Armed Citizen With Gun Does Nothing

[jthrelf]

Ok here's a question: In PA would he have been legally justified to shoot at the slowly advancing, knife wielding man who had just murdered someone? Would he have been charged?

I'm more on the side of 'he did well'. No one else was hurt. He kept him contained. The police showed up and finished. I bet if he would have lunged at him or someone else, the guy would have fired - that didn't happen. This was also a pretty crowded place and backstop was a large factor (or would be for me).

I do think the guy who pepper sprayed him was a F'ing idiot for getting that close with non-deadly force. He could have easily gotten knifed.

[Gunsnwater]

I can't be the only person here who sees this as a win for the armed citizen. He kept his gun on him until cops arrived. He didn't have to shoot a guy that obviously wanted to be shot. The guy was taken into custody. No one else was harmed.

Yes and nobody has yet said maybe he was worried about over penetration and bystanders. It was a slow walk and joe citizen had retreat. When he ran out or the guy started stabbing others, then he would have had more justification on his side. The guy already had stopped stabbing the girl. Minimum $50,000 keeping your butt free after a shoot. A lot to consider. I’m not second guessing this man for not shooting with all those people milling around.

[Sgt.K]

I haven't watched the video yet, so I have zero comment on the gun owner's actions. That said...

Any time someone asks me about helping them get a gun for self or home protection, I address them thusly:

If you want to have a gun for protection, you need to realize what that means. Defending with a gun means you might need to shoot someone who doesn't run from the mere sight of it. Shooting them has the distinct potential to end their life. I need you to be able to tell me, right here, right now, under no stress, that you could kill someone if necessary to protect yourself and/or your family. If you can't deal with that concept, having a gun for defense is a bad idea for many reasons <which I could enumerate>. By all means, if you want a range toy, get one, but keep it locked up when you're not using it. Don't think having it is some magic talisman of protection.

My 2¢

[Gunsnwater]

He did fine, and he avoided all the legal bills that could have followed a shoot! Also, he is probably kicking himself for carrying with no round in the chamber. You know, it’s entirely possible he did not trail enough, realized the gun wasn’t ready, then couldn’t recall the steps to knock the safety off, and rack the gun. Or worse, he carries with the internal trigger lock engaged, and that day, had walked out the door with his wife’s keys that do not have a key to the internal trigger lock. Hell, he might be a real tool and had a big orange trigger lock on it that the helpful girlie-boy with a badge at the Bucks County courthouse told him he has to keep on the gun at all times!

Or maybe it was an air soft and he has balls as big as Michelle’s.

[Walleye Hunter]

So that everyone can watch what actually happened.

https://nypost.com/video/armed-bysta...lleged-killer/

Check out the old couple starting at the 0.16 mark, walk right past completely and totally oblivious.

The music incorporated into the video is stupid and so is the armed citizen. I guess he's watched too many episodes of Blue Bloods where guns are pulled all the time but never fired and they're touting him as a hero? Armchair hero rhetoric is easy to spout but I think I could have held my ground and plugged the guy when he got within ten feet and closing and felt fine over it. Now the taxpayers will spend ungodly amounts of money for that loser's trial(s) and incarceration.

[Gunsnwater]

I haven't watched the video yet, so I have zero comment on the gun owner's actions. That said...

Any time someone asks me about helping them get a gun for self or home protection, I address them thusly:

If you want to have a gun for protection, you need to realize what that means. Defending with a gun means you might need to shoot someone who doesn't run from the mere sight of it. Shooting them has the distinct potential to end their life. I need you to be able to tell me, right here, right now, under no stress, that you could kill someone if necessary to protect yourself and/or your family. If you can't deal with that concept, having a gun for defense is a bad idea for many reasons <which I could enumerate>. By all means, if you want a range toy, get one, but keep it locked up when you're not using it. Don't think having it is some magic talisman of protection.

My 2¢

I’m picturing gunny in full metal jacket.

[marinville]

Do people really think there is a certain speed threshold to be met when someone is advancing on you with a knife and ignoring commands to stop. Because, well, fuck that. I'm issuing one command to this nutcase and then he's plant food.

[alpacaheat]

I'd say he did fine. The guy didn't come at him and didn't stab anyone else, and police got him.

[scruff]

I'd say he did fine. The guy didn't come at him and didn't stab anyone else, and police got him.

Exactly. He drew the perp's attention to himself, which may have saved others.

[SgtRecon]

Again, what was the point of him carrying a weapon?

I once was getting my riding gear on leaving a friends house after a late eagles game on a dark street when two fellas visibly drinking with quarts in paper bags walked up to me and said "we are taking that motorcycle" I simply opened my jacket to show them my stainless 1911 in a shoulder holster, stating to them "you don't want this bike,move along" they became very polite saying its cool we were joking, down the street they went.

So you are suggesting I should have drawn and shot them both ?