Pranksters Lucky no CCW holder was around

So being wise means waiting to see if they really really really mean it that they really really have a gun in their pocket ready to fire and wait till they really really do pull it fire and blow your brains out?Go ahead obey their orders get on the ground and hope they dont kill you on the way out?This is wisdom?Folks in the shop were interviewed and i would think if one of the patrons was armed it would have got a mention.Why would they mention there was no CCW there. Might as well ask why didnt the news report that there wasnt a clown with big floppy shoes there either.

And where is all this time your talking about to figure out its all a bunch of kids playing a joke?Nobody is suggesting going off halfcocked blasting away if a pin drops,nor suggesting even that i would have shot in this situatio after all i wasn't there.. but you have to admit this was a dangerous game they played and they should count their blessings one of them didnt get killed.
You seem to suggest that a CCW who did fire in this situation would be unjustified. Nobody knows exactly what they would do unless they were there.But the overall picture of a takeover robbery does lend itself to a very dangerous situation.

And your headline " Vigilante shoots and kills multiple unarmed teenagers playing Prank". I could care less what lies the liberal media would print. Look at justifiable shootings where the press has printed lies. Happens all the time.Sorry but all the blame for what could have happen falls on the idiots who pulled this "prank".
So yes i stand by my original posting"Good thing there wasn't any CCw's around".

I love Internet bravado.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoganbeg

Then the lesson would be: assume it's a prank unless a weapon is shown? I guess the bottom line is: Did you truly fear for your life, and would a jury think the same? I suspect so.

---

No...The lesson would be to be prudent in drawing and using your weapon...I know this isn't the case in this story, but if you were in a restaurant and someone yelled "get down" because they saw a light fixture break loose swinging towards you, that you hadn't noticed, should you shoot them? Why do you think virtually every business has a policy that if being robbed, give them the money, do not resist? Because it is a very rare occurrence that even an armed robber shoots someone who isn't resisting... Police recommend you do not interfere because you may shoot other patrons, or create a gun fight that never would have happened...they also would like you to remain alive to be a good witness..I'll follow the advise of the law enforcement professionals..you , are of course entitled to do as you see fit...just don't be surprised if some other overzealous CCW Holder (Or Law Enforcement) sees you with your weapon shooting people and decides YOU are the bad guy and shoots you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aworldexport

So being wise means waiting to see if they really really really mean it that they really really have a gun in their pocket ready to fire and wait till they really really do pull it fire and blow your brains out?Go ahead obey their orders get on the ground and hope they dont kill you on the way out?This is wisdom?Folks in the shop were interviewed and i would think if one of the patrons was armed it would have got a mention.Why would they mention there was no CCW there. Might as well ask why didnt the news report that there wasnt a clown with big floppy shoes there either.

And where is all this time your talking about to figure out its all a bunch of kids playing a joke?Nobody is suggesting going off halfcocked blasting away if a pin drops,nor suggesting even that i would have shot in this situatio after all i wasn't there.. but you have to admit this was a dangerous game they played and they should count their blessings one of them didnt get killed.
You seem to suggest that a CCW who did fire in this situation would be unjustified. Nobody knows exactly what they would do unless they were there.But the overall picture of a takeover robbery does lend itself to a very dangerous situation.

And your headline " Vigilante shoots and kills multiple unarmed teenagers playing Prank". I could care less what lies the liberal media would print. Look at justifiable shootings where the press has printed lies. Happens all the time.Sorry but all the blame for what could have happen falls on the idiots who pulled this "prank".
So yes i stand by my original posting"Good thing there wasn't any CCw's around".

---

Stand by what ever makes you feel like John Wayne...If I had been there I would not have mentioned I was carrying unless ask...i was taught 'always carry,never tell'... I MAY have had my weapon at the ready, but I KNOW I wouldn't have shot unless and until there was a direct, verifiable, threat...I do care about the headline because it will have an effect, negative at that, on EVERYONE else who is a responsible gun owner and concealed carrier, and give much more ammunition to those who oppose our right to bear arms. Every major piece of anti-gun legislation has been passed after some type of event that had day after day, week after week of headlines screaming what stupid and irresponsible people gun owners are.

I am hopeful your kid or grandchild is never shot because he acts like a stupid kid...who knows, maybe you'll have the chance to shoot one of your own! That'll teach em a lesson!

So cavalier about taking a life, many on this board seem to be...

Like all situations it comes down the the quote from Guantes in my sig line "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" While I have not seen any video of the situation in KS I did watch the video of the guy in the UK. If I had been present in that situation and the shot was there shots would have been fired. His actions from the time he came in was HOLD UP. Not only that but his hyped up action after he was in was someone who needed to be put down before he reproduced.

To react to a deadly threat does not mean the threat has to really be there but that you perceive the threat to be present and can show that to a jury. Just like you shooting someone with a toy gun, you thought it to be real.

