good guy with gun stops bad guys, everyone leaves alive

He pointed a gun, that is deadly force, and one of the rules of safe handling of firearms is not to point a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot or destroy. He showed his cards by pulling the gun, he had two options, shoot or back down. There was no indications in the photos and videos he would have backed down as the danger was gone, HE CONTINUED TO BRANDISH HIS FIREARM!

This is the very behavior of police we complain about, and NOW are we going to pat a civilian on the back for it???

It is questionable that he was justified in pulling his gun in the first place, after the danger had passed there was absolutely no excuse to endanger not only the perps, but the surrounding members of the public with his firearm.

Just absolutely shameful that just because this incident did not backfire only a few gun owners see the foolishness of this person. Let's also keep in mind he pointed his gun in the direction of those taking photos. I don't care what the reason any idiot points a gun at me he better be prepared to pull the trigger. I have no sympathy for idiots.

Oh, I see plenty of foolishness in it.

But I'm not willing to call this guy the/an aggressor, in this particular case.

Absent aggression, my determination of "foolishness" is of little more consequence than my probable distaste for his preference in music.

marshaul said:

Oh, I see plenty of foolishness in it.

But I'm not willing to call this guy the/an aggressor, in this particular case.

Absent aggression, my determination of "foolishness" is of little more consequence than my probable distaste for his preference in music.

Click to expand...

It does not matter whether he was the aggressor or not, deadly force was not justified. AND to top it off if another LAC had arrived after the fact and saw two people being threatened with deadly force that LAC WOULD BE justified to use deadly force. This is how insane it is to play cop and pull guns on people when your life is not in danger.

The guy stood there trying to act like a cop, that is very clear. While he looks like a hero he is a danger to the people. He could have shot a innocent person in this display of machismo.

GZ was covered under Florida law, but because he was lacking in mental ability(idiot) he got drug through the wringer even though he broke no law. AND he was clearly covered under Florida statutes. If morons want to think they ride the edge of statutes and get away with it I have no pity on them when they play pick up the soap in the grey bar hotel.

Red herring: deadly force was not used.

A man prepared to defend himself against the reasonably probability of assault by a demonstrably violent assailant. Perhaps he exercised poor muzzle control doing so. Otherwise, he performed a correct arrest for a genuine crime committed in his presence.

The mere act of holding a firearm while effecting an arrest does not require a person to shoot someone if that someone, say, runs away. We have no basis on which to assume this man would have committed murder in that event.

I submit that,

1. A person has a right to intervene in a crime being committed, using force concomitant with the threat presented.

2. Such person has a right to defend himself should the original assailant respond to this intervention with force.

3. The mere holding of a firearm does not constitute force.

4. The force entailed in effecting an arrest without injury or battery is, on its face, reasonable and appropriate for crimes involving the inherently greater degree of force of actual battery.

Based on 1-4, I conclude that this man did not use unreasonable force. At worst, he committed the offense of poor muzzle control (which, if I recall from some of the long gun OC discussions, you are fine with anyway).

marshaul said:

Red herring: deadly force was not used.

A man prepared to defend himself against the reasonably probability of assault by a demonstrably violent assailant. Perhaps he exercised poor muzzle control doing so. Otherwise, he performed a correct arrest for a genuine crime committed in his presence.

The mere act of holding a firearm does not require to shoot someone if that person, say, runs away. We have no basis on which to assume this man would have committed murder in that event.

I submit that,

1. A person has a right to intervene in a crime being committed, using force concomitant with the threat presented.

2. Such person has a right to defend himself should the original assailant respond to this intervention with force.

3. The mere holding of a firearm does not constitute force.

4. The force entailed in affecting an arrest without injury or battery is, on its face, reasonable and appropriate (assuming the arrest itself was appropriate).

Based on 1-4, I conclude that this man did not use unreasonable force. At worst, he committed the offense of poor muzzle control (which, if I recall from some of the long gun OC discussions, you are fine with anyway).

Click to expand...

WRONG! Deadly force WAS used, and if you doubt it, see what happens when somebody points a gun at a cop, or at I. Not to mention the fact where were his children when all this took place? Were they unattended? Were they in the line of fire? What would have happened to them in a fire fight. Cops in Texas have been known to shoot one armed, one legged, wheel chaired people for pointing a pen. And getting away with it, because they felt a pen was deadly force. Give me a break, this was stupid, incredibly stupid.

This guy is a complete moron! A red herring is fish and has nothing to do with people who do not have enough common sense to get out of the rain. It is absolutely silly to start throwing red herrings red herrings every time you do not like the obvious. You are just as bad as the guy who puts his fingers in his ears and says "I can't hear you".

