
ReplyDeleteWhoa there. Do you know what pistol whipping is? She's lucky she only had a 'scratch', getting hit in the head with a piece of metal can kill you, seriously. That was deadly force, don't make it sound like a stubbed toe.
It sounds like he intervened because he feared she would be bludgeoned to death. It's also legal, but maybe not wise, to pursue someone who just committed a felony. And then, supposedly, the attacker aimed his gun which caused the CCW holder to defend himself.
You can say we don't know for sure if that last part happened the way he said it did, but it looks like law enforcement was willing to take the CCW holder's word over a man who just violently bludgeoned a woman.
in this case, someone who mistakenly believes the Second Amendment was written to allow home gun ownership for the purpose of allowing anyone who disagrees with the government the right to overthrow that government.
ReplyDeleteNothing mistaken about it, though as usual, you purposely mischaracterize same. Sorry; I think Jefferson trumps your sorry excuse for demonization:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Ah. Someone who believes the Declaration of Independence means what it says is, in your words, an "insurrectionist." One who believes that, even here, it may at some time be the case that limited government may become unlimited, and no longer derive its just powers from the consent of the governed.
And should that be the case, it is indeed the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and replace it with one of their own choosing.
Likely, in the near future? No. Possible? Of course; history tells us so repeatedly. Should citizens retain weapons to deter same or, if necessary, to overthrow same? Last resort? Of course. Overthrowing a government is always a task to be undertaken only as a last resort; the outcome is by no means certain.
It may also become necessary. If that makes me what you label an "insurrectionist," so be it. Moreover, I'm right, not only as a matter of natural law, but historical record. The Founders' writings agree with me.
Does the Constitution and the government is creates as in institution accept same? Of course not; no government willingly accepts its own ending. That's the nature of governments. The Founders were labeled as traitors, and knew it, and accepted it.
As contrasted with yourself, who believes the State can do no wrong, and that individuals - and populations - have no moral authority to refuse to go marching off to be slaughtered.
That's called "serfdom."
Great. Most of the 20th century's nastiest tyrants and murderers agree fully with you.
Just put that in your banner, and run under it. You own it.
@GMC: Last I checked, our rule of law, including the 2A, was governed by the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. And since our government still rules by consent of its people, via representatives, we still live up to the Declaration's premise. In any case, my definition of "insurrectionist" still stands correct and is not mis-characterized, however much you wish it to be different to justify your paranoia.
ReplyDelete@ Bob S.: Sorry, but I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you and your ridiculous hypothetical situations, nor posting them.
ReplyDelete@ Bob S.: Like I said, I'm not posting your comments. You continue to try to put words in my mouth, and ridiculous assumptions about my goals, and I'm just not going there.
ReplyDeleteAnd since our government still rules by consent of its people, via representatives, we still live up to the Declaration's premise.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, at least consent of a sort. For now. And I hope and pray it always stays so.
I, however, am not naive enough to simply accept it will always be so. And I will not surrender the means to make changes, should that become necessary.
That's why we have a 2nd Am., after all.
I utterly reject your characterization that the 2nd does not have, in significant part, such an intent. Indeed, given that the right is a personal one, not a collective one, the Amendment makes little sense without such an intent. We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one. And I'll note that the Founders writings and historical evidence agree with me.
And, BTW, a little paranoia is a very healthy thing. ;-)
Personally, I don’t think he should have chased the assailant after he ran away because of the associated risks. However, you are dismissing the fact that he stopped the assault in progress. That makes him a hero. A cell phone call does not stop the woman from being bludgeoned. There was a call to 911 while she was being attacked, but that is not what stopped it. How far was the assailant going to take it? We don’t know, but he was using a deadly weapon. The facts of the case are that the CCW holder stopped the attack in progress, and then gave pursuit, but we don’t know if the presence of the gun was a factor in the assailant fleeing. If the hero was only interested in vigilante killing, why did he chase him instead of blowing him away right away? It sounds to me like the assailant didn’t expect to be chased, so he went to his gun to kill the hero who then acted to defend his life. Would the CCW holder have interjected in the first place if he didn’t have the means to defend himself? We don’t know that either, but I’d say it was less likely. The guy armed with a phone made a phone call. The guy armed with a gun stopped the attack. That said, the point of CCW is for self-protection, not public protection. As a society we never expect people to act heroic, but we praise them when they do. In other words, I wouldn’t use this anecdote as a reason for CCW, because it does not come with the responsibility of coming to a stranger’s aide. But kudos when they do- and that is worlds better than the opposite approach- the anti-snitching code. Finally, since you value the opinion of gun violence victims more than us, maybe we can find out what that little old lady thinks about Mr. Wyatt Vigilante Earp?