Question for those who say there was no threat present--do you get on the floor if someone in your house yells get on the floor? Or do you look at them and question as to WHY? I saw no questioning looks from those in the video I saw. What I did see was people go down because they felt fear.

Yes one needs to think a little before acting in any situation but with this game I see someone getting killed if it's not stopped because it is simulating a act of crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aworldexport

So being wise means waiting to see if they really really really mean it that they really really have a gun in their pocket ready to fire and wait till they really really do pull it fire and blow your brains out?

---

Why yes, being wise means you know exactly what the threat is before you shoot someone. Being wise means that you would listen well enough to know that no demands other than get on the ground were being shouted.

Quote:

---

Go ahead obey their orders get on the ground and hope they dont kill you on the way out?This is wisdom?

---

Why would have have to get on the ground? If you take the split second to access your weapon and be ready for any attack that may present itself, and get yourself into a position to deal with any real threat that does present itself, you are much better off than simply laying on the ground as requested.

Quote:

---

And where is all this time your talking about to figure out its all a bunch of kids playing a joke?Nobody is suggesting going off halfcocked blasting away if a pin drops,nor suggesting even that i would have shot in this situatio after all i wasn't there.. but you have to admit this was a dangerous game they played and they should count their blessings one of them didnt get killed.
You seem to suggest that a CCW who did fire in this situation would be unjustified. Nobody knows exactly what they would do unless they were there.But the overall picture of a takeover robbery does lend itself to a very dangerous situation.

---

If you are thinking about shooting before you are thinking about making sure the threat is valid, you could very well find yourself in the position of being half cocked and blasting away. If the simple act of someone screaming wildly and walking around with their hands in their pockets leads you to immediately think about shooting them when you aren't there, then there might be a good chance you would act that way if you really are there.

Observe
Orient
Decide
Act

Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.

Update: The people in the restaurant were white supremacists, and the attackers were anti-racists. Adds a different dimension to the situation. I don't know how you feel about American Nazis, but I'm with the Blue Brothers when they drive over the bridge and make the Nazis dive into the water.

To be clear: This is a free country with free expression and First Amendment, etc. Also, one should expect that if you run around with swastikas and promote racial supremacy, you should expect people with pipes to show up and attack you. It's a variation on the "Silly Hat Rule."

Unreal.Ok yeah there was no threat it was all fun and games nothing dangerous about their prank and anyone who even thought of doing anything to protect themself is just a gunho vigilante looking to gun down any person they can. Because after all CCW are just police wanna bes lookin to be a hero. Yeah right i get it.. What a bunch of rubbish.John Wayne? I wish people would stop reading into peoples posts things that are not there.I never said id shoot i never said what i would do. I said i wasnt there to access the entire situation looks on faces body movements etc..All i said was it was a dangerous game those kids were playing and things could have gone bad.

Tips ten gallon hat and rides off into the sunset lookin for more crooks to gun down in a "spray" of hot lead.

Shockwave: You're in the wrong thread.

Chad, Kaboom, and Farronwolf: Ya'll are missing the point of the thread. Whether or not there was an actual attempt or intent to do anything criminal is irrelevant at the instant the teens burst into the business - intent would only be relevant to the DA when filing charges in some circumstances. A drunk driver's intent to get home is irrelevant if s/he kills someone in an accident. The only relevant truth is whether or not any one person in the Subway was in reasonable fear for their life or of great bodily harm. In that instant, if there was such a person, then that person would be morally and legally justified in shooting. Other than that, falling light fixtures, headlines, wild screeming - all that talk is mental masturbation. There were no falling light fixtures and an appropriate warning would not be for everyone to get down on the ground. The screaming wasn't wild; it was orders being yelled consistent with what one would expect if the business was being robbed and it was reasonable to assume that there was a weapon involved as everyone did get on the ground and businesses have been held up in the past by someone holding a gun and/or just a finger in their pocket - either way the crook goes to jail for armed robbery.

There's been an update in the story where the police have stated that "citizens could have used force during the incident if they had felt they were in danger."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill MO

Like all situations it comes down the the quote from Guantes in my sig line "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" While I have not seen any video of the situation in KS I did watch the video of the guy in the UK. If I had been present in that situation and the shot was there shots would have been fired. His actions from the time he came in was HOLD UP. Not only that but his hyped up action after he was in was someone who needed to be put down before he reproduced.

To react to a deadly threat does not mean the threat has to really be there but that you perceive the threat to be present and can show that to a jury. Just like you shooting someone with a toy gun, you thought it to be real.

Question for those who say there was no threat present--do you get on the floor if someone in your house yells get on the floor? Or do you look at them and question as to WHY? I saw no questioning looks from those in the video I saw. What I did see was people go down because they felt fear.

Yes one needs to think a little before acting in any situation but with this game I see someone getting killed if it's not stopped because it is simulating a act of crime.