There is no red herring except YOURS! The man pulled a gun for a crime that endangered NOBODY, he continued to endanger the public, AND HIS OWN CHILDREN, by continuing with acting like a cop. The real stupidity is the lack of intelligence of people to see how dumb and reckless is act was. That is no red herring, that IS the facts. If you feel you are justified to shoot someone over a purse snatching then I question your ability to act responsibly with a firearm. If you pull your firearm in the presence of your children while your children and you are in no danger I question your ability to act responsibly with a firearm.

WalkingWolf said:

Armed response for a purse snatching, haven't people learned anything with George Zimmerman. Lucky for this man he was not shot by police, while playing hero. While many may want to pat him on the back, someday he may take an innocent life. Too many factors to know if a perceived crime is a actual crime.

Unlike the wannabe heroes, I prefer to defend only my family and myself, sounds harsh, but too bad. I would never intentionally be as stupid as George Zimmerman. Wanna be a hero, put on a badge!

All too often we see over and over again the CC mentality of ambush the bad guys, play hero, stop crime. I have no idea if this guy is one of them, but I do see the chance for a disaster over a PURSE SNATCHING. And the response here is surprising considering the statements of the I can draw faster than you can draw concealed member. He admitted the desire to shoot the bad guy here for us all to see, and it has been stated by big time CC celebrities and trainers. Go ahead, stick your neck out, I will not!

I fully agree with Skid, +1

Here's a thought~~How many purse snatching incidents has there been at OC events in Texas?

Click to expand...

I'd expect someone like Shannon Watts to try and compare this incident with the Zimmerman incident. They have NOTHING relevant in common, there is no relation. Different state, different laws, different circumstances, different actions by all parties involved, different outcome....

"Playing hero?" "Wanna be a hero, put on a badge?" Ayfkm? State sanctioned monopoly of power is not a prerequisite for becoming a hero!

Where did he say that he desired to shoot anyone?

PSH

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

stealthyeliminator said:

I'd expect someone like Shannon Whatts to try and compare this incident with the Zimmerman incident. They have NOTHING relevant in common, there is no relation. Different state, different laws, different circumstances, different actions by all parties involved, different outcome.... Ayfkm?

Click to expand...

I expect morons to not see how stupid this guys actions were. I have nothing to do with SW, and this very much has to do with GZ. Every time a gun owner does something that is stupid, AFTER what happened to GZ they deserve what they get. Florida has very protective laws of the public in the use of deadly force, yet GZ was still dragged through the wringer. Only a idiot would try to link me to Shannon Whatts, especially knowing my posting history.

Primus said:

PSH

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I don't think you're using that right.

WalkingWolf said:

I expect morons to not see how stupid this guys actions were. I have nothing to do with SW, and this very much has to do with GZ. Every time a gun owner does something that is stupid, AFTER what happened to GZ they deserve what they get. Florida has very protective laws of the public in the use of deadly force, yet GZ was still dragged through the wringer. Only a idiot would try to link me to Shannon Whatts, especially knowing my posting history.

Click to expand...

"Playing hero?" "Wanna be a hero, put on a badge?" Ayfkm? State sanctioned monopoly of power is not a prerequisite for becoming a hero!

Where did he say that he desired to shoot anyone?

Your idea that somehow state sanctioned use of force is more desirable than citizens reacting to crimes they witness is ludicrous. If someone wanted to play cop, they'd be writing tickets for revenue or performing no-knock drug raids for <1 gram busts just to feel the rush of getting their tacticool on.

Primus said:

PSH

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far, but we do get carried away by the passion of our arguments sometimes.

I will say this though: the original story link is anemic, and not enough information given as to circumstances in the moment when the gun was drawn. Chasing a vehicle for a purse is a great way to put yourself in harms way. MAYBE in the moment it was a life-or-death situation, just like it is possible that the danger had passed when the man drew. A 5-second video here would be unsurpassed in value to this discussion.

I'd say the biggest blame for the events (besides the would-be thieves, obviously) falls on the lady, who put her irreplaceable life on the line over replaceable objects. I'd hate to lose my phone and money, as well as going to the DMV to get a new license as much as (or possibly more than) the next person, but I can replace my wallet and everything in it. I can't replace the full use of my limbs or my life quite as easily.

Add. 7:25 pm (AZ time):
The PC reveals what the iPad2 would not (video).

WalkingWolf said:

I am amazed, after the danger has passed the "good Samaritan" holds the gun on two people for possibly a misdemeaner crime. What would he have done if they got up, and walked or run away? Shoot them?

What a moron, clearly playing cop! I am sorry but the good this man did is ruined by his stupidity and desire to play policeman. Once the crime had stopped and the victim was out of danger, then the gun should have been holstered. This is NOT a incident to paint as the purpose of carry or proper gun handling. Remember the rules, do not point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy. I am amazed that people are backing this behavior.

