Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not saying either guy was totally innocent. But the dead guy had a loooong history of anger issues, he was a former MCSO deputy and knew he was starting a gunfight when he got out of his truck with gun in hand. There's no reasoning with such people and, when you're blocked in at a red light and can't escape, a gun is your best defense. I was rear ended very hard a few years ago, saw the whole thing coming and I could not evade because I was blocked in on all sides at a red light.
From reading the articles it appears as if this incident could have been avoided if Bohls had not been so adamant as to race to get in front of Fickes, knowing that Fickes had become angry.
They were both in the wrong from the beginning. The end result was that one of them got killed, and peoples lives in the vehicles around them were endangered by Bohls firing.
It was obvious to Bohls that Fickes was upset when he started honking his horn and giving him the finger. The safest thing to do is to get out of the situation by ignoring the guy, and leave the scene. Bohles could have done that.
Instead, according to the article, he got into a macho thing with Fickes and began racing for position and ended up cutting in front of him to get to where he wanted to be. That was a big macho type mistake, in my opinion.
I've learned that if you have the choice of "flight" or "fight', you take flight. Bohls had that choice in the beginning; instead of fleeing, he apparently escalated the fight with Fickes by racing and cutting in front of him.
I believe if Bohls did not have a gun, that he would have done what I suggest, and that is to ignore the guy and get the hell out of there. Having his gun apparently gave him a greater sense of power.
Bohls action confirms my statement because as Fickes pulled up behind him (this was before Fickes had pulled out a gun), that Bohls got his gun out and had it in his hand as he opened the door. Would he have done that if he didn't have a gun? I don't think so.
Bohls won the gun fight because he apparently came out shooting, but he did not win the war. Now a man is dead, and Bohls will have to live with what he did for the rest of his life. In time he may realize that he could have avoided that situation by ignoring the other guy and going around the block instead of racing to try and get in front of someone who was obviously upset with him.
Because the other guy had pulled a gun, Bohls was apparently justified in shooting to protect his life. But, in my opinion, it should have never escalated that far.
There are plenty of men and women like Fickes out there who have anger problems. We should not let the fact that we have a gun give us the false impression of power and get sucked into a gunfight with this type individual when it's avoidable. That is not what carrying a weapon is all about.
You will probably never see a black belt Karate expert let him/herself get sucked into a situation like that. They have had years of training in their art, and they ONLY use it as a last resort. They have the confidence that they can take an opponent down, but the discipline to avoid any fight if possible.
Perhaps gun carriers should train like the Karate experts, so they become extremely proficient in handling the gun, and learn the patience to avoid provocative situations so as to not have the need to use it.
I have empathy for what Bohls will go through for the rest of his life, and sympathy for the Fickes family for their loss.
From reading the articles it appears as if this incident could have been avoided if Bohls had not been so adamant as to race to get in front of Fickes, knowing that Fickes had become angry.
They were both in the wrong from the beginning. The end result was that one of them got killed, and peoples lives in the vehicles around them were endangered by Bohls firing.
It was obvious to Bohls that Fickes was upset when he started honking his horn and giving him the finger. The safest thing to do is to get out of the situation by ignoring the guy, and leave the scene. Bohles could have done that.
Instead, according to the article, he got into a macho thing with Fickes and began racing for position and ended up cutting in front of him to get to where he wanted to be. That was a big macho type mistake, in my opinion.
I've learned that if you have the choice of "flight" or "fight', you take flight. Bohls had that choice in the beginning; instead of fleeing, he apparently escalated the fight with Fickes by racing and cutting in front of him.
I believe if Bohls did not have a gun, that he would have done what I suggest, and that is to ignore the guy and get the hell out of there. Having his gun apparently gave him a greater sense of power.
Bohls action confirms my statement because as Fickes pulled up behind him (this was before Fickes had pulled out a gun), that Bohls got his gun out and had it in his hand as he opened the door. Would he have done that if he didn't have a gun? I don't think so.
