Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Man Pulls Gun in Self-Defense

  1. #1
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post



    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/787434.html

    Man pulls gun in self-defense on group of harassing teenagers


    By JAMES HALPIN
    Anchorage Daily News

    (05/07/09 14:48:48)

    A report of a man pointing a gun at some teenagers on bikes at the Sears mall spurred an extensive police response and prompted school district officials to lock the doors at Fairview Elementary School Thursday afternoon.
    But it turned out the young adults had in fact been harassing the man and that he pulled a weapon from his vehicle for protection, police Lt. Dave Parker said.
    The two parties split after the incident at about 1:45 p.m., but witnesses followed the man with the gun north on the Seward Highway to 13th Avenue and Gambell Street, where police with guns drawn stopped the man and a passenger.
    Seeing that activity, the principal of the Fairview school locked the doors, school district spokeswoman Heidi Embley said. It was the only school to take any action and reopened a short time later, she said.
    After questioning the suspect and other witnesses -- the youths could not be located -- police determined the unnamed man had acted within his rights because he had not pointed the weapon at anyone and had not brandished it in a menacing manner, Parker said.
    The man, his passenger and weapon were free to go, he said.


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Today's teenagers need to realize they can't just go around harassing people for fun, they might wind up shot dead, because for all the victim(s) knows they could be packing knives, clubs, or even guns themselves. I probably would have just got in my vehicle and left the scene, but if the teens harassing me won't let me, they're going to be staring down the barrel of my sidearm. I do not feel like fighting anyone, I just want to be on my way and left alone. People who think just because someone is under the age of 21 or even 18 that they are unarmed are severely mistaken.

    What a pathetic world we live in where respect is virtually non existent.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    Prob. would have done that same thing.

  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    spyderdude wrote:
    Today's teenagers need to realize they can't just go around harassing people for fun, they might wind up shot dead, because for all the victim(s) knows they could be packing knives, clubs, or even guns themselves. I probably would have just got in my vehicle and left the scene, but if the teens harassing me won't let me, they're going to be staring down the barrel of my sidearm. I do not feel like fighting anyone, I just want to be on my way and left alone. People who think just because someone is under the age of 21 or even 18 that they are unarmed are severely mistaken.

    There's no indication that the harrassers were armed. None.

    Hard to tell, but I don't yet see the justification for the driver to pull his gun. Did he point it at someone? The articlesays yes he didbut no he did not. Overall, it sounds like he overreacted.

    But if he did overreact, he sure made a mess of things. He got chased down by witnesses and cops with drawn guns, he closed a friggin' school and put his passenger in jeopardy.

    I wonder how old the teenagers were? And more importantly, did the gun puller call the cops to report the attackers?

    If it's good enough to pull at gun and point it someone in broad daylight at a mall, it ought to be good envough to call in.

    Hard to tell for sure, though. Notenoughinfofor agoof with a gun call.




  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Well, judgement call on this one, but it is quite obvious that the article does not have nearly enough information to formulate an accurate opinion. One of the first comments fills in a few blanks:

    mak82 wrote on 05/07/2009 04:59:12 PM:
    realize that the ADN would have gotten this information from a source at the APD, but as an individual who was at the Sears Mall at the time the event took place, I can assure you that it was real and that many people saw a male holding a gun and he and the woman he was with were both screaming at two males- not children, but approx. 17-19 years of age on bikes, in the parking lot at the mall. Seemed to be a confrontation gone south. Upon contacting APD, we were told that the man and woman were apprehended at the downtown Carrs. For all of you making assumptions, perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read in the paper. It was called in by several people.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Yes I think the biggest mistake that man made was not calling it in, and letting them know he was armed, and that some teenagers were harassing him. Leaving the scene is one of the last things you'd want to do because that makes you out to be the bad guy if you were to pull a gun on someone or a group of individuals.

    This "justified" crap does not make any sense. There is still a chance that the teenagers could have been armed themselves, and in many cases the victim ends up seriously injured or dead because he/she waited too long to react in self defense in fear of being prosecuted for resorting to deadly force. I am not going to stand there and wait to find out if they are armed or not, I am going to draw down on them, and let them know I do NOT want to become their first or next victim. Any hesitation might get you killed. I am more than willing to spend a few nights in jail with charges brought against me than laying in a hospital with critical injuries or possibly even dead.

    Better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6.

  7. #7
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    spyderdude wrote:
    Yes I think the biggest mistake that man made was not calling it in
    Indeed. I spoke with a few officers at the local PD in Homer. They recommended I call in if I draw my firearm(s) on dogs which are acting in a threatening manner when I'm on the beach.

    Ever since I started open carrying, every time a stupid dog owner has their dog off lead they run fast to leash their violent animal.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    spyderdude wrote:
    Yes I think the biggest mistake that man made was not calling it in, and letting them know he was armed, and that some teenagers were harassing him. Leaving the scene is one of the last things you'd want to do because that makes you out to be the bad guy if you were to pull a gun on someone or a group of individuals.

    This "justified" crap does not make any sense. There is still a chance that the teenagers could have been armed themselves, and in many cases the victim ends up seriously injured or dead because he/she waited too long to react in self defense in fear of being prosecuted for resorting to deadly force. I am not going to stand there and wait to find out if they are armed or not, I am going to draw down on them, and let them know I do NOT want to become their first or next victim. Any hesitation might get you killed. I am more than willing to spend a few nights in jail with charges brought against me than laying in a hospital with critical injuries or possibly even dead.

