Gun Owner Saves Cop's Life by Shooting Deranged Gunman! (VIDEO)

nonameisgood said:

Well, in the follow-up good guy's defense, the neighbor did just shoot someone, and the arresting officer was not present at the time of the shooting. Seems like a sane course of action until it is sorted out. (Such as "did this guy have a shoot out with the other guy before we arrived, or did he shoot one or more of the dead folks?")

Click to expand...

That's one viewpoint...other one is the guy did a dickmove ... I vote, dickmove. If I was the person that helped out, it would be the last time I helped out.

Superlite27 said:

One minor thing I noticed:



How was Officer Means "out-gunned" when returning fire with an AR-15? He might have had a disadvantage in firing positions, but the description clearly states, "out-gunned".

Was Conner using an RPG, or something? A howitzer, maybe? A .50 BMG?

How else could one be "out-gunned" while returning fire with an AR-15?

Click to expand...

I read the guy had a lever action 30-30 that was able to totally penetrate the officer's cover (his car) but the officer's AR15 would not penetrate the BG's cover (a tree).

The neighbor had a flanking position and the BG could not hide from both the neighbor and the officer at the same time.

So, when the neighbor hit the BG in the thigh, the BG moved to fire at the one that shot him, this put him out in the open to the officer who was able to put a few AR rounds in to him.

davidmcbeth said:

If I was the person that helped out, it would be the last time I helped out.

Click to expand...

Yup, No good deed and all that...

twoskinsonemanns said:

Generally I would agree. But you can see in this case one of the "good guys" promptly arrested the other good guy once the danger was over. Dickmove.

Click to expand...

The "dickmove" comment may or may not be true, however, I'm not sure what details the backup officers had upon arriving at the scene. Did they know how many shooters there were? Did they know whether or not Stacy had joined the active shooter in firing against the first officer? They arrived and probably saw a man with a gun, right after one was shooting at an officer. In the interest of personal/public safety (and probably department protocol), I can't say I'd have done anything differently. He doesn't seem to think it's a big deal, and was released fairly quickly too.

MainelyGlock said:

The "dickmove" comment may or may not be true, however, I'm not sure what details the backup officers had upon arriving at the scene. Did they know how many shooters there were? Did they know whether or not Stacy had joined the active shooter in firing against the first officer? They arrived and probably saw a man with a gun, right after one was shooting at an officer. In the interest of personal/public safety (and probably department protocol), I can't say I'd have done anything differently. He doesn't seem to think it's a big deal, and was released fairly quickly too.

Click to expand...

I think you've got the wrong view, here. The question isn't, "Was there a reason not to detain this guy?" The question is, "What clear, identifiable circumstances existed that so overwhelmed the presumption of innocence that the officer reasonably felt obligated to detain Stacy?" See where you've got this backwards? There's no need to demonstrate why this guy shouldn't have been detained. The burden of proof is on anyone, particularly the dickmaestro involved, to demonstrate why this guy should have been detained. Because so many people have their perspectives ass-backwards, we see this kind of thing, shrug, and don't even consider it. This perpetuates and strengthens the extravagance of police response in all circumstances, and emboldens the bad cops, who are then covered by all the other cops who would otherwise be "good", many of whom then decide to get in on the action.

N.B.: I'm aware that the presumption of innocence is a judicial standard, not explicitly an enforcement standard. The very reason we have the explicit judicial standard is because we are supposed to hold that standard, and more, in every aspect of our society. The framers simply felt it so threatened in the judicial arena that they took the extra step of explicit stating it in that context. This is like the Bill of Rights not being the only rights we have, merely the ones that were most urgently in need of explicit enumeration.

()pen(arry said:

"What clear, identifiable circumstances existed that so overwhelmed the presumption of innocence that the officer reasonably felt obligated to detain Stacy?"

Click to expand...

The fact that he had a gun at the scene of a shooting where an officer was being shot at justifies, and explains it. It'd be hard to walk into a situation like that, see a man with a gun, and shrug him off as "innocent", while not knowing whether or not he was the one shooting. Would you take that risk? If you walked blindly into a situation like that, would you rather question him while he's holding his gun? Had the officers arrived upon the scene with full knowledge of who was shooting at the cop, and who assisted, I doubt he would have been detained. They were doing their jobs, and he was released after 15 minutes I believe. Do I agree that he should have been facedown, handcuffed in the first place? Absolutely not. But would I place blame on the officers for subduing a man who they didn't know whether or not he was the threat? Nope.

I see where you're coming from, but I certainly don't have the wrong view. There isn't one. And I don't think that me wanting to ensure the personal safety of myself and those around me should be considered "having it backwards."

You'd think, or not, that Officer Means would have interdicted his colleagues in their attempts to control a suspected perp. Unless of course Officer Means was not aware of the fact that is colleagues were in the act of controlling a suspected perp. Nope, ()pen(arry seems to have called this one correctly.

()pen(arry said:

The question is, "What clear, identifiable circumstances existed that so overwhelmed the presumption of innocence that the officer reasonably felt obligated to detain Stacy?"

Click to expand...

Color me crazy, but I would guess a few dead bodies, spent bullet casings all over the place, and a man holding a gun might qualify as "clear, identifiable circumstances". Oh, then there's the annoying part where Stacy did actually shoot someone.

MainelyGlock said:

But would I place blame on the officers for subduing a man who they didn't know whether or not he was the threat? Nope.

Click to expand...

