Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Doctor with CHL stops robber in Tacoma

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Just saw this on the evening news... Only Fox specifically states that the doctor has a concealed permit... hmm...

    http://q13.trb.com/news/kcpq-072208f...0,661074.story

    http://www.king5.com/topstories/stor....810a4e71.html

    http://www.kirotv.com/news/16956119/detail.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Glorious!!!:celebrate

    "...all power is inherent in the people...it is their right and duty to be armed at all times..." - Thomas Jefferson

    Personally I would have made the ******* lay down on the ground and wait for the cops, but then again I don't believe in catch and release. Was the suspect armed?



  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    599

    Post imported post

    This is what we need, more stories like this to show our society that good people carry guns too, and that there is no need to freak out when someone walks in with one on their hip.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Once again we see a common thread with CC holders - restraint. The CC holder didn't pull his gun and start shooting, he pulled it and continued to use the least force necessary to end the threat and control the situation. Another instance of a citizen with a firearm stopping a violent crime without firing a shot.

    For every Joe Horn situation, there are literally over a million situations such as this per year where the firearm is not even fired. Joe Horn's situation was national news. This will not be. If the media reported these more common scenes of citizen with firearm and no shots fired in the national news daily the dumb masses would understand that situations such as Joe Horn are a tiny minority of firearm usage to stop criminals.

    *I don't bring up Joe Horn to rehash opinions on the situation but rather because it is a recent situation with much play in the national news about which I have had numerous people on both sides of the issue comment to me about as a scenario that in their opinion, makes civilian gun owners look like loose cannons or vigilantes.*
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Alwayspacking wrote:
    This is what we need, more stories like this to show our society that good people carry guns too, and that there is no need to freak out when someone walks in with one on their hip.
    The press normally suppresses these types of stories due to their political bias.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Once again we see a common thread with CC holders - restraint. The CC holder didn't pull his gun and start shooting, he pulled it and continued to use the least force necessary to end the threat and control the situation. Another instance of a citizen with a firearm stopping a violent crime without firing a shot.

    For every Joe Horn situation, there are literally over a million situations such as this per year where the firearm is not even fired. Joe Horn's situation was national news. This will not be. If the media reported these more common scenes of citizen with firearm and no shots fired in the national news daily the dumb masses would understand that situations such as Joe Horn are a tiny minority of firearm usage to stop criminals.

    *I don't bring up Joe Horn to rehash opinions on the situation but rather because it is a recent situation with much play in the national news about which I have had numerous people on both sides of the issue comment to me about as a scenario that in their opinion, makes civilian gun owners look like loose cannons or vigilantes.*
    Drawing your weapon and assuming that you won't have to shoot is an exellent way to end up shot or dead yourself. Many bad guys don't stop when you point a gun at them. To many people believe the TV and movie crap that just drawing their weapon gives them a magic wand that everyone is under the spell of and obeys any orders given by them. That only works for sure on TV and in the movies. Doing like they do on TV and in the movies is an outstanding way to get hurt of dead. When you draw your weapon, you damn well better expect to fire your weapon and kill your target. Anythingless is foolish and dangerous. If it works out that way, all the better but surely you don't want to bet your life on it.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    599

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Once again we see a common thread with CC holders - restraint. The CC holder didn't pull his gun and start shooting, he pulled it and continued to use the least force necessary to end the threat and control the situation. Another instance of a citizen with a firearm stopping a violent crime without firing a shot.

    For every Joe Horn situation, there are literally over a million situations such as this per year where the firearm is not even fired. Joe Horn's situation was national news. This will not be. If the media reported these more common scenes of citizen with firearm and no shots fired in the national news daily the dumb masses would understand that situations such as Joe Horn are a tiny minority of firearm usage to stop criminals.

    *I don't bring up Joe Horn to rehash opinions on the situation but rather because it is a recent situation with much play in the national news about which I have had numerous people on both sides of the issue comment to me about as a scenario that in their opinion, makes civilian gun owners look like loose cannons or vigilantes.*
    Drawing your weapon and assuming that you won't have to shoot is an exellent way to end up shot or dead yourself. Many bad guys don't stop when you point a gun at them. To many people believe the TV and movie crap that just drawing their weapon gives them a magic wand that everyone is under the spell of and obeys any orders given by them. That only works for sure on TV and in the movies. Doing like they do on TV and in the movies is an outstanding way to get hurt of dead. When you draw your weapon, you damn well better expect to fire your weapon and kill your target. Anythingless is foolish and dangerous. If it works out that way, all the better but surely you don't want to bet your life on it.
    I understand there are 3 types of criminals.
    1. those that when they see the victim pull a gun, they will run
    2. Those that will see a weapon, continue to attack, then with the slightest wound flee, or faint.
    3. those who will fight no matter what, those who you have to incapacitate in order to escape.