ReplyDeleteBaldr: “The guns may be unloaded, but it only takes a moment to do so.”
Will you stick to that argument when you talk about why it is so important to make mass shooters reload more often?
The unloaded open carry law is incredibly stupid. You are right that having it unloaded makes no difference as the aggressor. It only takes two seconds to get it loaded and charged- hardly a factor to someone bent on murder. But those two seconds are ultra critical after realizing that you are being attacked. That is why the unloaded open carry law, as well as magazine capacity limits only hurt those looking to defend themselves. They are practically inconsequential to the aggressor.
@ TS: You are assuming the shooter stopped the robbery, which would be heroic, but that's not what the articles I read said happened. They say only that he witnessed the robbery, then gave chase.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point: the robber was shot multiple times, but none of the reports say where the wounds were. The location of the wounds might say a lot about what actually happened, since the robber died before he could give his version of the account.
Re: the "unloaded" statement: I don't see your point about bringing up the magazine capacity limit thing. I don't know of any instances where a person needed more than 10 bullets in a clip to defend themselves, unless it was police in a standoff situation.
Another interesting point: the robber was shot multiple times, but none of the reports say where the wounds were. The location of the wounds might say a lot about what actually happened, since the robber died before he could give his version of the account.
ReplyDeleteThis is going to sound crass, but given that the robber had just pistol-whipped a lady, why do we care how many or where the rounds hit? Isn't it enough to say "good riddance?" Moreover, given that he was an armed robber, his version of the story (had he been able to tell it) inherently lacks credibility.
When I first got my CC license, I off-handedly told the local sheriff (who I knew well) and speaking entirely seriously that if I ever had to use my weapon, there would only be one witness to what happened. His response: "I know. As it should be."
I've never had occasion to use my weapon. I very much hope I never have to. But I will continue to carry same, just as I continue to keep a fire extinguisher in the house. The potential benefits far outweigh the costs, both for myself and society in general. I will not cry for the criminal who has already chosen to employ deadly force against an innocent; he, and he alone, is responsible for the outcome.
@ GMC: I'm going a bit off topic here, but I'd like to take a moment to share a thought. There is often a lot of commentary from you gun guys where you deride criminals as worthless, as deserving of death for crimes as simple as theft, as being worthy of being locked away forever, even for robbery. Of being lost causes once they go down that road.
ReplyDeleteI'm not crying for them either. They should know the risks of their deviant behavior, including this criminal. They should know that if they beat and rob someone, their victim or a bystander may step in and take violent action to stop them.
But I don't feel they are always lost causes. You guys are very much in favor of the retributive philosophy of criminal justice. Though I am in favor of strong sentencing and against lenient paroling, I am more in favor of rehabilitation, if possible. Some criminals clearly are lost causes or seriously mentally ill. But I have known cases, including people I have known personally, who had, in their youth, been criminal types. One had sold drugs and thieved. Another had sold illegal guns for a gang. Another had been a gangster in the 50's. In each of these cases, they had seen the error of their ways, changed, and become good family men, hard workers, and upright law-abiding citizens who worked to keep others from going down the road they did. Most are not like these guys, I admit, but let us not write off all criminals as lost causes or advocate they be chased down and shot for something as simple as hitting an old lady with a pistol and running off with her purse.
. . . as simple as hitting an old lady with a pistol and running off with her purse.
