He thought he could help': Concealed carry gun-wielder intervenes in domestic dispute and is shot dead (drugs, spokesman)
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.
The bottom line is still that he wasn't a cop. I'm not a cop. Any certified instructor is going to tell his students, "You're not cops."
This same article is being discussed right now on a gun forum I frequent. Every one of these gun-owners/gun wearers--every single one--has so far said "He was not a cop. He went too far."
The purpose of being armed is to survive the moment.
I agree, I think any reasonable person would agree, guns are a tool and used responsibly they are fine. The minute that guy left and wasn't an immediate danger to anyone it was game over. That guy didn't need to go into his car and get his gun and pursue the shooter. IDK, maybe in heart he thought he was doing the right, or maybe he was a macho stud type or at least he thought so and he was going to handle business, either way, he's dead, wife and kids are left without him and the shooter is most likely going to be in a whole lot of trouble and looking at a lot of years in jail. Especially if he goes to military court, which I hear is rougher, but doesn't matter at the end of the day, he's screwed too and assuming he's not some sociopath he's probably a guy that just lost it in a moment and made a huge mistake and is going to have to live that mistake for the rest of his life... sad overall.
Especially if he goes to military court, which I hear is rougher, but doesn't matter at the end of the day, he's screwed too and assuming he's not some sociopath he's probably a guy that just lost it in a moment and made a huge mistake and is going to have to live that mistake for the rest of his life... sad overall.
Most likely, he'll go to civilian court since it occurred off base. Military courts are not necessarily tougher--in most ways they're much more fair--but for several reasons if the military send someone to court-martial in the first place, it's because it's a near iron-clad case (the military has non-judicial ways of jerking troops around if they don't have a good court case).
This is a tough one. Witnessing someone innocent getting shot and you are the only one keeping the perp from escaping. IMO the only thing he did wrong was not pulling the trigger first. Once you commit, you need to fully commit.
All American citizens are entitled to a jury by their peers. We cannot nor should not "Just Shoot" if one's life is not in danger. The man who was killed was a kind and brave soul, and he tried to do the right thing. However, he is not LE and if he is not in immediate danger should have called the police.
Also, as someone who fully supports the 2nd amendment, I must voice an unpopular opinion:
A gun is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. A gun does not turn the one who holds it into some Special Forces TV action hero. Too many times guns are viewed in certain circles as a "Sure thing" or carry the invincible attitude around with them. Guns must be used with sober and clear-minded intent/purpose, along with the training and follow through to execute.
This is what happens when you mix too much macho with a gun. Try to act like a badass and sometimes it will go horribly wrong. He should have just called the police and given them a good description of the suspect and his license plate number instead of acting like he was Batman.
what a horrible thing to say. have some respect! he's a Marine for God's sake, so lets assume he's had a lot of firearm training and experience. He tried to help and was tragically killed. end of story.
You're assuming the wounded wasn't already being treated by someone else.
Actually, in the specific "Good Samaritan" model, the proper action was explicitly to care for the wounded rather than to chase the robbers.
But if he was going to take charge of the situation--which he apparently took it upon himself to do--then taking care of the wounded would be a priority that he would not assume someone else was handling. He'd at least point to someone, say "You! What's your name? Bob? Bob, call 911!" before heading off.
The more likely problem was that his military training had not gotten up to the leadership level, so he was thinking purely as a rifleman and not as a platoon-level leader.
I mentioned a bit earlier in the thread that the response I've seen to this story in one gun forum was 100% "the guy made the wrong decisions--he's not a cop." I've since checked another gun forum and found the same result: Folks who actually carry guns every day--and are serious enough to have actually considered and trained for civilian scenarios--are unanimously saying, "He made the wrong decision--he's not a cop."
Actually, in the specific "Good Samaritan" model, the proper action was explicitly to care for the wounded rather than to chase the robbers.
But if he was going to take charge of the situation--which he apparently took it upon himself to do--then taking care of the wounded would be a priority that he would not assume someone else was handling. He'd at least point to someone, say "You! What's your name? Bob? Bob, call 911!" before heading off.
The more likely problem was that his military training had not gotten up to the leadership level, so he was thinking purely as a rifleman and not as a platoon-level leader.
I mentioned a bit earlier in the thread that the response I've seen to this story in one gun forum was 100% "the guy made the wrong decisions--he's not a cop." I've since checked another gun forum and found the same result: Folks who actually carry guns every day--and are serious enough to have actually considered and trained for civilian scenarios--are unanimously saying, "He made the wrong decision--he's not a cop."
Again - assuming the wounded wasn't already being treated.
what a horrible thing to say. have some respect! he's a Marine for God's sake, so lets assume he's had a lot of firearm training and experience. He tried to help and was tragically killed. end of story.
Again - assuming the wounded wasn't already being treated.
I think you missed the point. There is no indication in the story that he made sure the wounded woman was being cared for. A protector does not make the assumption, "Oh, she'll be all right."
He was not thinking "protect the weak," he was thinking "get the bad guy."
I think you missed the point. There is no indication in the story that he made sure the wounded woman was being cared for. A protector does not make the assumption, "Oh, she'll be all right."
He was not thinking "protect the weak," he was thinking "get the bad guy."
Exactly - the story doesn't provide all of the details, therefore you, nor I know if she was already being treated by someone else, possibly someone with actual current medical training.
Since we're assuming - we can assume he was thinking "the bad guy is getting away...."
Either way - it's a tragic story and the anti-2a/pro-gun control crowd are enjoying spinning the tragedy to prove a non-existent point.
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.