---

You might re watch the video. The one fellow in the bottom right in the second event definately hesitates to get on the ground. He sits in his chair long after everyone else drops to the ground. BTW, where does deadly force against someone who is deemed too stupid to be able to reproduce come from? Yea, I know you were kidding.

There is a huge difference between being in ones home and being in a public place, if one doesn't realize that any discussion is just about pointless. You have complete control over your home. You don't have control over a public place. You choose to be in the public place as does everyone else, and therefore you choose some level of risk and or inconvience to be in the public.

Some toy guns look remarkably similar to real guns. It would be very beneficial to see a video of what the OP posted, but apparently there isn't one, or if there is it is being held for evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedrgr21

Shockwave: You're in the wrong thread.

Chad, Kaboom, and Farronwolf: Ya'll are missing the point of the thread. Whether or not there was an actual attempt or intent to do anything criminal is irrelevant at the instant the teens burst into the business - intent would only be relevant to the DA when filing charges in some circumstances. A drunk driver's intent to get home is irrelevant if s/he kills someone in an accident. The only relevant truth is whether or not any one person in the Subway was in reasonable fear for their life or of great bodily harm. In that instant, if there was such a person, then that person would be morally and legally justified in shooting. Other than that, falling light fixtures, headlines, wild screeming - all that talk is mental masturbation. There were no falling light fixtures and an appropriate warning would not be for everyone to get down on the ground. The screaming wasn't wild; it was orders being yelled consistent with what one would expect if the business was being robbed and it was reasonable to assume that there was a weapon involved as everyone did get on the ground and businesses have been held up in the past by someone holding a gun and/or just a finger in their pocket - either way the crook goes to jail for armed robbery.

There's been an update in the story where the police have stated that "citizens could have used force during the incident if they had felt they were in danger."

---

I am not missing the point of the thread at all. I simply feel there would have been plenty of time in the scenario posted to take measures to find out if the threat was real before using deadly force.

So given your scenario that a person in the restaurant felt it was reasonable to use deadly force against the fellows with hands in pockets telling folks to get on the ground, and that person used deadly force. Say there were 20 other folks in the restaurant that didn't see a true threat. Are the one persons actions reasonable still if 95% of the people there didn't agree with the 5%?

That is right the police said people could have used deadly force if they felt their life was in danger, but the prosecutor might still disagree with the actions and look to put the shooter in prison for unjustified use of deadly force. BTW, we still don't know the head count of the urban skittles in this case. I hope anyone who can provide more info will as it becomes available.

One more point. Armed robbery with a finger in the pocket usually has demands for money or other property. In this case no demands were made except for people to get on the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dukalmighty

I'm wondering which rocket scientist video taped it so they could put it on youtube.You walk into a business and act like your robbing the place you at the very least committed an aggravated assault on the people inside.

---

I would say it's a least attempted robbery. Same as if you did it with a toy gun. If you state it's a robbery then it is an attempt. I hope the charge the kids so others stop doing something so dangerous!

FW: you're still missing it. If someone with a gun responded with deadly force as soon as the kid busted into the building, it would be justified; it wouldn't matter if the kid had planned on robbing the place or not. Citizens do not have to wait until a gun is actually pointed at them to respond.

You need to quit making stuff up as you go along. What if the one person out of 20 in your scenario had a different vantage point from the others and believed there was a gun? Then yes, that one person is totally justified. Some people may freeze in the situation; does that mean that the one person that is attentive to their surroundings must wait for everyone else to catch up to what is going on before reacting? Absolutely not.

As soon as one person recognizes or perceives a serious threat to themselves or others, they are justified; regardless of what others around them are aware of. Maybe you should take a refresher course on deadly force before you teach any more classes.

You stay bust into a building, what did they bust? You are assuming you know how they entered the restaurant, you do not.

The article says they walked into the building with hands in their pockets ordering everyone on the floor. Maybe you need to stop adding stuff to the report or scenario. You don't know if that is busting into, or simply walking into the building calmly, again the article says walked, not busted or burst or ran, or anything you are trying to add.

The OP didnt' say what the point of the thread was. He simply posted the link to the story. Not till post 46 did he even comment on the thread. In fact the OP says he doesn't know what he would do because he wasn't there, which is probably the only correct answer to this behavior.

No a person doesn't have to wait till a gun is pointed at them to respond. However they should not respond simply because they think someone might have a gun either without seeing a threat or a threat being expressed. In this case, there was zero threat of bodily injury or death and there was no expression that such a threat existed. Going off the percieved notion of a threat can get one into very hot water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedBeau

I would say it's a least attempted robbery. Same as if you did it with a toy gun. If you state it's a robbery then it is an attempt. I hope the charge the kids so others stop doing something so dangerous!

---

The article said nothing about the kids stating it was a robbery.