• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why you might need a gun in Detriot

NHCGRPR45

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
Glock9mmOldStyle said:
One less "D" bag we have to worry about. YEAH!

;)
Click to expand...

well so far he isn't dead, so we just have one wounded d-bag. he will serve a little time get simpathy from the jury and be out a better criminal for the jail time he got. now he will even get "props" from his d-bag friends for getting shot and surviving!:banghead:

i think the store owner did the right thing though. it couldn't hurt for him to get a little range practice.:lol:
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Shop employee did his job - he stopped the perp and reinforced the teaching assignment.

Warning to BGs........don't!
 
cmdr_iceman71

cmdr_iceman71

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
409
Location
Detroit, Michigan, USA
Why do we always assume that the good guy needs some range time simply because the bad guy didn’t die? We don’t know the particulars of the shooting. Namely the angle of attack or if there were numerous objects obstructing the store employee’s line of sight thus allowing the scumbag a copious amount of cover which may have aided his escape/retreat. The fact that he scored multiple hits on his assailant without getting hit in return, vindicates the employee and his tactical prowess in my book.

Remember the first priority in any gunfight is NOT to get hit yourself.

One has to take into account that the store employee was set upon by two criminals that means tactically, he didn’t get to choose when and where the engagement would begin and it also meant two sets of eyes watching him. Even if only one criminal possessed a firearm, the store employee still had to be judicious enough and quick enough to draw from a concealed position and ensure that his first and maybe only volley of fire would be so debilitating that it would force the criminals to flee.

If he had missed too many critical shots maybe the criminals would have felt emboldened enough to return fire and cut him down from where his stood or crouched. Remember gentlemen real life shooting is nothing like the range where we have the luxury of getting our stance correct, an infinite amount of time to align our sights and where there is no threat of the paper target returning fire. This store employee pulled it all off in an offhanded instant and drove the criminals from the store without injury to himself or any innocent bystanders, what more can you ask for?
 
NHCGRPR45

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
cmdr_iceman71 said:
Why do we always assume that the good guy needs some range time simply because the bad guy didn’t die? We don’t know the particulars of the shooting. Namely the angle of attack or if there were numerous objects obstructing the store employee’s line of sight thus allowing the scumbag a copious amount of cover which may have aided his escape/retreat. The fact that he scored multiple hits on his assailant without getting hit in return, vindicates the employee and his tactical prowess in my book.

Remember the first priority in any gunfight is NOT to get hit yourself.

One has to take into account that the store employee was set upon by two criminals that means tactically, he didn’t get to choose when and where the engagement would begin and it also meant two sets of eyes watching him. Even if only one criminal possessed a firearm, the store employee still had to be judicious enough and quick enough to draw from a concealed position and ensure that his first and maybe only volley of fire would be so debilitating that it would force the criminals to flee.

If he had missed too many critical shots maybe the criminals would have felt emboldened enough to return fire and cut him down from where his stood or crouched. Remember gentlemen real life shooting is nothing like the range where we have the luxury of getting our stance correct, an infinite amount of time to align our sights and where there is no threat of the paper target returning fire. This store employee pulled it all off in an offhanded instant and drove the criminals from the store without injury to himself or any innocent bystanders, what more can you ask for?
Click to expand...

your right of course, not getting shot is top priority!
 
Beerme

Beerme

Banned
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
526
Location
Waterford, Michigan, USA
cmdr_iceman71 said:
Why do we always assume that the good guy needs some range time simply because the bad guy didn’t die? We don’t know the particulars of the shooting. Namely the angle of attack or if there were numerous objects obstructing the store employee’s line of sight thus allowing the scumbag a copious amount of cover which may have aided his escape/retreat. The fact that he scored multiple hits on his assailant without getting hit in return, vindicates the employee and his tactical prowess in my book.

Remember the first priority in any gunfight is NOT to get hit yourself.

One has to take into account that the store employee was set upon by two criminals that means tactically, he didn’t get to choose when and where the engagement would begin and it also meant two sets of eyes watching him. Even if only one criminal possessed a firearm, the store employee still had to be judicious enough and quick enough to draw from a concealed position and ensure that his first and maybe only volley of fire would be so debilitating that it would force the criminals to flee.

If he had missed too many critical shots maybe the criminals would have felt emboldened enough to return fire and cut him down from where his stood or crouched. Remember gentlemen real life shooting is nothing like the range where we have the luxury of getting our stance correct, an infinite amount of time to align our sights and where there is no threat of the paper target returning fire. This store employee pulled it all off in an offhanded instant and drove the criminals from the store without injury to himself or any innocent bystanders, what more can you ask for?
Click to expand...


because a majority of the people that post on here are keyboard warriors that will always shoot to kill and never miss...
 
kryptonian

kryptonian

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
245
Location
, ,
unfortunately i have had to shoot and he is right. whatever scenario you have in your head of your legal self defense shoot it is scary, hard and a feeling you can't fully describe unless you've been there. my shot hit my assailant in the hand. i didn't know til later i even got him. we learned as LEO that shootings are 3's. 3 shots, 3 feet away and 3 seconds. it's not a tv Die Hard roll around duck and shoot.
 
cmdr_iceman71

cmdr_iceman71

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
409
Location
Detroit, Michigan, USA
"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious."

