Old guy foils robbery

[elkroeger]

We need more people with big kahunas like this old guy:

 

CNN video

 

I'd be interested in hearing some critique on this gentleman's use of the firearm. What might he have done differently (aside from hitting his target, which he doesn't appear to do). What do you see as his strong points (both in the gunfight, and legally). Anything else? What do you think of the .380 auto for these purposes?

 

Obviously, the bystanders are all idiots - not one of them jumped away, or dropped to the ground to stay out of the crossfire. Anything you see that they did right?

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

Not a good tactic in a crowded place.

Exceedingly poor shooting style, two hands, one hand. Too many John Wayne movies.

.380 is only suitable for wounding.

He stopped briefly.....agress the target until it's down.

 

His shorts match his shirt too strongly and he needs some shorter socks.

 

Count on several seconds before the average person reacts to gunshots. Even in that situation.

[Mike]

It's hard to tell, but he seemed to have a clear (albeit narrow) field of fire. No one else was injured and both perps were wounded, so I'd opine that his shooting was actually pretty good. In truth, probably better than most LEOs would do under similar circumstances.

 

Peter's right about one hand shooting, but I'd also note that it's difficult to maintain two hand control while running. Personally, my own training always involved one hand shooting, with both right and left hands.

 

As far as the .380, it's a debate as old as the hills, but it was sufficient in these circumstances. A .380 round, placed effectively, can certainly kill, but the idea is to effectively defend yourself, not necessarily end the other guy's life. Many, if not most, armed offenders, will turn tail and run when confronted with live fire.

 

My belief is that this was the right course of action, even if tactically imperfect. You can hope that the aggressors will play nice and not maim or kill anyone, but this type of situation can easily turn deadly. You cannot expect calm rationality from someone who's robbing you with a gun and a baseball bat. I'd hope that I'd have the presence of mind to react as well as the gent with the .380.

 

I agree with respect to the socks.

[George S.]

I agree with your assessment Mike. I usually take my 9MM or .357, but on summer days when I need smaller and more concealable I take the .380 but make mental notes of it's limitations. A .380 in reach is still better than nothing as this guy proved.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Not a good tactic in a crowded place.

Exceedingly poor shooting style, two hands, one hand. Too many John Wayne movies.

.380 is only suitable for wounding.

He stopped briefly.....agress the target until it's down.

 

It's easy to armchair-quarterback this one, and someone in the middle of a practice session on a shooting range would probably exercise better technique (both hands, shooting without pause, etc.).

 

But this was the real deal, heat of the moment, life-or-death. You're calmly drinking coffee, suddenly two guys walk in, armed for bear and threatening bodily harm. You decide to take action, but this isn't the shooting range anymore:

 

-You haven't been thinking about shooting at all. You've got just a few seconds' notice here, with a lot less certainty about what's really happening. Jesus H. Christ, is this place actually getting robbed? Are these guys actually threatening to kill people here?

 

-These aren't paper targets anymore. You aren't shooting at inanimate objects, you're pointing a gun at people, about to apply deadly force. It's entirely justifiable, but you've never done this before, and it's scary as hell thinking that you're about to kill someone. Your adrenal glands have squeezed about a month's worth of go-juice into your bloodstream.

 

-You are extremely vulnerable, out in the open, and you are about to draw a whole lot of attention to yourself. The perp with the bat is at a safe standoff distance, he probably wouldn't hurt you before you kill or disable him with a round or two - but the perp with a gun could easily kill you as soon as you stand up and point your weapon at him. If you miss, and he manages to disable you with one shot, you are guaranteed to be shot and beaten to death a few seconds later.

 

I don't feel like criticizing this guy too much. Under the circumstances, he did pretty damn good.

[philbytx]

Good on him, looks like he did a nice job.

FYI HERE is a nicely concealable 9MM

[Peter Parts]

Yup.... classic American gun-bearing fantasy caught on video. And seems to resonate proudly with gun-bearing brethren here.

 

In reality, this incident illustrates the stupidity of having a bunch folks walking around armed. One screwball old guy starts the gun fight at OK Corral putting a whole bunch of innocent bystanders at risk.