Bohls won the gun fight because he apparently came out shooting, but he did not win the war. Now a man is dead, and Bohls will have to live with what he did for the rest of his life. In time he may realize that he could have avoided that situation by ignoring the other guy and going around the block instead of racing to try and get in front of someone who was obviously upset with him.
Because the other guy had pulled a gun, Bohls was apparently justified in shooting to protect his life. But, in my opinion, it should have never escalated that far.
There are plenty of men and women like Fickes out there who have anger problems. We should not let the fact that we have a gun give us the false impression of power and get sucked into a gunfight with this type individual when it's avoidable. That is not what carrying a weapon is all about.
You will probably never see a black belt Karate expert let him/herself get sucked into a situation like that. They have had years of training in their art, and they ONLY use it as a last resort. They have the confidence that they can take an opponent down, but the discipline to avoid any fight if possible.
Perhaps gun carriers should train like the Karate experts, so they become extremely proficient in handling the gun, and learn the patience to avoid provocative situations so as to not have the need to use it.
I have empathy for what Bohls will go through for the rest of his life, and sympathy for the Fickes family for their loss.
To me this is no different from you having a gun. It seems to make you less afraid of being a real estate agent and allows you to act accordingly. You need your job so you prepare or you'd quit if it were so dangerous.
Guns are only purchased to enhance ones capabilities no? Wouldn't you just avoid a place with a squatter or call the police before entry if you did not have a gun? If not, why do you have one? Just in case? In case of what? I don't think you can really pre plan how you'd act in a situation like that. You might be at fault for a confrontation but that doesn't mean in the end you wouldn't try to save your life, or shouldn't try. Sounds like you are so practiced on avoiding issues that you don't need to carry. I don't think everyone can predict a situation all of the time, I also don't think you can avoid every situation. Yes, you might make the mistake of wondering into that gang area but once your there you might as well be able to get out. I wouldn't think I deserved a gun wound for making a mistake like that.
He might have been able to avoid it but in all situations there is that scenerio, it's called an afterthought. They aren't so easy to make before hand. A lot easier for someone like you to make after the fact. If only that was the way life was, I don't think we'd be having this here conversation.
To me this is no different from you having a gun. It seems to make you less afraid of being a real estate agent and allows you to act accordingly. You need your job so you prepare or you'd quit if it were so dangerous.
Guns are only purchased to enhance ones capabilities no? Wouldn't you just avoid a place with a squatter or call the police before entry if you did not have a gun? If not, why do you have one? Just in case? In case of what? I don't think you can really pre plan how you'd act in a situation like that. You might be at fault for a confrontation but that doesn't mean in the end you wouldn't try to save your life, or shouldn't try. Sounds like you are so practiced on avoiding issues that you don't need to carry. I don't think everyone can predict a situation all of the time, I also don't think you can avoid every situation. Yes, you might make the mistake of wondering into that gang area but once your there you might as well be able to get out. I wouldn't think I deserved a gun wound for making a mistake like that.
He might have been able to avoid it but in all situations there is that scenerio, it's called an afterthought. They aren't so easy to make before hand. A lot easier for someone like you to make after the fact. If only that was the way life was, I don't think we'd be having this here conversation.
Poppysead, I think you may not be completely clear on what those two guys did to precipitate that gun fight. There is a world of difference in what these two guys did to cause that gun fight to happen, and what I do by walking into vacant houses.
Poppysead, I think you may not be completely clear on what those two guys did to precipitate that gun fight. There is a world of difference in what these two guys did to cause that gun fight to happen, and what I do by walking into vacant houses.
That fight could have been avoided.
I guess I'm not understanding this thread. Did you ask us just to tell us that we should not precipitate a gun fight? I carry because I need protection and I'm not exactly sure what from yet Captain Bill but I will sure not try to walk into one I can avoid as I'm sure most other gun owners do everyday here in AZ. I'm guessin you mean well but it gets a little blurry. What exactly is the point of this little discussion any who? To make sure were all educated gun holders?
