Good Samaritan shot for stopping to help

[spinnakr]

You shoot to stop the threat. If you tell a police officer, or a prosecuting attorney that your intent was to kill that person when you pulled the trigger, in many states, that will lead to a second degree murder charge...
You shoot to stop the threat. Several rounds into the center of mass of the person is prudent and reasonable. When the threat ceases to exist, then so does your use of deadly force.

(emphasis changed)

A rose by any other name.

I'm not saying you incapacitate him and then shoot him again. My point is, shooting someone in the hand to knock away the gun is NOT shooting to eliminate the threat. Nor is that easily defensible in court. If a police officer or lawyer asks you what you were aiming for and you reply "his hand," then the question is raised whether you needed the weapon in the first place.

Likewise, when a police officer discharges his weapon, there is no intent to wound. There is an intent to, as you said, eliminate the threat - or, in hillbilly laymans terms, shoot to kill. I apologize for dumbing down my statement - but given the condition of American education, I hope you'll agree it's an understandable thing to do. And for the record, I have never met a single police officer or soldier who termed it "shoot to eliminate the thread" - they all use the more commonplace "shoot to kill."

I understand the need to be careful with wording, particularly in court or when giving a statement. However, this is neither the place nor the time to discuss this: it's a thread about a possible good Samaritan being shot, NOT a thread about proper CCW terminology.

 

[Sasha]

Uhh umm!

Hush you. I stopped picking up hitchikers when you asked me to, and none of the people I ever picked up flagged me down screaming covered in blood, which obviously means that someone tried to hurt them, and I doubt they'd have issue with hurting me to continue hurting them.

 

[firecoins]

YOU DO NOT EVER SHOOT TO KILL - EVER!

When you get into a self defense situation involving your use of a firearm, you do not shoot to kill... ever!

You shoot to stop the threat. If you tell a police officer, or a prosecuting attorney that your intent was to kill that person when you pulled the trigger, in many states, that will lead to a second degree murder charge.
.

I think most people would not have the time to make decision whether it would be to kill or not to kill. They would simply fire whatever will be will be. What you tell the police afterwards is a different story.

 

[Flight-LP]

I think most people would not have the time to make decision whether it would be to kill or not to kill. They would simply fire whatever will be will be. What you tell the police afterwards is a different story.

Hence why most citizens have no business carrying a firearm.................

 

[firecoins]

Hence why most citizens have no business carrying a firearm.................

Same argument could be made for cops. I doubt they make much of distinction in a split second. I am told average patrol cops in the UK don't carry guns.

 

[FLEMTP]

(emphasis changed)

A rose by any other name.

I'm not saying you incapacitate him and then shoot him again. My point is, shooting someone in the hand to knock away the gun is NOT shooting to eliminate the threat. Nor is that easily defensible in court. If a police officer or lawyer asks you what you were aiming for and you reply "his hand," then the question is raised whether you needed the weapon in the first place.

Likewise, when a police officer discharges his weapon, there is no intent to wound. There is an intent to, as you said, eliminate the threat - or, in hillbilly laymans terms, shoot to kill. I apologize for dumbing down my statement - but given the condition of American education, I hope you'll agree it's an understandable thing to do. And for the record, I have never met a single police officer or soldier who termed it "shoot to eliminate the thread" - they all use the more commonplace "shoot to kill."

I understand the need to be careful with wording, particularly in court or when giving a statement. However, this is neither the place nor the time to discuss this: it's a thread about a possible good Samaritan being shot, NOT a thread about proper CCW terminology.

If you cant use the "proper CCW terminology" now.. how can you expect to use it when the time comes?

You shoot to stop the threat. I dont know anyone out there that has a clue about guns that would even think that aiming for the hand is even an option. Stop taking your firearms training from the movies and TV, and get yourself into a real firearms self defense class. Your comments and statements here have made it very clear you have no real world firearms training... or you didnt bother to listen when you did take it.

 

[FLEMTP]

I think most people would not have the time to make decision whether it would be to kill or not to kill. They would simply fire whatever will be will be. What you tell the police afterwards is a different story.

Hence why most citizens have no business carrying a firearm.................

You dont make a decision to kill or not to kill when you draw and use a weapon. If you feel that you or another person is in immediate danger of sustaining great bodily harm or being killed as a result of someone else, then you are using deadly force to stop the threat. I dont know how many times I need to say this and reiterate this fact. YOU DO NOT MAKE A DECISION TO KILL OR NOT TO KILL.

You shoot to stop the threat.

If they die as a result of their injuries, then they die. If they do not, then they do not. Either way the end result is that you stopped the threat.

And please forgive me for being reasonable and bringing the constitution into this Flight-LP, but if you read it, under the Bill of rights, it spells out clearly that any citizen has business carrying a firearm should they so desire to.

in fact, let me quote it for you, just in case you have never read it or dont care to:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it doesnt say anything about "most citizens"

Same argument could be made for cops. I doubt they make much of distinction in a split second. I am told average patrol cops in the UK don't carry guns.

The UK also has one of the highest levels of gun related crime in Europe...cuz we all know how well THAT gun ban worked

 

[ffemt8978]

DO NOT turn this thread into another debate about firearms!

 

[firecoins]

The UK also has one of the highest levels of gun related crime in Europe...cuz we all know how well THAT gun ban worked

compare that with the US. Much much much much much lower. Not even close.

 

[EMT012]

Police: Westmoreland Co. Man Kills Woman Helping Wounded Wife
...
From there, Swartz saw a bloodied Janet Piper run out of her house and flag down Stacey Feiling, who was driving by.