ReplyDelete"Simple?" Why do you minimize this act? There's little that's more henious, in my opinion. The robber here made his choice: he chose to use a weapon, as a weapon, against an elderly lady (yes, pistol-whipping is using it as a deadly weapon, and has been so recognized in my jurisdiction); when confronted by a Good Samaritan, he chose to raise his weapon again, at which time the Good Samaritan responded with force, which was his legal and moral right to do.
I'm not sure I'd have followed the guy to try to get her purse back, but I'll certainly not criticize the gentleman for doing so.
Perhaps I appear hard-hearted; I'm not. I'm a defense attorney, and I'm certainly not ready to write off all criminals as lost causes. There is much wrong with our system, and longer and longer sentences which simply warehouse people is not always the answer. Smart criminal justice does not always mean hard criminal justice, though a justice system that does not have a significant element of retributive justice in it isn't doing justice at all. "Justice" and rehabilitation are two different things, and not at all mutually exclusive.
And that's not even touching on the increasing, and troubling, militarization of police, and increasing tendancy of police to escalate violence by using SWAT-type tactics when same are entirely unnecessary.
But you mischaracterize this incident when you say he was "chased down and shot for something as simple as hitting an old lady with a pistol and running off with her purse." That's not why he was shot at all. He was shot because he threatened deadly force against an individual who was acting as the law permitted. Moreover, he had already used deadly force against an elderly woman, picking out a weaker individual to attack with a deadly weapon for the meager contents of a purse. He had already decided that the contents of that purse were worth a life.
It just turned out to be his life.
This is not a demonstration of what's wrong with CC; it's a incident of a CC holder going above and beyond the call, and acting entirely within the law, both legally and morally. It's most certainly NOT a case of "vigilante justice."
I as a CC holder have no duty to protect anyone but myself (interestingly, police have no duty to protect any particular individual either). I'd like to think, however, that should the situation ever arise, I'd be willing to assist others who are threatened, even though I may have no duty to do so, and even though doing so may put myself at greater risk. I hope, again, I never have to find out.
I'm quite confused as to why anti-rights cultists latched onto this incident as an example of what's "wrong." This incident is an example of what's right. If this is "playing Wyatt Earp," then let's see more of it.
@GMC: What some, like you, would characterize as going "above and beyond the call" would be what some, like me, would characterize as "going too far."
ReplyDeleteI would also add, that, when the shooter chose to pull his gun and chase the robber (before the robber ever threatened his life), he was prepared to shoot and kill, when he didn't have a duty to do so. This IS vigilantism, and (at that point) was not a self-defense act.
"Even highly-trained police only hit their target about 15% of the time in a firefight. "
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence do you have that the police are "highly-trained"?
Also...the average citizen self defense shooting uses <3 rounds. Assuming that at least 1 of those 3 hits the target (and based on the news reports at least one usually does) then the average hit rate for citizens would be twice that of the police (and with far less shots, and missed shots!!!)
"I don't know of any instances where a person needed more than 10 bullets in a clip to defend themselves, "
ReplyDeleteI don't have a link but there was a carjacking in the last year where the "victim"/defender fired 12 rounds against 3 or 4 attackers. He would have shot more but that was all the magazine held.
In addition there are the well documented instances of fully automatic weapons being used in self defense and a number of home invasions.
"This IS vigilantism, and (at that point) was not a self-defense act. "
ReplyDeleteLegally you are wrong. The citizen was exercising the general police power, a power held by all law abiding citizens.
It's easy to tell the difference between the general police power and vigilantism. The former would not be a crime if exercised by a police officer, the latter would be.
@ Patrick: Your "statistics" regarding police have the smell of completely made up. Do you actually have numbers, or just jabbering?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I don't know of any of those "well-documented instances" you speak of. Again, it has the whiff of completely made up. Cite, please.
No, legally I am not wrong. With no duty to chase the criminal, and with every opportunity to back out of the conflict, this shooter was engaging in vigilantism. This is different from police, obviously, who have an official duty to catch criminals.
I'm not posting your inflammatory comments about rape.