Pranksters Lucky no CCW holder was around

[aworldexport]

You just don't get it farronwolf.Most people here agree the threat potential was present.At a minimum because they ordered everyone to the ground while implying they had weapons.Sure there are tons of variables for someone who was there. But at the very least the ingredients for confrontation were there.I can play your game too.Maybe the guy who didnt get down had bad knees or bad back and couldn't get down on the ground. We can go on and on with assumptions. The point of the whole thread was obvious in title. By implication with what information was provided in the article, there was a clear and present danger. Your argument is like a police officer ordering a suspect to raise hands but they go for their pocket. In your reasoning the officer must wait until a gun is produced and fired before the officer could legally act.After all the officer is "just" assuming the guy has a weapon.We all know that such acts would be a justification for the officer to shoot.Your argument doesnt hold water.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[kaboomkaboom]

... The point of the whole thread was obvious in title....

Yes it was...the point was that those stupid kids playing an even stupider prank were lucky there wasn't a CCW holder there or they would have been shot...My point is not all ccw holders would have started shooting until they had accessed the situation...I don't even believe an undercover officer ( or uniformed,tho the prank probably wouldn't have happened had an uniform been there) would have drawn and fired...they would have ordered "Let me see your Hands!!!Hands out of the pockets, On the Floor NOW!" to the perpetrators of this misguided prank...then re-accessed ... I'm not so sure the state wouldn't file charges against one who shot in this situation, but even if they decided not to, just because you might legally be in the right to take someones life doesn't mean you should or that it is the more prudent action to take...Speaking from actual experience, when you shoot someone and kill them...even if vindicated as a righteous shooting...you don't affect just the one shot, but his entire family and, your entire life, family mental state for ever...Had the title of the thread been "Prankters lucky no undercover LEO was around" I would have agreed whole heartedly...because they are trained to deal with such situations in the most effective and prudent manner...

[farronwolf]

You just don't get it farronwolf.Most people here agree the threat potential was present.At a minimum because they ordered everyone to the ground while implying they had weapons.Sure there are tons of variables for someone who was there. But at the very least the ingredients for confrontation were there.I can play your game too.Maybe the guy who didnt get down had bad knees or bad back and couldn't get down on the ground. We can go on and on with assumptions. The point of the whole thread was obvious in title. By implication with what information was provided in the article, there was a clear and present danger. Your argument is like a police officer ordering a suspect to raise hands but they go for their pocket. In your reasoning the officer must wait until a gun is produced and fired before the officer could legally act.After all the officer is "just" assuming the guy has a weapon.We all know that such acts would be a justification for the officer to shoot.Your argument doesnt hold water.

Just because "most" people see it one way doesn't make them right or wrong, nor does it make those who see it differently right or wrong. Were the ingredients for confrontation there, yes. Does that mean it deadly force should have been used, or there was no other option but to use deadly force, no.

I keep hearing threat potential or perceived threat. If folks shot everyone who presented a "potential or preceived" threat, there would be a whole lot of "innocent" people in jail and a lot of injured or dead folks to go along with them.

You are completely wrong in trying to transfer my "reasoning" over to an officer who tells someone to put their hands in the air. Are you suggesting that CHL holders are police officers and should act as if they are? If you want to play it out like a police officer would have, then you would need to include a loud verbal command while engaging the "perceived" threat, to verify that there was an actual threat.

[nedrgr21]

I seriously doubt any LEO would still have their gun holstered when ordering these idiots to take their hands out of their pockets when there is the potential for a gun to come out.

No one is saying deadly force should've been used, we're saying it would be justified - it's a difference in looking at the situation in hindsight and restricting one's opinion to the information available when the kids first enter the Subway.

[kaboomkaboom]

I seriously doubt any LEO would still have their gun holstered when ordering these idiots to take their hands out of their pockets when there is the potential for a gun to come out.

No one is saying deadly force should've been used, we're saying it would be justified - it's a difference in looking at the situation in hindsight and restricting one's opinion to the information available when the kids first enter the Subway.

I am responding to the title of this thread indicating that had a CCW holder been there he would have shot someone...The thread title didn't asked the question of if shooting in this case would have been justified... rather it implied that any CCW there would have started shooting...I, for one, wouldn't have until and unless I had accessed a REAL threat...had justification been the point of this thread as originally posted I would have simply said for me,justification to shoot someone had better be extremely clear to everyone...I am not ready to live the Zimmerman lifestyle....