Click to expand...

I'm amazed that you can spend any amount of time on this forum and still impose wholeheartedly that the state is somehow more qualified or justified in preventing or stopping crimes.

WalkingWolf said:

I expect morons to not see how stupid this guys actions were. I have nothing to do with SW, and this very much has to do with GZ. Every time a gun owner does something that is stupid, AFTER what happened to GZ they deserve what they get. Florida has very protective laws of the public in the use of deadly force, yet GZ was still dragged through the wringer. Only a idiot would try to link me to Shannon Whatts, especially knowing my posting history.

Click to expand...

Only an irate ******* would assert that two completely different events are comparable just because he personally believes both actors to be idiots.

stealthyeliminator said:

Only an irate ******* would assert that two completely different events are comparable just because he personally believes both actors to be idiots.

Click to expand...

Both actors were idiots, not my fault that your vision is fuzzy...

stealthyeliminator said:

I'm amazed that you can spend any amount of time on this forum and still impose wholeheartedly that the state is somehow more qualified or justified in preventing or stopping crimes.

Click to expand...

I didn't state the above, the above is a blatant lie! Not surprised coming from you...

Rusty Young Man said:

I wouldn't go that far, but we do get carried away by the passion of our arguments sometimes.

I will say this though: the original story link is anemic, and not enough information given as to circumstances in the moment when the gun was drawn. Chasing a vehicle for a purse is a great way to put yourself in harms way. MAYBE in the moment it was a life-or-death situation, just like it is possible that the danger had passed when the man drew. A 5-second video here would be unsurpassed in value to this discussion.

I'd say the biggest blame for the events (besides the would-be thieves, obviously) falls on the lady, who put her irreplaceable life on the line over replaceable objects. I'd hate to lose my phone and money, as well as going to the DMV to get a new license as much as (or possibly more than) the next person, but I can replace my wallet and everything in it. I can't replace the full use of my limbs or my life quite as easily.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you got why I posted that.

Also, well said. I agree with the above post.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Rusty Young Man said:

I wouldn't go that far, but we do get carried away by the passion of our arguments sometimes.

I will say this though: the original story link is anemic, and not enough information given as to circumstances in the moment when the gun was drawn. Chasing a vehicle for a purse is a great way to put yourself in harms way. MAYBE in the moment it was a life-or-death situation, just like it is possible that the danger had passed when the man drew. A 5-second video here would be unsurpassed in value to this discussion.

I'd say the biggest blame for the events (besides the would-be thieves, obviously) falls on the lady, who put her irreplaceable life on the line over replaceable objects. I'd hate to lose my phone and money, as well as going to the DMV to get a new license as much as (or possibly more than) the next person, but I can replace my wallet and everything in it. I can't replace the full use of my limbs or my life quite as easily.

Click to expand...

I missed your post, but spot on, this whole incident and reaction was over the line for a purse. There are video clips though if you follow the link in the OP. That is where I actually saw that the man continued to brandish his firearm after the danger had passed. And it also included the information that he had his children with him. Above all we should be showing the people who may be on the line on firearms that most of us are indeed responsible people with common sense. Which most of us are, except a few, the media likes sensationalism and selling heroes, they hardly ever use common sense.

Even if this was a case for deadly force the idea of putting ones children in harms way is insane to say the least.

WalkingWolf said:

I missed your post, but spot on, this whole incident and reaction was over the line for a purse. There are video clips though if you follow the link in the OP. That is where I actually saw that the man continued to brandish his firearm after the danger had passed. And it also included the information that he had his children with him. Above all we should be showing the people who may be on the line on firearms that most of us are indeed responsible people with common sense. Which most of us are, except a few, the media likes sensationalism and selling heroes, they hardly ever use common sense.

Even if this was a case for deadly force the idea of putting ones children in harms way is insane to say the least.

Click to expand...

Your disregard for, or incapability of determining, the facts is nauseating. There is no evidence that his kids were present! All that was stated is that he purchased candy for his kids! They could have been in Michigan for all we know!

WalkingWolf said:

I didn't state the above, the above is a blatant lie! Not surprised coming from you...

Click to expand...

Pfft, your posts are there. Unless you run edit them anyone is able to see that my post is in no way a lie.

stealthyeliminator said:

Your disregard for, or incapability of determining, the facts is nauseating. There is no evidence that his kids were present! All that was stated is that he purchased candy for his kids! They could have been in Michigan for all we know!

Click to expand...

Actually there is in the news report, so he either abandoned his kids to play hero or he brought his kids to a crime.

AND to add more to it, the woman's two children were present. The report said he was buying candy for his kids, I did make the leap that his kids were there, seems to make sense. But even not he endangered the woman's children.

OVER A EFFIN PURSE!