- George Orwell

Again, you are working from the assumption that the store employee had a kill shot and chose not to take it and instead fired at non-lethal portions of the criminal’s body.

Beerme, unless you possess the uncanny ability to peek inside another human-being’s memory and see events through their eyes; may I suggest you abstain from the Rambo rhetoric?

Furthermore, my official policy isn’t to shoot to kill but to "shoot to stop the threat." Now if my self defense shooting results in the death of someone trying to kill me or do great bodily harm to me or some third party that is most unfortunate but not my intent. Possession of a valid CPL isn’t a license to kill. This is something my CPL instructor stressed. Thus you do not speak for me when you write:

"....a majority of the people that post on here are keyboard warriors that will always shoot to kill"

If you ever find yourself involved in a self-defense shooting; the aforementioned and irresponsible quote of yours could be used by a zealous anti-gun prosecutor to crucify you on the witness stand and portray you as a deliberate cold-blooded killer.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
cmdr_iceman71 said:
"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious."

- George Orwell

Furthermore, my official policy isn’t to shoot to kill but to "shoot to stop the threat." Now if my self defense shooting results in the death of someone trying to kill me or do great bodily harm to me or some third party that is most unfortunate but not my intent. Possession of a valid CPL isn’t a license to kill. This is something my CPL instructor stressed. Thus you do not speak for me when you write:

"....a majority of the people that post on here are keyboard warriors that will always shoot to kill"

If you ever find yourself involved in a self-defense shooting; the aforementioned and irresponsible quote of yours could be used by a zealous anti-gun prosecutor to crucify you on the witness stand and portray you as a deliberate cold-blooded killer.
Click to expand...

Well said - something that cannot be stressed enough.
 
Beerme

Beerme

Banned
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
526
Location
Waterford, Michigan, USA
cmdr_iceman71 said:
"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious."

- George Orwell

Again, you are working from the assumption that the store employee had a kill shot and chose not to take it and instead fired at non-lethal portions of the criminal’s body.

Beerme, unless you possess the uncanny ability to peek inside another human-being’s memory and see events through their eyes; may I suggest you abstain from the Rambo rhetoric?

Furthermore, my official policy isn’t to shoot to kill but to "shoot to stop the threat." Now if my self defense shooting results in the death of someone trying to kill me or do great bodily harm to me or some third party that is most unfortunate but not my intent. Possession of a valid CPL isn’t a license to kill. This is something my CPL instructor stressed. Thus you do not speak for me when you write:

"....a majority of the people that post on here are keyboard warriors that will always shoot to kill"

If you ever find yourself involved in a self-defense shooting; the aforementioned and irresponsible quote of yours could be used by a zealous anti-gun prosecutor to crucify you on the witness stand and portray you as a deliberate cold-blooded killer.
Click to expand...
Where in my post did I advocate shooting to kill?
show me.

do not try to change what my post meant for your own purpose
I am never one who advocates shooting to kill and it has been seen numerous times on here.

When did I assume the clerk had a kill shot in view?
where did that even come from????????
the clerk did perfect and all of the keyboard warriors i was refering to could use a lesson from him.
just so you can get it through your head this time, this post is not advocating shooting to kill and in no way is implying i would ever shoot to kill, so any attempt to make it look like I was advocating shooting to kill is completely unfounded.
 
Last edited:
DanM

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Beerme said:
because I made a facetious comment about people who always say they will shoot to kill?
really?
keep dreamin dude, my post in no way was implying that I will ever shoot to kill.
I am an NRA instructor, I know how to shoot and I know that it is smarter to shoot quickly and defuse the situation than it is to try and intentionally kill someone.
Click to expand...

You know that your comments are facetious or you weren't implying certain things. The point being made is that doesn't matter when a prosecutor could be able to use your comments against you. And I see what Iceman is saying and how that's a possibility. Because there is something a bit non-sensible about your comments or they are not worded well. You do not write in the most clear manner, and this could be especially worrisome for such of your comments as above.

For instance, I didn't understand your "keyboard commando" comment when you used it as a response to Iceman's post. It doesn't make sense as a reply to his points. Also, your comment that begins with "I'm an NRA instructor . . ." is poorly written and I don't quite understand precisely what point you are making. Which means your words could also possibly be more ripe for abuse by a prosecutor, and remember a prosecutor *will* use your words to your greatest disadvantage:

Let's say, Beerme, you shot someone in self-defense, but you are on trial because the prosecutor has a woody for gun owners and he knows how to play to the juries in his jurisdiction.

No one said:
Prosecutor: "Mr. Beerme, if something is true about a majority of people in a group, then does that mean it is 'likely to be true' or 'not likely to be true' about any one individual of that group?"

Beerme: "Likely to be true, of course."

Prosecutor: "Mr. Beerme, are you in or not in the group of people who post on OCDO?"

Beerme: "I'm in that group."

Prosecutor: "So, Mr. Beerme, if something is true about the majority who post on OCDO then it is likely to be true about you, unless we know it not to be true about you specifically. Is that completely sensible or not?

Beerme: "Yes, completely sensible."

Prosecutor: "Mr. Beerme, you yourself once wrote 'A majority of people that post on [OCDO] are keyboard warriors that will always shoot to kill . . .', correct?"

Beerme: "Yes."

Prosecutor: "And, Mr. Beerme, you didn't write 'will always shoot to kill a person who is a real threat', you just wrote 'will always shoot to kill', right?"

Beerme: "Right."

Prosecutor: "No further questions at this time, your honor."
Click to expand...

A similar hypothetical prosecutorial field day can be had with your "it is smarter to shoot quickly and defuse the situation", with emphasis on how "shoot quickly" can be played on by a hypothetical prosecutor with a woody for you.
 
Beerme

Beerme

Banned
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
526
Location
Waterford, Michigan, USA
DanM said:
You know that your comments are facetious or you weren't implying certain things. The point being made is that doesn't matter when a prosecutor could be able to use your comments against you. And I see what Iceman is saying and how that's a possibility. Because there is something a bit non-sensible about your comments or they are not worded well. You do not write in the most clear manner, and this could be especially worrisome for such of your comments as above.

For instance, I didn't understand your "keyboard commando" comment when you used it as a response to Iceman's post. It doesn't make sense as a reply to his points. Also, your comment that begins with "I'm an NRA instructor . . ." is poorly written and I don't quite understand precisely what point you are making. Which means your words could also possibly be more ripe for abuse by a prosecutor, and remember a prosecutor *will* use your words to your greatest disadvantage:

Let's say, Beerme, you shot someone in self-defense, but you are on trial because the prosecutor has a woody for gun owners and he knows how to play to the juries in his jurisdiction.



A similar hypothetical prosecutorial field day can be had with your "it is smarter to shoot quickly and defuse the situation", with emphasis on how "shoot quickly" can be played on by a hypothetical prosecutor with a woody for you.
Click to expand...

I would not be dumb enough to give any of those answers that you provided, you may be but not me.
that being said, please do not EVER speak for me
 
DanM

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Beerme said:
I would not be dumb enough to give any of those answers that you provided
Click to expand...

You evidently have a misconception of the types of questions and the latitude you would have in answering a prosecutor's examination of you as the defendant and a hostile witness. The prosecutor will not ask you a question to which he does not already know the answer, and the questions will rarely be open-ended. You will give the answers that the prosecutor already knows are coming and that damns you the most. If you attempt to give an explanatory answer to a closed-ended question, you will be cut off. If you do not answer, you will be ordered to answer. If you don't give the correct answer, you will be impeached. All of which will just make you look worse to the jury.

While my hypothetical may not be exactly what would be said, it is a good representation of how it would go down. You would be asked air-tight questions designed to make you look dumb or, better, guilty. And it's not that you're "dumb enough" to give those answers, it's that you have no choice other than to not answer or to lie, which are even more dumb than giving the prosecutors the answers they know are coming from you.

Of course, if you don't take the witness stand at all, the prosecutor is merely going to make the same points to the jury about your comments in another fashion.
 
TheQ

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
DanM said:
You evidently have a misconception of the types of questions and the latitude you would have in answering a prosecutor's examination of you as the defendant and a hostile witness. The prosecutor will not ask you a question to which he does not already know the answer, and the questions will rarely be open-ended. You will give the answers that the prosecutor already knows are coming and that damns you the most. If you attempt to give an explanatory answer to a closed-ended question, you will be cut off. If you do not answer, you will be ordered to answer. If you don't give the correct answer, you will be impeached. All of which will just make you look worse to the jury.

While my hypothetical may not be exactly what would be said, it is a good representation of how it would go down. You would be asked air-tight questions designed to make you look dumb or, better, guilty. And it's not that you're "dumb enough" to give those answers, it's that you have no choice other than to not answer or to lie, which are even more dumb than giving the prosecutors the answers they know are coming from you.

Of course, if you don't take the witness stand at all, the prosecutor is merely going to make the same points to the jury about your comments in another fashion.
Click to expand...

You can't prove in a court of law that what anyone says here on their screen name was written by them. Accounts get hacked, shared, lots of reasons. A good lawyer could toss things written here as hearsay.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
TheQ said:
You can't prove in a court of law that what anyone says here on their screen name was written by them. Accounts get hacked, shared, lots of reasons. A good lawyer could toss things written here as hearsay.
Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder why lawyers always instruct their clients to NOT post potentially incriminating things on the net then. Oh and you can be tracked to your front door too.

Further, a prosecuting attorney does not have to prove that you made the statements - just convince a judge or jury that you most likely did. You can be buried under a ton of evidence, one grain at a time.

Ymmv - your choice.
 
DanM

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
TheQ said:
You can't prove in a court of law that what anyone says here on their screen name was written by them. Accounts get hacked, shared, lots of reasons. A good lawyer could toss things written here as hearsay.
Click to expand...

With a good lawyer, this is possible but not certain as you portray.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top