Yup, this is the kind of attitude that allows cops to do anything they want with impunity.
I suppose you would have been fine being one of the 40 or so innocent people held at gun point, hand cuffed, vehicles searched because there might have been a bank robber in a car at your intersection....
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...lt-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

OC for ME said:

You'd think, or not, that Officer Means would have interdicted his colleagues in their attempts to control a suspected perp. Unless of course Officer Means was not aware of the fact that is colleagues were in the act of controlling a suspected perp. Nope, ()pen(arry seems to have called this one correctly.

Click to expand...

You'd think so, yes, but there could have been other circumstances playing into the matter. He was just involved in a shooting, so maybe he was a little preoccupied trying to get his head straight and his hands steady. His mind and focus could have been elsewhere. Is that not understandable?

twoskinsonemanns said:

Yup, this is the kind of attitude that allows cops to do anything they want with impunity.
I suppose you would have been fine being one of the 40 or so innocent people held at gun point, hand cuffed, vehicles searched because there might have been a bank robber in a car at your intersection....
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...lt-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

Click to expand...

No, I was not OK with that when I read it. That is a completely different situation though. None of them were holding a gun and had just shot a man when officers arrived.

MainelyGlock said:

No, I was not OK with that when I read it. That is a completely different situation though. None of them were holding a gun and had just shot a man when officers arrived.

Click to expand...

First of all you're making the assumption the arriving cops knew he had just shot someone. If you make that assumption you can't make it without also assuming they knew circumstances of the shooting...knowing he was acting lawfully.
The example I gave was a different situation but the same principle.
A similar situation would be cops responding to "shots fired" in the general area that you happen to be OCing. Would you feel it reasonable for them to arrest you first and ask questions later?

No, not if my properly holstered firearm was clearly visible. Do not fall into the trap that the cops need to "figure things out." That was the excuse at a intersection in Aurora not too long ago.

twoskinsonemanns said:

A similar situation would be cops responding to "shots fired" in the general area that you happen to be OCing. Would you feel it reasonable for them to arrest you first and ask questions later?

Click to expand...

No, that would be a straw man argument. A "similar situation" would be cops responding to "shots fired" in your immediate vicinity and that you happen to be holding your handgun in your hand.

NoTolerance said:

No, that would be a straw man argument. A "similar situation" would be cops responding to "shots fired" in your immediate vicinity and that you happen to be holding your handgun in your hand.

Click to expand...

It's not a straw man argument, the only difference between your "similar situation" and mine is the firearm being held in your hand instead of holstered properly. Do you hand some evidence I don't know of that this guy in the story met the cops who arrested him with gun-in-hand? If so please provide it.

Stacy said he put down his weapon after the shooting, so police officers wouldn’t mistake him for the killer.

http://www.brownwoodtx.com/news/local/article_851fd04a-db90-11e1-8237-0019bb2963f4.html

Click to expand...

According to Vic Stacy.

twoskinsonemanns said:

It's not a straw man argument, the only difference between your "similar situation" and mine is the firearm being held in your hand instead of holstered properly. Do you hand some evidence I don't know of that this guy in the story met the cops who arrested him with gun-in-hand? If so please provide it.

Click to expand...

You've broadened the scope of circumstances to fit with your proposed point. That is the very definition of straw man.

Shots fired in the general area is not the same thing as being at an actual crime scene, is it? Peacefully open carrying somewhere near a crime is not the same thing as being an active shooter at a crime scene, is it?

You seem to operating on the premise that Stacy's rights were somehow violated. You seem to be ignoring the fact that he killed someone - or at the very least, contributed to someone's death (we don't know who delivered the fatal shot within the scope of the article). Even in the most clear-cut self-defense cases, the would-be victim should expect to be arrested while police do an initial investigation, and normally the DA will determine if charges are going to be filed.

We can argue hypotheticals all day. The facts are that after receiving reports of a shooting, and then an officer involved in a shooting, on an unsecured scene, responding officers from various agencies felt it was prudent to detain Mr Stacy in a way which protected both him and them as they secured the scene.

Nothing else to see here until we have more facts. Maybe it was overreaction, or even an abuse of power, or maybe it was prudent, reversible action which resulted in no harm to any more people.

Maybe they even asked Mr Stacy if it would be alright to cuff him while they sorted it out. You and I do not know yet.

how did stacy know the cop was not the criminal at the time of the shooting? You have 2 people shooting at each other; you have no idea why...why assume the cop is the "good guy" ..many cops have been convicted killers too.

davidmcbeth said:

Well if you get shot taking unnecessary risks, you can expect to get chewed out by your superior. I know many police chiefs and fire chiefs too ... on 9/11 I was with a fire chief and when they sent in the firemen into the bldg. the chief (a chgo fire chief) said "he shouldn't do that, its not safe for his men" .. lo and behold, he was right (he considered the firemen as idiots and not heroes).

The other guy, Stacy, was not at risk ~ why Stacy started shooting is a mystery, it violates one of my rules: if I am not in danger, do not put myself in danger.

If Stacy did nothing, I'm sure 50,000 cops would have shown up and handled the situation. If children were running about and the shooter was shooting them, it would not change the proper action for the policeman to remain safe. Let the justice system work it out later.

Click to expand...

Wow. Many of your posts now make perfect sense now that you have shown your true colors. You wouldn't step in to save the lives of children? You wouldn't have helped out an officer knowing you have a clean shot and could save his life and that of others? Unbelievable.