    But I hear the majority are in category one.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Alwayspacking wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Once again we see a common thread with CC holders - restraint. The CC holder didn't pull his gun and start shooting, he pulled it and continued to use the least force necessary to end the threat and control the situation. Another instance of a citizen with a firearm stopping a violent crime without firing a shot.

    For every Joe Horn situation, there are literally over a million situations such as this per year where the firearm is not even fired. Joe Horn's situation was national news. This will not be. If the media reported these more common scenes of citizen with firearm and no shots fired in the national news daily the dumb masses would understand that situations such as Joe Horn are a tiny minority of firearm usage to stop criminals.

    *I don't bring up Joe Horn to rehash opinions on the situation but rather because it is a recent situation with much play in the national news about which I have had numerous people on both sides of the issue comment to me about as a scenario that in their opinion, makes civilian gun owners look like loose cannons or vigilantes.*
    Drawing your weapon and assuming that you won't have to shoot is an exellent way to end up shot or dead yourself. Many bad guys don't stop when you point a gun at them. To many people believe the TV and movie crap that just drawing their weapon gives them a magic wand that everyone is under the spell of and obeys any orders given by them. That only works for sure on TV and in the movies. Doing like they do on TV and in the movies is an outstanding way to get hurt of dead. When you draw your weapon, you damn well better expect to fire your weapon and kill your target. Anythingless is foolish and dangerous. If it works out that way, all the better but surely you don't want to bet your life on it.
    I understand there are 3 types of criminals.
    1. those that when they see the victim pull a gun, they will run
    2. Those that will see a weapon, continue to attack, then with the slightest wound flee, or faint.
    3. those who will fight no matter what, those who you have to incapacitate in order to escape.

    But I hear the majority are in category one.
    Agreed most criminals are cowards, however they almost all have another trait thatmoves type 1 and 2 into type3s. They are substance abusers and when under the influence, nobody including them know what they will do. That's the part that gets you hurt or dead because there is no logic to how the react to a weapon.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Once again we see a common thread with CC holders - restraint. The CC holder didn't pull his gun and start shooting, he pulled it and continued to use the least force necessary to end the threat and control the situation. Another instance of a citizen with a firearm stopping a violent crime without firing a shot.

    For every Joe Horn situation, there are literally over a million situations such as this per year where the firearm is not even fired. Joe Horn's situation was national news. This will not be. If the media reported these more common scenes of citizen with firearm and no shots fired in the national news daily the dumb masses would understand that situations such as Joe Horn are a tiny minority of firearm usage to stop criminals.

    *I don't bring up Joe Horn to rehash opinions on the situation but rather because it is a recent situation with much play in the national news about which I have had numerous people on both sides of the issue comment to me about as a scenario that in their opinion, makes civilian gun owners look like loose cannons or vigilantes.*
    Drawing your weapon and assuming that you won't have to shoot is an exellent way to end up shot or dead yourself. Many bad guys don't stop when you point a gun at them. To many people believe the TV and movie crap that just drawing their weapon gives them a magic wand that everyone is under the spell of and obeys any orders given by them. That only works for sure on TV and in the movies. Doing like they do on TV and in the movies is an outstanding way to get hurt of dead. When you draw your weapon, you damn well better expect to fire your weapon and kill your target. Anythingless is foolish and dangerous. If it works out that way, all the better but surely you don't want to bet your life on it.
    While I do not disagree with your comments, I do not understand 1) why you quoted my post when making your point or 2) what your point has to do with this thread.

    I assume it is reference to "The CC holder didn't pull his gun and start shooting..." I in no way intended that to mean that he wasn't prepared and able to shoot as I very much hope that if he was threatening lethal force we was damned well prepared to use it. I was trying to say, perhaps ineloquently, that LAC with guns do not just automatically start shooting whenever they can legally. They tend to use extraordinary restraint, evaluate the situation, and only use as much force as is necessary to end the threat and in 99% of violent crime situations, simply drawing the firearm accomplishes this. Several stories from our members bear out the fact of this restraint.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Once again we see a common thread with CC holders - restraint. The CC holder didn't pull his gun and start shooting, he pulled it and continued to use the least force necessary to end the threat and control the situation. Another instance of a citizen with a firearm stopping a violent crime without firing a shot.

    For every Joe Horn situation, there are literally over a million situations such as this per year where the firearm is not even fired. Joe Horn's situation was national news. This will not be. If the media reported these more common scenes of citizen with firearm and no shots fired in the national news daily the dumb masses would understand that situations such as Joe Horn are a tiny minority of firearm usage to stop criminals.