 

Ben

[upflying]

Good for him, I would have done the same. And yes I also carry a peashooter .380 in my shorts.

But where is the community outcry like in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident? It would appear to me this is racially motivated based on the hoodies the suspects were wearing.

[David13]

I think it was good enough. I suppose I could be a tad critical and complain that he didn't do them both in. No telling how many lives down the road that would save. But I guess it was good enough, and that way the bleeding hearts can't start squawking that he should be charged with violating their right to rob people.

If I can get his address, I'll send him a free box of ammo.

dc

[Ken H.]

Doesn’t just about every LEO and self-defense course on the planet teach that in these situations (confronted with an armed assailant) your best course of action is to be cooperative?

 

And now we’ve got people here who are defending this guy’s cowboy actions? I don’t get it.

[Mister Tee]

We need more cowboys, less sheep. Committing an armed robbery should be a dangerous, unattractive proposition, even at the expense of some collateral damage.

[upflying]

Here are the booking photos of the robbery suspects the old white guy shot. Both were hit by gunfire and lucky to be alive.

 

 

[Albert]

Doesn’t just about every LEO and self-defense course on the planet teach that in these situations (confronted with an armed assailant) your best course of action is to be cooperative?

 

And now we’ve got people here who are defending this guy’s cowboy actions? I don’t get it.

 

Just to play devil's advocate . . . how many news reports have there been where one of these nutball perps shoots the cashier, bystander, whomever, for no apparent reason while robbing someplace. I'll wager some of these folks and their families would have loved to have a cowboy around.

[Quinn]

Two people learned that actions have consequences. hope they carry that lesson forward.

 

The old guy was the first person to shoot. Should he have waited for them to shoot someone or was their yelling and threatening enough to use deadly force? Also, what if he'd shot the kid with the baseball bat first?

 

Last thing, and here's the biggie, how come he's still shooting at them while their running away? If they were shot in the back while fleeing, what would be the outcome for him?

 

------

 

 

[elkroeger]

I'd like to keep this discussion centered on the man's actions, rather than turning this into a gun rights argument. I'll assume, as the perp was pointing a gun at him, that the old guy was within his rights to defend himself and others.

 

Not being an officer myself or terribly well versed in these things (I am a relatively new student to this), my take on the video was that he did most of it right. As a monday morning quarterback (whatever that's worth), I might avoid running and shooting at the same time. His socks are terrible. And since he did hit his targets, it is a vivid demonstration of the concept of "stopping power". One question I have, in particular, is whether he could be chastised for shooting out the door at the fleeing suspects. They are clearly still up and about, but they are fleeing and have left the premesis. When should he stop?

[Marty Hill]

Yeah, be still and be a victim. What a joke! Kudos to the guy, I wouldn't call him old tho.

[OoPEZoO]

When should he stop?

 

When the gun goes *CLICK* instead of *BANG*

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

But where is the community outcry like in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident? It would appear to me this is racially motivated based on the hoodies the suspects were wearing.

 

The Zimmerman/Martin encounter was not caught on video and the only witness is one of the combatants, so people are able to engage in a lot of speculation as to what happened.

 

The encounter currently being discussed was captured on video with a lot of eyewitnesses; the perps, regardless of the color of their skin or nature of their clothing, were very definitely armed and threatening. The perp with the bat had just used it to smash a computer display. In a jailhouse interview after the incident, the gun-wielding perp said that his gun wasn't even loaded, but Williams (the old guy) could not have known that at the time.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

When should he stop?

 

When the gun goes *CLICK* instead of *BANG*

 

If I had the guts to start a gunfight, I would like to think that I would not stop shooting until:

 

-the perp drops the gun and indicates a willingness to surrender, or

 

-he's dead.

 

I think that's pretty much the rule of engagement for use of deadly force by police officers, right?

 

The reality, given the adrenalin of the moment, is that I'm not sure exactly how well I'd perform under those circumstances.