[aworldexport]

Rolls eyes. Oh brother..who said the "only" solution was to shoot? again your reading into the post something that is not there. The ingredients for a terrible outcome were present. Thats all. based on just the surface facts there was the potential for a response from an armed citizen. Thats all..geeesh..What was implied by the thread title was that there "COULD" have been a response. Several remarks about skittles and zimmerman..why on earth do you carry? and why on earth are you teaching folks to carry?Why not just hang it up and teach people how to dial 911 correctly and wait.Some folks argue just for arguing sake.

[kaboomkaboom]

Some folks argue just for arguing sake.

Indeed...and you are he of whom you speak!

[Bill MO]

Had the title of the thread been "Prankters lucky no undercover LEO was around" I would have agreed whole heartedly...because they are trained to deal with such situations in the most effective and prudent manner...

So are you saying you are not trained to handle the situation? Unlike the LEO you are not there to arrest the BG, your job is to do everything you can to go home safe and sound. Your job to stop any threat which may interfere with that goal.

I am responding to the title of this thread indicating that had a CCW holder been there he would have shot someone...The thread title didn't asked the question of if shooting in this case would have been justified... rather it implied that any CCW there would have started shooting...I, for one, wouldn't have until and unless I had accessed a REAL threat...had justification been the point of this thread as originally posted I would have simply said for me,justification to shoot someone had better be extremely clear to everyone...I am not ready to live the Zimmerman lifestyle....

As to having to live the Zimmerman lifestyle, that can be applied to most any case where you shoot someone. Especially when it is white on black, once the media and other hate groups take to screaming for justice those in charge lose all of what little backbone they very had. They no longer look at the facts they only hear the masses. They try to quiet the affair by charging you with the crime then you have to show your innocence.

As to would I have shot someone in this situation? I don't know I was not there, but I can definitely see someone getting shot if the game is not stopped. And YES I think someone would be justified to do so. Looks to real to the crime they are trying to make you think is going down.

[kaboomkaboom]

So are you saying you are not trained to handle the situation? Unlike the LEO you are not there to arrest the BG, your job is to do everything you can to go home safe and sound. Your job to stop any threat which may interfere with that goal.

No, I am not trained to handle a situation with multiple civilians present , employees present, and multiple POSSIBLE threats present. That type of training is generally reserved for members of law enforcement, and often only elite LEO's. I am not trained to the degree of law enforcement in accessing shoot/no shoot situations. Therefore I prefer to make certain that the threat is real before I take action. I am trained to make decisions regarding my own personal safety which may extend to others in given situations. I can also say, through my military experience, I am trained in handling adrenalin dump that comes in a situation like this and retain my ability to access a situation. Therefore I feel no compunction to resort to deadly force based on a perception there may be a threat until I am secure in the knowledge the threat is real. Even in an area of military conflict one is required to do the same by rules of engagement.The threat must be real and verifiable. In this case, for me, it did not rise to that level. My job is not only to go home "safe and sound" (and the sound part can become problematic), but to be able to know that what action I took was the amount of force required to ensure my safety and nothing more.

As to having to live the Zimmerman lifestyle, that can be applied to most any case where you shoot someone. Especially when it is white on black, once the media and other hate groups take to screaming for justice those in charge lose all of what little backbone they very had. They no longer look at the facts they only hear the masses. They try to quiet the affair by charging you with the crime then you have to show your innocence.

Yes it can and almost certainly WILL be applied to most any case....I was actually involved in shooting someone. It was an obvious fact that I feared for my life and he was threatening to do great bodily harm to me, and that the shooting was justified. Because this happened at my home, my house was ransacked while they searched to see if there was "anything illegal involved in the confrontation"...and no, I do not have any criminal history...(and yes, I live in a castle law state) I was still brought in for numerous interviews and the case was referred to the grand jury...that is a scary situation in and of itself. No charges were brought... after months of stress and worry I thought it was over when I was never charged with a crime. The DA never told me what was going on and if I would be charged or not. Period. Eventually my lawyer informed me that no charges would be brought, but they could be at a later date... that's a great burden to carry. I spent thousands of dollars of money out of the kids college fund to defend myself...as I said..I thought it was over when I was never charged with a crime...not so fast tho... I was also sued by the family of the man I killed for wrongful death. After many months more time and more money in attorney fees, it became apparent to me that if the criminal legal process hadn't completely drained me dry, the civil one would, and I elected to settle out of court...which many took as some how implying that I must be guilty of something...No, I just couldn't afford to fight it any longer...it was cheaper to pay them something and be done with it both financially and emotionally. Even tho the court ordered them to do so, my weapon has never been return . You will also be surprised at the number of people..including .friends, such as they were, and employers...who will want nothing to do with you...sure some hung around but many just didn't feel comfortable around me anymore and drifted off...My wife lost friends and was subject to ridicule and constant questions and she wasn't even there! I won't go into the problems this caused for my children in their lives at school, boy scouts, sports...really every aspect...I could go on for days about how this affected me and those around me, but suffice to say it was the most horrific time I have had in my life....But, yes...I did go home safe... the "sound" part was questionable for awhile...I have been there and done that before and let me assure you, it is much easier to say " it is what it is and I am prepared to deal with it" when you have never had to actually live through it...as for me, would I shoot him again in the same situation? Damn Right I would...because I would once again access the situation fully and KNOW that the shooting was not just legally "justified" , but the right and only thing to do...I am very glad that the man I shot was a real, verifiable threat and not some kid putting a bag of dog poop on my porch as a misguided prank... Shooting someone and killing them is not all some who have never done it crack it up to be...