As Janet Piper attempted to get into the car, her husband allegedly opened the driver's side door and shot Feiling, 42, of Mount Pleasant, at point-blank range in the head, authorities said.

"We have no reason to believe that she was doing anything else but driving her vehicle south on Route 981,” said Trooper Stephen Limani. “We believe she had stopped to render some assistance or she just stopped her vehicle a short distance from where the majority of this incident was taking place at."
...
Read more...

Very sad and another reminder to just how violent the world is nowdays!!

With regards to the 'Use of Deadly Force'... and 'Use of Force'.... CHECK YOUR LOCAL LAWS!!!

 

[Flight-LP]

And please forgive me for being reasonable and bringing the constitution into this Flight-LP, but if you read it, under the Bill of rights, it spells out clearly that any citizen has business carrying a firearm should they so desire to.

in fact, let me quote it for you, just in case you have never read it or dont care to:



it doesnt say anything about "most citizens"



The UK also has one of the highest levels of gun related crime in Europe...cuz we all know how well THAT gun ban worked

I am well versed in what the United States Constitution states (which is capitalized by the way, if you're going to drop that card, at least respect it enough to spell it correctly). The problem with its application today though is the massive change in society as a whole. The basic ethical and religious beliefs that were held to the highest standard back in the late 18th century are long gone, replaced by self perceived importance on one's individuality and their particular wants versus their actual needs and the needs of society. Back then, men were molded into a role of responsibility having respect for the institutions in place that directed society's acceptable norms. There was none of this "I can't handle this stressful situation, so I am going to be a selfish immature a** and start killing people".

Just as we are responsible for the current state of EMS, we are also collectively responsible for the current state of society as a whole. Plain and simple....................

Europe is a whole different ballgame on all levels. Sorry to say, but there is a lot we could learn from our friends across the pond.

 

[spinnakr]

this is neither the place nor the time to discuss this: it's a thread about a possible good Samaritan being shot, NOT a thread about proper CCW terminology.

I say again: let's get back on topic. Start a new thread if you want to argue about this. I would be very glad to address the personal... attacks you've levied at me, but this is NOT the place to do it. And, furthermore, we've been warned by a mod.

I, for one, am immensely saddened to hear that an innocent bystander was shot and killed by someone who is obviously at least a little deranged.

 

[atropine]

So what you gonna do if a lady comes runnning out into the street covered in blood, waving her arms and screaming for help as you drive by?

Keep driving, I got to get to the river.

 

[firecoins]

Back then, men were molded into a role of responsibility having respect for the institutions in place that directed society's acceptable norms. There was none of this "I can't handle this stressful situation, so I am going to be a selfish immature a** and start killing people".

First of all the respect had for institutions included starting the Revolutionary war tgo overthrow some instituional norms. They sarted a government that protected individual liberties unlike anywhere else in the world. And So Much for respect of institutions.

Second Its hard to go on a killing spree with a Musket. However people did get selfish and kill people back in the 18th century. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1749650/the_explanation_of_the_famous_duel.html

 

[FLEMTP]

First of all the respect had for institutions included starting the Revolutionary war tgo overthrow some instituional norms. They sarted a government that protected individual liberties unlike anywhere else in the world. And So Much for respect of institutions.

Second Its hard to go on a killing spree with a Musket. However people did get selfish and kill people back in the 18th century. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1749650/the_explanation_of_the_famous_duel.html

Hey.. just a suggestion.. you should change your avatar to a picture of BHO or Pelosi maybe.. at least warn people you're a liberal so we know to completely ignore anything that comes out of your mouth.. although, I should have seen that coming, with you being from NY and all...

 

[Cory]

Hey.. just a suggestion.. you should change your avatar to a picture of BHO or Pelosi maybe.. at least warn people you're a liberal so we know to completely ignore anything that comes out of your mouth.. although, I should have seen that coming, with you being from NY and all...

And this has come to a whole new level of hilarity.:lol::lol::lol:

I can't even believe you just said that...

 

[firecoins]

Hey.. just a suggestion.. you should change your avatar to a picture of BHO or Pelosi maybe.. at least warn people you're a liberal so we know to completely ignore anything that comes out of your mouth.. although, I should have seen that coming, with you being from NY and all...

So you say stupid things, get called on it and you shouldn't listen to me. Right. Got you.

Protecting individual rights is not cause Pelosi champions. But of course, it takes research to know that. Some of us who respect indivual rights do not respect the instituion that Pelosi leads so much.

Gun rights are good but its been shown over and over again that guns get in the wrong hands. A little protection might be warrented.


Do all stupid peopel live in the South? Or should I just ignore the usual sterotypes? I hope your gun safety is better than your words. You just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[firetender]

"shoot to eliminate the thread" - they all use the more commonplace "shoot to kill."

I understand the need to be careful with wording...

Didn't anybody frisk this guy before they let him in here?

 

[Trayos]

I think the bigger problem lies with not realizing scene safety- the news report says a neighbor came out and exchanged fire with the killer, should have raised some red flags.
While I don't know exactly how the gunman managed to get close enough to shoot the driver at "point blank range", I think that she probably had several seconds to drive away- even though she might not have been able to help the victim.
If there is a loaded gun involved, I don't want to be. As cold as it sounds, I can drive away, call 911 from a distance, and hope that the victim isn't killed in the meantime. I cant do much good if I'm shot as well, and it might actually make the situation worse for others (if you already shot and killed somebody, then you are much more likely to continue, since you already ignored your inhibitions).
Then again, I wasn't there, and hopefully wont have to make that choice in my own life.

 

[ffemt8978]

And that's enough of this one.