 

The gun-wielding perp (Henderson) expressed annoyance that Williams continued to shoot after Henderson had already been hit:

 

And even though Henderson seems to be carrying some remorse, he still has a bone to pick with Williams, the elderly man who shot him, for firing while he (Henderson) was on the ground.

 

“I was down, and I’m not going to continue to shoot you,” he said.

[Dennis Andress]

Dad taught me the only reason to hit a man is so he doesn't get back up.

[pbharvey]

Exceedingly poor shooting style, two hands, one hand.

 

Take another look. He waits for the perp to turn his back to him before he spins his chair around and goes toward the guy. He then crouches into a somewhat decent shooting stance with both hands on his gun. The second shoot looks OK, the third one, well maybe he's losing a little form. All in all though I think he looks pretty good. It's certainly not like he just started spraying the place. His last shot for good measure made me a little nervous that he might get sued (well he's going to get sued anyway but that's another topic) but the kid still had his gun and certainly could have shot the old guy while sprawling around on the ground.

 

 

The comments from the bad guys are funny.

 

Hours after his release from the hospital, Henderson, who talked about the pain he feels in his buttock and hip, said the plan was to “barge in, get the money and leave.” He said “he never expected anyone to be armed.”

 

“The gun was broken and rusty and wasn't loaded. Nobody was going to get hurt,” he said, standing with crutches.

 

Someone was armed...your victim.

Someone did get hurt...you and your buddy.

 

Though Henderson said he doesn't blame Williams for shooting, he takes exception with Williams shooting at him while he was down.

 

“I was down, and I'm not going to continue to shoot you,” he said.

 

He should have established the rules of engagement before he decided to rob the place.

 

 

[tallman]

Not a good tactic in a crowded place.

Exceedingly poor shooting style, two hands, one hand. Too many John Wayne movies.

.380 is only suitable for wounding.

He stopped briefly.....agress the target until it's down.

 

His shorts match his shirt too strongly and he needs some shorter socks.

 

Count on several seconds before the average person reacts to gunshots. Even in that situation.

 

Only suitable for wounding.

I don't think so.

Many victims did not survive rounds from .380

to expansion and penetration test.

10.5 to 16+ inches penetration, bare to 4 layers of denim

.537 to over .75"

No weight loss

 

Much less recoil than small 9mm

Light weight so it can be very easily carried/concealed

Much more likely to actually use on an everyday basis than larger/heavier weapon

Much more likely to at hand

 

[BFish]

the moral of the story is not to f' around with senior citizens as they enjoy some time in the area "arcades". this is serious poop down here in florida. gas stations, conv stores, bars, no problem. "gambling" arcades forget it. they're lucky half the folks didn't open up on them. what little disposable income they have ain't going to be ripped off by thugs.

[George S.]

Q: "Why did you shoot the actor 9 times?"

 

A: "That was all the bullets my gun could hold."

[philbytx]

Yes indeed!

Stupid people walking around armed, a truly global phenomenon Ben ! Especially true in a lot of countries where bad people are the ones able to obtain and trade them them freely.

 

No proud resonation here, just thankful that some of us are able to defend themselves and others, IF ABLE! And fantasy my arse, the actors involved had weapons and created the situation. Anyone pulling a gun and waving it around in my presence would receive my full attention rather quickly!

 

Recognize, PLEASE, that for good or bad, the genie is out of the bottle mate. So opine away but such trouble is here to stay.

 

Fortunately, some of us "stupid people" have the background and training to walk around armed.

 

 

[elkroeger]

I don't really see any similarities between this and the Zimmerman case, aside from the fact that a firearm was discharged, and someone was hit. Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

 

[upflying]

I don't really see any similarities between this and the Zimmerman case, aside from the fact that a firearm was discharged, and someone was hit. Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

Other similarities..

occurred in FL

shooter was white and/or mixed race

shooter was defending his life and/or the lives of others

perps were wearing hoodies

perps are African American and/or mixed race

shooters will be defending themselves under FL's stand your ground law

both shooters will be sued for multi-millions

both cases will question whether deadly force was necessary or justified

both shooters were legally armed

 

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

Only suitable for wounding.

I don't think so.

Surviving is not the same as being out of the fight.

Seen plenty of .380 and 9mm victims who are still alive and able to fight after a shooting. They may go later but they can easily be a threat if armed. Larger calibers with higher velocities, not so many. The more grave threat isn't the types of individuals in this case, it's the one who is motivated and willing to engage. Motivation is proportional to the ability to maintain the fight after being wounded.

 

Based on a good deal of real data (not generally published to the public), the team I was on moved from MP5s to MP40s in the 90's. However, the 9mm ballistics just aren't there for what it was needed for. Hence, a particular shooting technique coined after a former country in Africa plus a second combination applied elsewhere.

The MP40 then moved to the M-4 which is now the predominant choice on teams. MP5s are in less use on teams these days.

 

Also, recoil is as much a function of the round as the firearm. F=ma.

 

[David13]

"Hours after his release from the hospital, Henderson, who talked about the pain he feels in his buttock and hip, said the plan was to “barge in, get the money and leave.” He said “he never expected anyone to be armed.”

 

They forgot to ask him where he thinks he is? Does he realize he's in Florida? Did he think he was in Canada?

When he gets out of prison, which will be all too soon, I suppose he'll move down to Texas.

dc

 

[Ken H.]

Yeah, be still and be a victim. What a joke! Kudos to the guy,

I see nothing to be gained by reverting back to a society where everyone is armed and is free to take law enforcement into their own hands. I thought we had progressed in America beyond the Wild Wild West. The only thing everyone shooting at everyone else will get you is a lot more dead people. Including dead innocent people.

[Firefight911]

Yeah, be still and be a victim. What a joke! Kudos to the guy,

I see nothing to be gained by reverting back to a society where everyone is armed and is free to take law enforcement into their own hands. I thought we had progressed in America beyond the Wild Wild West. The only thing everyone shooting at everyone else will get you is a lot more dead people. Including dead innocent people.

 

The only thing getting guns out of peoples' hands will do is ensure the only people with guns are the bad guys.

 

I, for one, will gladly be the one in the crowd that either pulls and fires or gets looked at by a bad guy and makes them wonder if I have a gun. If they then second guess their choice to be a bad guy at that time we all win. If they still choose to be the bad guy, I will comply up to the point where I feel I have an opportunity to stop the action that threatens my life or the life of my family or those in my presence.

[Ken H.]

The only thing getting guns out of peoples' hands will do is ensure the only people with guns are the bad guys.

I wasn’t talking about gun control. I was talking about advocating, cheering for even, a society where everyone is encouraged to take matters into their own hands. Where pulling a gun and start shooting is the right answer.

 

In the history of civilizations it has never worked before, violence just begets more violence. Why would this particular society of people at this particular point in history possibly be any different?

 

Like one of the mods said, I’m not trying to turn this into a (yet another) gun control thread. I’m just saying that I myself think cheering for the guy because he pulled out his whatever it is and started shooting is the wrong answer for our problems.

 

[Mike]

Yeah, be still and be a victim. What a joke! Kudos to the guy,

I see nothing to be gained by reverting back to a society where everyone is armed and is free to take law enforcement into their own hands. I thought we had progressed in America beyond the Wild Wild West. The only thing everyone shooting at everyone else will get you is a lot more dead people. Including dead innocent people.

 

Ken, your argument has been raised repeatedly, but the statistics have shown a steady decline in violent crime, including homicides, every time gun rights (concealed carry) are expanded in the U.S. These predictions have not come to fruition.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I see nothing to be gained by reverting back to a society where everyone is armed and is free to take law enforcement into their own hands.

 

This was not law enforcement. There was no intent to arrest the perps and bring them before a judge and jury for a trial. This was self-defense against armed invaders who were threatening people with deadly weapons.

[upflying]

Yeah, be still and be a victim. What a joke! Kudos to the guy,

I see nothing to be gained by reverting back to a society where everyone is armed and is free to take law enforcement into their own hands. I thought we had progressed in America beyond the Wild Wild West. The only thing everyone shooting at everyone else will get you is a lot more dead people. Including dead innocent people.

