Sad/Something To Consider
This is a discussion on Sad/Something To Consider within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; While it did not turn out to be the best strategy, I can see possible reasoning for the officer's announcement/challange. The challenge could possibly eliminate ...
October 18th, 2010 05:50 PM
While it did not turn out to be the best strategy, I can see possible reasoning for the officer's announcement/challange. The challenge could possibly eliminate his shooting an armed employee running from the robber. There have been threads here of employees that were armed in violation of company policy. It may have been a reluctance to shoot a susp without a call. I have no way of knowing what he was thinking, but I see possible reasons for his action. Whatever it was, it proved less than satisfactory in this incident. In a different incident, it could turn out to be the best action.
"I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".
October 18th, 2010 07:00 PM
If he can fire 11 rounds in a combat situation at aprox 15 to 20 yards and get 10/11 hits...he can place a round in the bad guy's mellon before the guy has a chance to react and end the threat.
Originally Posted by 21bubba
People wargame for specific situations - but their self image also has a lot to do with how they react.
If your self image is that of the 'warrior' or 'sheepdog' it will effect the way you fight. You have a pride investment in your actions. "I won't be able to look myself in the mirror if I don't act..."
How's that reflection treating you now...
October 18th, 2010 07:58 PM
As a LEO, I can't say whether or not what he did was right or wrong. But as a citizen, I carry to protect myself and others WITH me. I'm not going to interfere with some random robbery. I would have gotten myself and my family the hell out of there ASAP. If the robbery was directed toward me, I would act accordingly.
It's really easy to sit here, in the comfort of your own home, with minimal risks, and say how you'd deal with this situation. We can train all we want, but when **** goes down, it goes down fast. Some citzen's may train, but not nearly to the degree as a LEO/SWAT member. And even they don't always get it right.
October 18th, 2010 08:18 PM
October 18th, 2010 08:18 PM
This LA Times article indicates that it is not known which person opened fire first, the officer or the criminal. http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-...bertson-family
Whether or not the post on the other forum was from the actual officer or from someone trying to make a point is not really known for sure.
If the off duty officer was responding to an immediate threat to his life, however tragic it is that the little girl lost her life, the officer might have done the only thing he could to ensure the safety of his own.
The criminal is responsible for the girls death, not the officer. You can't say what the officer did was wrong, or if even if he had been a lowly CHL holder that had done the same thing that it would be wrong either.
15 to 20 yards inside a Mc Donalds from the order counter to the office when the officer saw the bg. 45 to 60 feet between the bg and the cop, and another 30 feet beyond the cop to the little girl. Fire exit locked, or the family didn't go out one of the two doors that is on each side of the order counter at every Mc Donalds I have ever been in. There are some things in the forum posting that don't entirely add up. Just some observations.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
October 18th, 2010 08:54 PM
One thing that should be kept in mind is that the officers first intent was to get his family and other potential victims out of the location and only confronted the susp when it was thrust upon him.
"I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".
October 18th, 2010 09:43 PM
This story and the comments here bring to mind the case of that ex-marine, John Lovell, who shot two robbers at that Subway shop in Miami. The story's linked above in case you didn't see it.
In this situation, Lovell was armed with a .45 and had a reload mag available, but didn't open fire until the perps starting herding him back to the restroom. All situations involving armed robbery are different, but as a general rule, Lovell's example seems to be a good policy: If there isn't an imminent shooting scenario, don't start one. Same for the usual convenience-store situations we discuss here all the time.
The thinking behind this is that you have no guarantee of what's going to happen once you draw and start shooting. The BGs might just stand there, taking what you send their way, they might start shooting back, they might shoot the clerk or other bystanders - it's all unpredictable. In a way, it's also selfish to initiate a shooting situation with unarmed innocents around: they don't have guns and are helpless as bullets start flying around.
As long as there is a significant likelihood that the situation will resolve peacefully, without injury to anyone, based on your read of the event, it's probably best to pursue it if you can. All of this assumes, of course, that we're talking about being out in public. I take a strong stand on defense of the home for a great many reasons, chief among which is that your home is your castle and that what you are defending is your right to be secure in your domicile.
"It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."