I guess I'm not understanding this thread. Did you ask us just to tell us that we should not precipitate a gun fight? I carry because I need protection and I'm not exactly sure what from yet Captain Bill but I will sure not try to walk into one I can avoid as I'm sure most other gun owners do everyday here in AZ. I'm guessin you mean well but it gets a little blurry. What exactly is the point of this little discussion any who? To make sure were all educated gun holders?
My original post was asking to learn what others are doing and why. It's normal for people who add comments to expand on the original post but still keep within the subject.
Rick Lee took it to the legal level when he made this post.
Quote:
By Rick Lee: I think you missed the part about those signs not having the force of law. Got that? It's not a law. You're not breaking the law by ignoring the sign. You're breaking the law if they ask you to leave and you then refuse. But again, I've never heard of that happening and I certainly wouldn't stick around a place that wanted to me leave. It's a non issue, but keep looking for some drama.
Rick is a bright young man whom I respect because he is willing to stand up for what he believes and say what he thinks. We don't always agree, but I respect him as a person. However, I believe Rick has a misunderstanding of the law, and the consequences of not obeying the law as applies to carrying concealed into a building/business that has posted "no firearms allowed". So that part was discussed.
Anyone who is going to carry concealed where "firearms are not allowed", should learn how the law will view it if they shoot someone in that establishment (in self defense) since the shooter is "criminally trespassing" by having that gun in there.
I don't have the answer to that question yet, but I'm hoping to get it soon.
Then Rick made this post:
Quote:
By Rick Lee: The fatal road rage shooting in April in Chandler was a case of the good guy coming out alive because he had a gun. If he had been unarmed, he would have ended up the dead guy.
That incident happened in Gilbert, and I'm familiar with the route these trucks took as their incident was being played out. Rick referred to the "good" guy coming out alive because he had a gun.
By reading all the articles including Bohls statement, what I came away with is there were two "good" guys acting irresponsibly, and the shooting should never have happened. Bohls was very lucky that he was not prosecuted, and he could still be sued in civil court by the family.
Then you made this post:
Quote:
By Poppysead: I surely agree, I can't make others take anger management but I can shoot them if they're coming at me with a loaded weapon. Best be prepared for you cannot predict whom is in control of themselves. There are crazy people out there and they have a right to carry as well. Not to mention these gang kids. It's just one of those things. If everyone can carry a gun why on earth would you be the one without one? If it were just break ins or robberies to worry about that would be one thing but it's everywhere now, anyone can carry, some idiot at the mall could pull one out like they did last year in Chandler. Better to be prepared I'd say. I purchased mine right after that happened because I was at the mall that day wishing I had myself a big gun while I was in lockdown in that mall. Scared the life out of me. I will no longer be a sitting duck. If the idiots get a gun then I better have one as well I'll tell ya.
I completely understand your feeling. I've been in some very scary situations myself, but they don't have to do with this thread.
This made me wonder if you were saying that now that you have a gun you would carry it to the mall (even if it had a no firearms sign).
However, if a lot of people carry concealed weapons in the mall, then that really concerns me because at any time something could trigger several of them to start shooting, and I doubt if everyone of them would be able to hit exactly what they're shooting at each time. My fear is that these well meaning people (who are actually "criminally trespassing") may accidentally kill some innocent people. So not only would the people who are illegally carrying in the mall probably be prosecuted, but innocent lives could be accidentally lost. And one of them could be mine, or yours.
Quote:
by Poppysead: If the idiots get a gun then I better have one as well I'll tell ya.
Allow me to add to that. You also need to be better trained than the idiot with a gun. Just having a gun does not guarantee survival in a gun fight. Gang bangers don't take gun training, but I understand they are good at street fighting, and may be able to take their victims gun away.