    *I don't bring up Joe Horn to rehash opinions on the situation but rather because it is a recent situation with much play in the national news about which I have had numerous people on both sides of the issue comment to me about as a scenario that in their opinion, makes civilian gun owners look like loose cannons or vigilantes.*
    Drawing your weapon and assuming that you won't have to shoot is an exellent way to end up shot or dead yourself. Many bad guys don't stop when you point a gun at them. To many people believe the TV and movie crap that just drawing their weapon gives them a magic wand that everyone is under the spell of and obeys any orders given by them. That only works for sure on TV and in the movies. Doing like they do on TV and in the movies is an outstanding way to get hurt of dead. When you draw your weapon, you damn well better expect to fire your weapon and kill your target. Anythingless is foolish and dangerous. If it works out that way, all the better but surely you don't want to bet your life on it.
    While I do not disagree with your comments, I do not understand 1) why you quoted my post when making your point or 2) what your point has to do with this thread.

    I assume it is reference to "The CC holder didn't pull his gun and start shooting..." I in no way intended that to mean that he wasn't prepared and able to shoot as I very much hope that if he was threatening lethal force we was damned well prepared to use it. I was trying to say, perhaps ineloquently, that LAC with guns do not just automatically start shooting whenever they can legally. They tend to use extraordinary restraint, evaluate the situation, and only use as much force as is necessary to end the threat and in 99% of violent crime situations, simply drawing the firearm accomplishes this. Several stories from our members bear out the fact of this restraint.
    I myself have had two incidents where just drawing the firearm defused the situation. The third required a trigger pull and fortunately, at my young age at the time, the adreniln pump shakes made me miss. The bad guy wet himself and ceasedadvancing on me andsurrendered. But like I said, if you draw you must absolutely be prepare to shoot to kill.

  11. #11
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I agree .I would have held him on the floor auntill the cops arrive.Alaso would have advised whoever was talking with the police to advise them that a citizen had the badguy at gunpoint.To reduce any margin for error.I also agee as learned in Vietnam when the weapon is drawn you best be able to shoot.I to have had experieces that having one out did not totally difuse the situation...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Yet another incidentjustifiying citizen's arrest...if the guy is cuffed and you're holstered when the cops show up there is much less chance of error for everyone.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    tanman wrote:
    Yet another incidentjustifiying citizen's arrest...if the guy is cuffed and you're holstered when the cops show up there is much less chance of error for everyone.
    You gonna carry cuffs around too? And a partner to help you cuff a person? And the training to use cuffs? And accept the liability of cuffing someone?

    I'd just hold 'em for the cops, or let 'em run away if it came to that.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    tanman wrote:
    Yet another incidentjustifiying citizen's arrest...if the guy is cuffed and you're holstered when the cops show up there is much less chance of error for everyone.
    I'm not sure where you see that citizen's arrest is unlawful. RCW 9A.15.20 specifically states that
    The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases: ... (2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
    That law is essentially what a citizen's arrest is. Use of handcuffs would be a use of force, and would be justified if it met the requirements above. Also, arrest does not mean the suspect has to be cuffed. Even holding the suspect at gunpoint is shading on arrest, and is at least detainment, a deprivation of liberty.

    Also, see the attached file prepared for security guards, who have no greater power of arrest than any other citizen other than slightly more authority to detain shoplifters for misdemeanor crimes with the correct degree of suspicion.

  15. #15
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I see the point.If you are holstered when the police arrive there should be no problem.There have also been incidents when the good guy with the gun was mistaken for the bad guy.Good advice,the point is to difuse the situation.Holding him or just letting him run off for the cops to catch later.Still by that doc having a gun with him was able to take control of a possibly dangerous senario.That because of his actions did not spin out of control.I noticed also that a couple of the news reports neglected to mention this doc.was lawfully carrying his weapon.

  16. #16
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    I wonder what doctor it was. I work at TG and we have a few exmilitary doc's. Most of whom would seem the type to carry.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    sean-1286 wrote:
    tanman wrote:
    Yet another incidentjustifiying citizen's arrest...if the guy is cuffed and you're holstered when the cops show up there is much less chance of error for everyone.
    sean-1286: I'm not sure where you see that citizen's arrest is unlawful. RCW 9A.15.20 specifically states that:
    sean-1286: The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases: ... (2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
    That dog won't hunt- RCW9A.15.20 (actually the whole 9A.15 section isn't there)doesn't exist at least online. So maybe itgot repealed, or you had a slip of the finger? Please let me know if it was the latter, cause that sectionwould be about the only defense to;

    RCW 9A.40.040
    Unlawful imprisonment.

    (1) A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he knowingly restrains another person.