    Better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6.
    I saw no information to indicate this is an accurate description of events. Did you?

    In the comments at that news article, AND here, many people who were not there are speculating on matters that are not part of the report as written. WE were not on the scene. WE do not know if he called or not. WE do not know if he would have had time to do so or not.

    The hesitation while calling may have gotten him killed. We simply do not know.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    This is true, the article did not provide good details.

    There are too many "what ifs" in these types of situations. Unless you are there to see it happen, you can only guess as to what actually happened. I'm just saying if I was in that situation, I would make an effort to call the authorities, leave, and if they won't let me (get between me and my vehicle) I will make them know I do not want to be messed with. The dumbest thing that guy did was leave the scene.

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    spyderdude wrote:
    This is true, the article did not provide good details.

    There are too many "what ifs" in these types of situations. Unless you are there to see it happen, you can only guess as to what actually happened. I'm just saying if I was in that situation, I would make an effort to call the authorities, leave, and if they won't let me (get between me and my vehicle) I will make them know I do not want to be messed with. The dumbest thing that guy did was leave the scene.
    Yeah, and it's unethical too. I mean, he pulled out a pistola and threatened to use lethal force, fer chrissake. He caught a break, I think, from the cops.

    There really ought to be a law for gun carriers (OC, CC or car carriers) who deploy the gun in self-defense to have to report it immediately--even if the threat (or perceived threat) leaves.

    If it's good enough to pull out the gun and show it/point it at someone, then it's good enough to report the dangerous eventto the police.

    John Q. Carrier could just make out a report explaining what happened giving all observed details.

    Don't police departments sometimes require reports of incidents where the LEO pulls his gun in public? It should be something like that.

    Pull out a gun in public? Write up the report!

    I could live with that kind of a law/rule. I would support it. We'd get better stats on self-defense incidents too, as someone else pointed out in a similar current thread here.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    According to the passenger in the vehicle, the gun was never unholstered.
    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime...ents_Container

    Excuse me: ALL OF YOU... I was there, I was the passenger in the vehicle, I and the driver WERE spat on by this young "gentleman", termed very loosely, through the passenger window! I'll admit I over-reacted by jumping out of the vehicle after that & confronted him, mind you I am a young 48 y/o female w/ a hip replacement. My spouse was scared for my safety, he DID NOT "wave" the gun around, it never left its holster, never left his side, was never chambered, cocked etc.

    The APD didn't "stop him w/ guns drawn" he approached them and told them "I think I'm who you're looking for" in the Carr's on Gambell parking lot. I, on the other hand, WAS taken down by 5-7 SWAT members w/ fullgear & shotguns while picking up Oreos inside the store! Remember...I NEVER HAD A GUN Rather embarassing. The gun was not released with us AND they even confiscated a "Daisy Red Rider" BB gun! To be held for about a week by APD. People-please get your facts before you judge. Thanks!
    I mentioned earlier that several people are providing conjecture from the article. The article appears to even be quite inaccurate.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:

    Yeah, and it's unethical too. I mean, he pulled out a pistola and threatened to use lethal force, fer chrissake. He caught a break, I think, from the cops
    The article does not mention "threatened to use lethal force." Where are you getting that from?

    HankT wrote:
    There really ought to be a law for gun carriers (OC, CC or car carriers) who deploy the gun in self-defense to have to report it immediately--even if the threat (or perceived threat) leaves.

    If it's good enough to pull out the gun and show it/point it at someone, then it's good enough to report the dangerous eventto the police.

    John Q. Carrier could just make out a report explaining what happened giving all observed details.

    Don't police departments sometimes require reports of incidents where the LEO pulls his gun in public? It should be something like that.

    Pull out a gun in public? Write up the report!

    I could live with that kind of a law/rule. I would support it. We'd get better stats on self-defense incidents too, as someone else pointed out in a similar current thread here.
    From a statistical standpoint, I suppose I could agree with you. BUT, given the overarching nature of the LE and DA of many municipalities, I see a great potential for charges from these self-reports.



    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

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

    Post imported post

    Multiple persons engaging in threatening behavior on one individual can be readily construed as a threat.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Multiple persons engaging in threatening behavior on one individual can be readily construed as a threat.
    Which part of which post are you responding to?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    There's no indication that the harassers were armed. None.
    Irrelevant.

    Given that they were many and he was one, the relevant question is were they threatening him with serious injury or death, because even if all they had was their fists and feet they could have carried out the threat.

    Apparently the police agreed that they were threatening him.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Multiple persons engaging in threatening behavior on one individual can be readily construed as a threat.
    Which part of which post are you responding to?
    Does it matter? I'm simply making an observation for the naysayers who don't approve of this act. Without more data the whole story is hard to judge. But two on one can often and usually is taken as sufficient threat to justify a weapon. And since the gun was never drawn anyway it's a moot point.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Multiple persons engaging in threatening behavior on one individual can be readily construed as a threat.
    Which part of which post are you responding to?
    Does it matter? I'm simply making an observation for the naysayers who don't approve of this act. Without more data the whole story is hard to judge. But two on one can often and usually is taken as sufficient threat to justify a weapon. And since the gun was never drawn anyway it's a moot point.
    It was not 2 on 1.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posting Permissions

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