As to would I have shot someone in this situation? I don't know I was not there, but I can definitely see someone getting shot if the game is not stopped. And YES I think someone would be justified to do so. Looks to real to the crime they are trying to make you think is going down.

I do know that in the situation as presented I would not have shot. I agree with you I could see someone shooting in this situation, but as presented, the round would not have come from my weapon.

That is all

[Bill MO]

Kaboom, as to your not being trained to handle situations. You have already been in one (I am glad you where trained to handle it) and you may be in another one and have no idea what it will be. As a family loving man you owe it to yourself and your family to get as much training as you possibly can to cover all situations that you can. Be able to handle them as a CCer not a LEO. You do not need the same training as they do, your action in a situation it different than theirs. May I suggest you learn to gunfight not just to shoot while standing still. I have found doing FOF to be the closest thing there is to a actual gunfight without actually being in one. You will come out of this knowing if what training you have works or not. You also have some idea as to what you need to learn to better your chance in a situation.

I agree there is far more to a gunfight than the fight its self. After it's all over the troubles are just getting started.

Sorry to hear of all you went through with your situation. One nice thing about the state of MO if you are not found guilty you can not be sued in civil court. As to the lose of friends I think where you live may have a lot to do with that. I live rural and people look at things different than city folk. Death is part of live on a farm. But I am sure there would be some of that here also.

I know it was hard on you and your family. But no matter how bad things get if we can keep the love of family and love in the family we can face most anything. Just think how hard it would have been on your family if you or another member of your family had been killed.

As to can you or anyone else say they would or would not have shot in this situation. I don't think you can say either way without being in that Subway at the time. All situations are different sitting at your keyboard from when you are facing the tiger in the face.

[kaboomkaboom]

Kaboom, as to your not being trained to handle situations. You have already been in one (I am glad you where trained to handle it) and you may be in another one and have no idea what it will be. As a family loving man you owe it to yourself and your family to get as much training as you possibly can to cover all situations that you can. Be able to handle them as a CCer not a LEO.

I do train in armed point shooting, and I have done shoot house amongst other advanced training technics...I feel very well trained and capable to defend myself and my family, including a deep understanding of legal and personal implications of firearms use in self-defense...those are the reasons why I feel confident in saying in the situation as presented, I would not have shot....Thank you for your concern, and here is hoping you never find yourself in the same situation as I did that evening...

[Crowman]

I wonder if those patrons that "hit the floor" on the pranksters command firmly believe it was a robbery/attempted robbery in progress. Do you think they feared for their lives? What if someone was so traumatized and had a heart attack and died do the "prank"?

Another food for thought, now days the criminal element is far far younger then they have ever been.

[mlr1m]

If I were in an establishment when someone came in and ordered everyone to get on the floor I would assume that at the very least I was about to be robbed. I would also assume the person doing it to be willing to do me great bodily harm.

Michael

[xsigma40cal]

This is tantamount to yelling FIRE in a movie theater, it could be difficult for the DA to construe that their actions implied an attempt at armed robbery since no weapon was drawn or cash was demanded. My honest opinion, this is a case of criminal mischief that could have gone horribly wrong had someone opened fire on these teens. Lets be grateful that didnt happen, because CCer's have enough grief to deal with because of this Trayvon Martin ordeal.

[kaboomkaboom]

If I were in an establishment when someone came in and ordered everyone to get on the floor I would assume that at the very least I was about to be robbed. I would also assume the person doing it to be willing to do me great bodily harm.

Michael

I, for one will not shoot someone because I "Assumed" anything...I will shoot someone if they are a real, viable threat...you know what they say happens when one assumes....