    (2) Unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Found it- it's;
    RCW 9A.16.020
    Use of force — When lawful

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    tanman wrote:
    Found it- it's;
    RCW 9A.16.020
    Use of force — When lawful
    Sorry about that, just a typo. So what is your interpretation now? Mine is that RCW 9A.16 contains defenses to any crimes in the chapter and that means that if one's actions meet the critera in 9A.16.020, they would have an affirmative defense to prosecution for unlawful imprisonment. This is supported further by the attatchment to my previous post.

    Personally, although I believe it would be legal, I would not attempt to cuff a suspect or otherwise restrain him/her unless it was absolutely necessary, and hopefully I would have a partner who could help out. I would hold them at gun point, or preferably just use my verbal kung fu, until the police arrived. If s/he runs off and isn't posing a threat--oh well, I have a description for the police and everyone is still safe.

  20. #20
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    I agree sean, I wouldn't want to get any closer than I had to to a BG, much less try to cuff them.

    We make comments about gun grabs and retention that we don't have the same issues as LEO because we don't have the obligation to get 'in with it' with the bad guys. Trying to cuff someone is just that. If you pull the gun and they try to run, GREAT!... Now you're no longer in danger.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    sean-1286 wrote:
    tanman wrote:
    Found it- it's;
    RCW 9A.16.020
    Use of force — When lawful
    Sorry about that, just a typo. So what is your interpretation now? Mine is that RCW 9A.16 contains defenses to any crimes in the chapter and that means that if one's actions meet the critera in 9A.16.020, they would have an affirmative defense to prosecution for unlawful imprisonment. This is supported further by the attatchment to my previous post.

    Personally, although I believe it would be legal, I would not attempt to cuff a suspect or otherwise restrain him/her unless it was absolutely necessary, and hopefully I would have a partner who could help out. I would hold them at gun point, or preferably just use my verbal kung fu, until the police arrived. If s/he runs off and isn't posing a threat--oh well, I have a description for the police and everyone is still safe.
    Roger that.

    IMHO, RCW 9A.16.020:

    (1) Seems to me that it extensively covers anything resonably done to assist/protect an officer or under the direction of an officer. (I am doing a ride along with a good friend this weekend, so good to know) I have also done this in a situation about two years ago where it was two on one until the cops showed up (so cuffing wasn't an option anyway- I won't try it without a 2-1 GG-BG superiority). Then it was two on two, sort of...The officer yelled at me to disarm. I told him I was gonna holster slowly. I did. He re-oriented his weapon and I pointe out the weapons one the counter. I asked him to toss me cuffs, one set at a time- he had two fortunatelly.Obviously it was common sense at the time and no one had any objection about how I had stopped an armed robbery. I was never received a suppeona, so I assume plea bargain. Good to know I was covered by this and "immunity if aiding officer" (RCW 9.01.055). That was what I was going off of at the time.

    (2) Seems to make it legal to detain and transport a crimminal to an officer. However, obviously common sense says to only do this in exigent circumstances... This would appear to be a citizen's arrest law. The disadvantage to this is then you need your cuffs back, so it's probably easier and safer to just control them until an officer shows up. I'm not saying I'll automatically cuff someone if the situation arrives. Options are like guns though- nice to have them when you need them.

    (3) Looks like itcovers almost any self defense/defense of party/third party situation that could arise. Good to know the law, better to have common sense- both together is invaluable.

    I am not a lawyer or law enforcement officer and no one should construe my reading of this law as official in any way.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    Well I'm glad we got that straightened out, tanman. I agree with all your points, and good job helping that officer. Just be careful in that the law says you must be acting under the officer's direction. So if you draw your gun or assist in some other way before you're told to by an officer and you are not otherwise justified in doing so, you would not be immune from prosecution.

    By the way, RCW 9A.16.050 contains the circumstances under which homicide is excusable, although you (and most others here) are probably already aware of it. Thought it might be a helpful reference in this discussion on use of force and it brings us back to the original topic. It seems as though the doctor would have been justified in shooting the robber in the resataurant, since he was committing a felony, although it does not seem like that would have been the best course of action. I think the doctor handled the situation well.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Yeah, that's where common sense and the ten commandments come in.I have always been goverened more by them than any law.There are always grey areas. If we ever meet in person, I will tell you about two(there were more) very grey (although in my mind very clear cut times) situations in Iraq I could have used deadly force, but chose to fire a warning shot (not allowed, but tolleratedon my team).In both situationsitresulted in the situation being diffused from what would have resulted in 4 civ deathsin one and 2 in the other.Laws/Rules of Engagement should not be our only code of conduct. Morals (if you have them) and common sense should always govern trigger discipline or anything for that matter.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •