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

[()pen(arry]

So I think we've adequately demonstrated my point. Because we don't know exactly what transpired, we have to fall back on our default positions. I don't know if the cops who detained Stacy saw him pointing a gun at them, or whether he had, as he said, already put the gun down so as to make it clear that he was no threat whatsoever. Neither do you. My default position is to assume that there was no reason to detain him, and without even a valid justification claimed by police, there is no reason to assume they detained him justly. Some people's default position is to assume that if cops do something, it's probably for good reason, and not bother to think twice about it. One of us has the preponderance of evidence for support.

It's worth noting, here, that it is also some people's default position to assume that government generally does what's best for Americans and that they have good reason to do whatever they do. Not me. But some people.

 

[()pen(arry]

protected both him and them

How delightfully Orwellian! How's that Kool-Aid taste?

 

[davidmcbeth]

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.

I don't have guns to protect other people's children (they had the option of owning guns and choose not too) if it would put me at great risk.

Same for any other person, cop or not-a-cop.

Stacy did not know the skill level of the shooter ... a shooter that had a rifle to his handgun. Its usually a losing conflict for the handgunner.

As Kenny said "you gotta know when to hold 'em know when to fold 'em".

 

[cloudcroft]

"I don't have guns to protect other people's children (they had the option of owning guns and choose not too) if it would put me at great risk." -- davidmcbeth

I agree 100% -- I'm not one of those "sheepdogs."

But if I saw a cop in trouble, I wouldn't hesitate to get involved...except I probably wouldn't take (live) prisoners.

 

[hammer6]

Interesting. I wonder if the perp would have stopped if he had shot the cop or keep on shooting folks.

I believe it is better to have two good guys shooting at one bad guy than one good guy and one bad guy shooting at each other. Especially if the shooting is going on next door to my house.....but that is just me.

Exxxxactly

 

[nonameisgood]

Tastes fine. If I just found my crazy neighbor killing his family and the other neighbors, and shooting at a cop hiding behind a cruiser, I imagine that I would assume the reclusive neighbor needs a beat down. Yes, my default position is that a small town Texas cop, by himself, in broad daylight, wouldn't start a firefight with some guy in the trailer park. I've lived in small town Texas, and even the crooked cops would not be caught doing that.

 

[john-galt]

Thanks, this is a great story. Very glad to read it and pass it along.

 

[MR Redenck]

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.

Its a Texas thing called a BRAIN....:lol:

 

[JoeSparky]

After reading the posts of davidmcbeth on this thread, I have now done something that I've never done before.... Placed someone on IGNORE. I find NO REDEEMING Virtues in his postings on this thread and have no interest in anymore of his postings. I am all for protecting one's rights but with those rights comes the various responsibilities--- INCLUDING HELPING ANYONE WHO IS IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE. Society REQUIRES that people work with each other toward common beneficial goals.

 

[davidmcbeth]

After reading the posts of davidmcbeth on this thread, I have now done something that I've never done before.... Placed someone on IGNORE. I find NO REDEEMING Virtues in his postings on this thread and have no interest in anymore of his postings. I am all for protecting one's rights but with those rights comes the various responsibilities--- INCLUDING HELPING ANYONE WHO IS IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE. Society REQUIRES that people work with each other toward common beneficial goals.

Show me where the law requires you to assist anyone? "No redeeming virtues" ... you are telling folks that they have a RESPONSIBILITY to help anyone who needs assistance. I am telling folks to protect their own interests first. Most people don't carry to protect others (they have/had a choice to carry for that same purpose but chose not to) but to protect themselves first.

The original story was a person with a rifle shooting at another person and a hand gunner, shooting at a medium range at a killer with a rifle, and making them self a target ... that was clearly not wise of the hand gunner ... the hand gunner is lucky to be alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8wPRLxdOfY


One should weigh heavily the possible consequences of discharging a firearm; the risk that this poses to yourself (and others) in a physical aspect and legal aspect. Think about the Stacy incident...how would his position be now if the killer would have actually been able to kill the cop right after Stacy started shooting? Not good for Stacy. In both a physical and legal standpoint.

Family Guy takes joesparky's viewpoint - its a TV show -- people in the real world can lose more than a mustache when they make a decision to engage a killer.

A study done in Korea, with fresh soldiers out of boot camp, showed that most of the soldiers did not even aim at their North Korean counterparts who were shooting at them ... joesparky should learn a thing or two about people's general subconscious reluctance in shooting another person even when fully justified.

So go ahead cowboy joesparky, be a "hero" .. just don't advise others to do the same. Its bad advice.

 

[davidmcbeth]

...except I probably wouldn't take (live) prisoners.

You the man.

Keep the faith brother !

 

[davidmcbeth]

Its a Texas thing called a BRAIN....:lol:

Maybe the cop was trying to gain illegal entry into his house? You would not know. Now you are helping a government agent to violate the man's 4th amendment rights.

Could be a domestic dispute with an angry cop shooting at his wife's new boyfriend, ya never know.

Just saying...you do not have all the facts. Look before you leap is an old adage...and a wise one.

Texas gets pretty hot .. maybe your brain is fried ! Just kidding, I'm sure it works ! I just can see other possibilities.

Keep the faith brother!

 

[davidmcbeth]

I see. That does make sense when you put it that way.

I don't think it's a mystery as to why he started shooting. He saw an officer in trouble (as he perceived it) and acted heroically, in my opinion. It's different for everyone though. I carry everyday, and I personally feel that it's my responsibility to protect those around me with my firearm should the situation ever arise (God forbid). To me, protecting even a strangers life far outweighs the legal consequences. Of course, I've never been in a situation where this has happened and I hope I never am, so I can't say for sure how things would actually go down or how I would react.

Either way, I hope no charges are filed against Stacy.

I think that the incident shows people who carry in a very positive light :banana::banana:... although I have other opinions about the incident.

Everything is roses when it works out ... and in this case it did ... can't complain about the outcome in this specific case.

 

[OC for ME]

Uh....Joe put you on ignore. Unless someone quotes you he ain't gunna see you response.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

It's sad but in this country in this era if you use a gun in defense you will probably be persecuted. Just look at what happened to this guy who possible saved the cop's and others lives... promptly arrested. Hopefully he won't be prosecuted.

I can certainly understand a persons reluctance to put yourself at risk to help others when the payoff might be having your guns stolen by the cops and time served....

 

[nonameisgood]

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Leo Tolstoy
I want to live in a society where people involve themselves in the affairs of others when, and only when, necessary. I believe that we do pay law enforcement to take risk, but that does not relieve me of my duty to my fellow man.

In this case, the equally likely outcome is that the bad guy disables or kills the officer. In that circumstance, the killer then can continue his spree unimpeded, since you have chosen to stand by and watch the officer die. And even if the bad guy leaves, you, as a tax payer, now have to pay compensation to the officer or his widow, pay to to train a new officer, pay to fix or replace the cruiser....

Texas still has people who know bravery. I might have crapped myself and not acted, we never know. But I'm not going to live my life saying "not my problem" and "I'll take care of myself, you take care of yourself" when I have the ability to make a positive difference.