October 18th, 2010 10:29 PM
Never would have left my family...YMMV
October 18th, 2010 10:47 PM
Originally Posted by RKM
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
- Frederic Bastiat
October 18th, 2010 11:04 PM
Generally speaking, as you say, that's true.
Originally Posted by MitchellCT
This guy was a cop, and he saw things differently. The motivation doesn't come off with the uniform.
I'm not saying that his viewpoint is superior to yours.
Just.....different, and I think it might be important to recognize that.
October 18th, 2010 11:32 PM
Another well stated comment. I don't think the original story-teller intended to say his actions were right or wrong, but they were his actions and in the end he had an opportunity to give readers like us a little insight into how he felt and how it affected him. Any of us that judge this right or wrong probably need to consider the LEO's attitude and perspective and just take in the facts as they're presented.
Originally Posted by Sergeant Mac
I do believe that rehearsing such scenario's is good practice -- SWAT teams, SEAL teams, Combat Controllers ..... and even the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, though you couldn't tell this on any given Sunday -- practice for a reason. The point, I think, he was trying to make, is to learn from his lesson. He's saying, here's the situation I found myself in, here's what I did, here's what happened, and here's how I feel about it.
Many people in this thread have made many good points, and none of us know how we'd react unless in the situation. But I'd bet if we re-read everything here, we'd find that we all agree on a few salient points: 1) protect you and yours; 2) protect others as you can; 3) don't start the battle; 4) if you have to finish the battle, be prepared to do so and be prepared to live with the consequences.
I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
1 Thess. 5:16-18
October 18th, 2010 11:53 PM
"I [an LEO] immediately noted the large semi-automatic pistol in his hand. The distance was about 15 to 20 yards. I drew my weapon, announced myself and took a kneeling position behind the counter. Unfortunately, the suspect raised his weapon at me and the gunfight erupted."
I do not announce myself.
I will not try to effect an arrest.
LEO's have a responsibility to bring criminals to justice, which involves attempting arrest wherever possible. Non-LEO's aren't under any such responsibility. Which is one key element that explains the off-duty cop's response and tactics. It's an important consideration, when evaluating being in a similar situation and considering whether one should or would attempt to do the same sort of thing.
Myself, I'm of the "no announce" sort. Damned if I'm going to yell "Freeze!" and risk the resulting full magazine in my chest for my efforts. If I am engaging, it's as quickly, surreptitiously and explosively as I am able to achieve ... screw whether the felon perpetrator has a problem with that.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
October 19th, 2010 03:33 AM
Good post, thanks.
This is the kind of thing I think of alot...and there is another thread right now...'have you thought about bystanders objecting?"
Yes... I have. I have said many times on here that once you introduce a gun into ANY scene, you have no idea how it will play out...it changes everything.
I know that sometimes if 'you hesitate, you're dead.' OK, fine. But with many scenarios presented here, most of the responses are, "2 COM, 1 to the head." Period. They have already decided that they will act, after checking backstop. Period. *smh* They justify it by saying that they are legally allowed to do so, they cant be sure that the bad guy wont shoot them all anyway, that one less bad guy is worth it, etc."
I try to remind people that they have NO idea how it will all go....and you have no idea who will call attention to you as you draw or who will move into *someone's* line of fire, or who is an off-duty cop......so to me, that automatic "I'm shooting and let the chips fall where they may" attitude is scary.
And no, I dont have a pat answer to every scenario. I'd just be happy to see more people acknowlege that THEIR actions with their guns may very well affect more than just them (I dont mind dyin' if I take them with me) and the bad guys. And I mean beyond legal actions.
Fortune favors the bold.
Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.
The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)
January 4th, 2011 10:57 PM
I was just sent this scenario by a member of the WA CCW forums.
I am not a LEO, but I think some of us who carry get the feeling we can save the day should a situation arise. Till date I have on more than one occasion saved myself from getting mugged.
When you think of it, even if the off duty LEO did nothing, the perp would have gotten away, McDonald's wouldn't really suffer any losses because they are insured.
Not sure if the LEO made sure the place was clear before he decided to open fire. In the confusion he may have missed that. Not blaming anyone here.
I just feel that the loss of the child was too big a price to pay for a few dollars stolen.
Aerospace Designer, Freemason, NRA member