In the 70's while flying for Pan Am, when we were concerned about hijackers with guns, I learned how to grab an automatic pistol and a revolver, to take away from an attacker. (I've forgotten all that now, and need to relearn)
Earlier, one of my friends was a copilot on another carrier and a hijacker came into the cockpit while they were taxiing out. He got close enough that the copilot could reach him. The copilot grabbed his gun, and the gun went off and shot him in the leg, but he still managed to pull the guy toward him, hit him and get the gun away while the captain was getting the aircraft stopped so he could assist. Together then, they took the guy down and held him until the police arrived.
The more I learn about carrying and the legal after effects of a self defense shooting, the more I realize that there is a tremendous amount that I still don't know, but should know, in order to protect myself and my family in the event that I should have to shoot someone in self defense.
If others become aware of the potential very costly after effects, then perhaps they will decide that they may want to continue to take classes to improve proficiency and learn the law, and to be prepared for exactly what to do and what to say, and what not to say, when the PD arrives to investigate a self defense shooting. And have a good self defense attorney ready to call, because one will most likely be needed.
In my research I came across this web site. Massad Ayood (who does the MAG 40 training) was a principal at this company until he started his own company. There are a lot of good articles and info for anyone interested in learning more about the law as applies to guns and self defense shooting.
Here is the Harold Fisher's statement to the court after he was convicted of murder for shooting a man in self defense: Harold Fish Defense
It's very eye opening, how things can turn against the shooter. He describes the entire shooting in his statement.
When I referred to Bohls as a good guy, I mean he was the guy who did not start the gunfight. You can start a road rage incident and not be considered the aggressor if the other guy gets out of his car first and comes at you with gun in hand. Bohls was not charged and was released at the scene after (foolishly) telling the whole story to the police while sitting in the back of a squad car. That's, legally speaking, the worst thing you can do and he still walked, which sounds to me like he was as innocent as the day is long and plenty of eyewitnesses backed up his version (or at least couldn't discredit it).
There is always a differnce between how a law is written and how it is enforced. Sad but true. When several cops tell me I'll only get a trespass cite for refusing to leave after verbally asked by the owner (which is how it works if whether you're armed or not), I follow that one instead of what's written as the letter of the law. I saw another gunbusters sign yesterday, which, while very clear in its meaning and citing the correct ARS #, still did not comply with the state law on how the sign must appear. Was that considered reasonable notice? Legally speaking, I don't think so. Practically speaking, it was crystal clear.
And I'm totally free to put my gun in my mom's purse before entering such a restaurant because that law does not apply to non-AZ residents. How's that for equal protection? Likewise, if my wife gets her permit, I can then put my gun in her purse in a restaurant where they have no proper signage and then I can have a few drinks and not be considered consuming while carrying. Lots of ways to run between letter and spirit of the law here.
...Lots of ways to run between letter and spirit of the law here.
In my opinion, looking for ways to skirt the law is dangerous, and I hope some day it does not come back to haunt you. Defending a law suit is very expensive.
My original post was asking to learn what others are doing and why. It's normal for people who add comments to expand on the original post but still keep within the subject.
Rick Lee took it to the legal level when he made this post.
Rick is a bright young man whom I respect because he is willing to stand up for what he believes and say what he thinks. We don't always agree, but I respect him as a person. However, I believe Rick has a misunderstanding of the law, and the consequences of not obeying the law as applies to carrying concealed into a building/business that has posted "no firearms allowed". So that part was discussed.
Anyone who is going to carry concealed where "firearms are not allowed", should learn how the law will view it if they shoot someone in that establishment (in self defense) since the shooter is "criminally trespassing" by having that gun in there.
I don't have the answer to that question yet, but I'm hoping to get it soon.
Then Rick made this post:
That incident happened in Gilbert, and I'm familiar with the route these trucks took as their incident was being played out. Rick referred to the "good" guy coming out alive because he had a gun.
By reading all the articles including Bohls statement, what I came away with is there were two "good" guys acting irresponsibly, and the shooting should never have happened. Bohls was very lucky that he was not prosecuted, and he could still be sued in civil court by the family.
Then you made this post:
I completely understand your feeling. I've been in some very scary situations myself, but they don't have to do with this thread.
This made me wonder if you were saying that now that you have a gun you would carry it to the mall (even if it had a no firearms sign).
However, if a lot of people carry concealed weapons in the mall, then that really concerns me because at any time something could trigger several of them to start shooting, and I doubt if everyone of them would be able to hit exactly what they're shooting at each time. My fear is that these well meaning people (who are actually "criminally trespassing") may accidentally kill some innocent people. So not only would the people who are illegally carrying in the mall probably be prosecuted, but innocent lives could be accidentally lost. And one of them could be mine, or yours.
Allow me to add to that. You also need to be better trained than the idiot with a gun. Just having a gun does not guarantee survival in a gun fight. Gang bangers don't take gun training, but I understand they are good at street fighting, and may be able to take their victims gun away.
In the 70's while flying for Pan Am, when we were concerned about hijackers with guns, I learned how to grab an automatic pistol and a revolver, to take away from an attacker. (I've forgotten all that now, and need to relearn)
Earlier, one of my friends was a copilot on another carrier and a hijacker came into the cockpit while they were taxiing out. He got close enough that the copilot could reach him. The copilot grabbed his gun, and the gun went off and shot him in the leg, but he still managed to pull the guy toward him, hit him and get the gun away while the captain was getting the aircraft stopped so he could assist. Together then, they took the guy down and held him until the police arrived.
The more I learn about carrying and the legal after effects of a self defense shooting, the more I realize that there is a tremendous amount that I still don't know, but should know, in order to protect myself and my family in the event that I should have to shoot someone in self defense.
If others become aware of the potential very costly after effects, then perhaps they will decide that they may want to continue to take classes to improve proficiency and learn the law, and to be prepared for exactly what to do and what to say, and what not to say, when the PD arrives to investigate a self defense shooting. And have a good self defense attorney ready to call, because one will most likely be needed.
In my research I came across this web site. Massad Ayood (who does the MAG 40 training) was a principal at this company until he started his own company. There are a lot of good articles and info for anyone interested in learning more about the law as applies to guns and self defense shooting.
Here is the Harold Fisher's statement to the court after he was convicted of murder for shooting a man in self defense: Harold Fish Defense
It's very eye opening, how things can turn against the shooter. He describes the entire shooting in his statement.
I understand now, just lost touch with the tie in. I agree people need to be trained and respect a no carrying sign but it just sounded like you were assuming that most people are not. Most people I know practice on a regular basis. I've shot a gun my whole life and I'm really old, lol, I just recently started to carry it around in public. I am not going to carry it illegally into a mall which has signs that say you can't but not all do. I will probably just go to places that allow me to carry from now on. The ones that don't won't get my business.
It seems to me you'd like a few more laws regarding guns and training. Arizona has made itself clear on what it requires, but if you think there is more needed then join the plenty who do. I know there are new laws ready for the next ballot regarding the gun laws, you should vote for them, try and get what you'd like. I for one think most people take precautions and train nor would they purposely walk into a place that didn't want guns there. Those few who would won't listen to you anyway and their are the people who disagree and they should work to change it if they want to. But I agree with ya, you should try and get more laws if you really are worried about people and their gun manners. Maybe require anger management class along with a yearly permit or something? IDK, I think there are plenty of groups doing that right now, look em up.
I'm not to worried about it, I think the ones I worry about wouldn't follow any advice or laws any how, that is why I carry a gun around now. I also think 90% of gun owners are not going to blow their stack and most are decent folk only a few are idiots as usual. They usually aren't carrying legally anyway.
But good luck to ya. Didn't mean to use up your thread. Hope we are ok still as well. I like most of your posts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I agree with ya, you should try and get more laws if you really are worried about people and their gun manners. Maybe require anger management class along with a yearly permit or something? IDK, I think there are plenty of groups doing that right now, look em up. 
