Armed Citizen With Gun Does Nothing

[jakebrake]

Just because a person is armed with a gun, doesn’t mean they are mentally or physically (or think they are legally) capable of using lethal force in a situation.

Your posted situation is a perfect example.

I own a piano...doesn't make me a musician.

[jakebrake]

Gotcha.

But what if you're a cop?

shoot the closest dog?

[2DogsBarking]

Just thought of something positive for his response - he didn't shoot a warning shot........ never shoot a "warning" shot.... (I know preaching to the choir here..)

Warning shots to the body..............
Head shots when I'm serious................

[Carson]

To stand by and allow innocent people to be killed, because you fear the ramifications of doing the right thing is simply cowardice.

When did you decide what was the right thing? After you read the outcome? It is much different, especially when you are standing on the “X”. And a perfect example is all of the different opinions of what tactics to use. You guys can’t agree on that and you want them to decide what is the right thing to do tactically, legally, morally, etc. ?

[marinville]

When did you decide what was the right thing? After you read the outcome? It is much different, especially when you are standing on the “X”. And a perfect example is all of the different opinions of what tactics to use. You guys can’t agree on that and you want them to decide what is the right thing to do tactically, legally, morally, etc. ?

The post you quoted was not in reference to the situation in the OP of this thread. It was only in response to the comment I had quoted, where a poster had said never to risk using your firearm for anything other than personal self defense, because you might be prosecuted and it isn't worth it to save a stranger (I'm paraphrasing here)

The 'right thing' I was referring to, was simply not to stand by and allow innocent people to be killed. I do hope that can be universally recognized as 'what's right'.

Again, this does not pertain to the situation in the video we have all been discussing.

[Defender]

Is the point of carrying a gun to shoot someone? In other words, if you carry a gun and don't shoot everyone you're legally or morally justified in shooting, is that automatically a fail?

No, the point of carrying a weapon is not to shoot someone, the point is to protect yourself and others. In this case the firearm was immaterial to what was happening. The guy carrying the knife did not drop his weapon and surrender when the armed citizen drew down on him. In point of fact, he advanced on the armed citizen. The guy with the knife was in control here, not the guy with the gun. He ( the knifeman) could have just walked away in the other direction and leave the area as the guy with the gun was not going to do anything. This thing only ended when the pepper spray and the tazer was used, the gun had little to do in subduing this guy. So I will repeat, in this case what was the point of him carrying the gun and then pulling it out?

[scruff]

No, the point of carrying a weapon is not to shoot someone, the point is to protect yourself and others. In this case the firearm was immaterial to what was happening. The guy carrying the knife did not drop his weapon and surrender when the armed citizen drew down on him. In point of fact, he advanced on the armed citizen. The guy with the knife was in control here, not the guy with the gun. He ( the knifeman) could have just walked away in the other direction and leave the area as the guy with the gun was not going to do anything. This thing only ended when the pepper spray and the tazer was used, the gun had no part in this. So I will repeat, in this case what was the point of him carrying the gun and then pulling it out?

I see it totally differently. The gun played the key part in this. Why did the perp fixate on him? Because he had the gun. He had control. The perp wanted him to fire, correct? But he didn't. He chose to walk back instead of firing. He drew the perp away from the building, he chose to wait until the police came, and he stayed aimed in, so he could have fired at any instant if the status quo changed. That wasn't a fail, it was a huge win.

[sota]

Justified? Sure.
Necessary? That's what's debatable.

He didn't seem to be in any sort of hurry to hurt anyone else.

I'd love to hear GL's take on this, in terms of what a jury might be told or thinking about.

[Hodgie]

No, the point of carrying a weapon is not to shoot someone, the point is to protect yourself and others. In this case the firearm was immaterial to what was happening. The guy carrying the knife did not drop his weapon and surrender when the armed citizen drew down on him. In point of fact, he advanced on the armed citizen. The guy with the knife was in control here, not the guy with the gun. He ( the knifeman) could have just walked away in the other direction and leave the area as the guy with the gun was not going to do anything. This thing only ended when the pepper spray and the tazer was used, the gun had little to do in subduing this guy. So I will repeat, in this case what was the point of him carrying the gun and then pulling it out?

After the girlfriend was stabbed and the gun was pulled there was no further loss of life. Can we say without a doubt it was because the gun was pulled? No I guess we can’t but we can’t say it wasn’t either.

Regardless the man pulled the gun which got the guys attention and bought enough time to get the situation defused without further loss of life.

Win Win for everyone except for the poor woman who was killed.

[Hodgie]

I think your question would be valid if the gun guy allowed himself to be physically attacked or killed buy the knife guy.