Major Nidal Hasan, LAPD North Hollywood and Columbine are three incidents that jump off the top of my head. As a result of those incidents, police got bigger and better weapons.

[upflying]

The only thing getting guns out of peoples' hands will do is ensure the only people with guns are the bad guys.

I wasn’t talking about gun control. I was talking about advocating, cheering for even, a society where everyone is encouraged to take matters into their own hands. Where pulling a gun and start shooting is the right answer.

 

In the history of civilizations it has never worked before, violence just begets more violence. Why would this particular society of people at this particular point in history possibly be any different?

 

Like one of the mods said, I’m not trying to turn this into a (yet another) gun control thread. I’m just saying that I myself think cheering for the guy because he pulled out his whatever it is and started shooting is the wrong answer for our problems.

Sure Ken, the right answer is to find out why these young men chose to rob a business filled with customers with a baseball bat and a rusty, inoperative gun. These young men were probably born and raised in a dysfunctional, single parent, government dependent household with no access to morals, values and ethics. Society failed them, parents failed them, schools failed them, government failed them. Those young men are unemployable and discriminated against. Their world is surrounded by wealth they have been cheated out of. Their world is a culture filled by glorified violence. It's not their fault as a desperate last attempt to straighten their lives out, they reverted to robbery.

[philbytx]

Would it have mattered MORE if he was an off duty LEO Ken???

[Peter Parts]

I thought we were discussing why one jerk took out his gun for no good reason and started a gun fight in a busy store when all that was happening was n armed robbery.

 

The thought of retribution, showing perps who is the Boss, fantasies of power, never having to say "uncle" no matter at what cost, all these seem to give a lot of men here wet dreams.

 

Ben

[pbharvey]

The thought of retribution, showing perps who is the Boss, fantasies of power, never having to say "uncle" no matter at what cost,

 

Ben

 

Have it your way then

 

[Firefight911]

I thought we were discussing why one jerk took out his gun for no good reason and started a gun fight in a busy store when all that was happening was n armed robbery.

 

The thought of retribution, showing perps who is the Boss, fantasies of power, never having to say "uncle" no matter at what cost, all these seem to give a lot of men here wet dreams.

 

Ben

 

You talking about the guy who responded to the violent threat who, in my opinion did what he should have done, or the two perps with no thought of retribution, showing the patrons who was boss, who did, after teh fact, say "uncle", and may not have had a wet dream but certainly needed new underwear?

[tallman]

Peter

You've changed horses.

NoArgument ThatHigher Caliber

has more stopping Power

I Do know an office who shot a peep

3x With A 45 And The Criminal Survived

Another Who Survived 5 From a 357

My point was about having the weapon

with you as many civilians find the

larger caliber unwieldy to carry all the time

compared to the 380

Ymmv

[elkroeger]

Okay that's it. Argue away. It's just too tempting to argue about whether guns are right or wrong.

 

I do take offense at the wild west testosterone laden cowboy comments. Personally, I never joined the army because I really don't want people shooting at me. I'm not a violent person. I do, however, believe that the genie is out of the bottle, and if crooks have guns, then I'd better have one too. This seemed like an interesting (and scary as hell) video to talk about self defense tactics, and perhaps some of the legal issues. I don't think anyone here really gets a woodie over watching the shootout. It was scary as hell, the old guy stepped up to the plate, and luckily it actually worked out in his favor. Nobody in their right mind actually wants to be in that situation. People who do are in gangs, on drugs, burglarizing homes... and they're armed.

[Boone60]

Watch the video and freeze it at 17 seconds. Old guy has begun his approach on the gun perp who responds by pointing his gun at old guy. If the perp had a functioning loaded gun this situation could have easily had a much different and sadder outcome. I'm trained to treat every weapon as if it was loaded, so I'd assume the perps gun was loaded.

 

My question is how should old guy have responded to reduce the risk he placed himself under?

[Quinn]

We had a case here where a man was home taking care of his sick child when he heard noises coming from his attached garage. He got his .22 rifle out of the closet and went to investigate. He confronted three black teenagers who had broken in and were in the process of removing his motorcycle. They ran toward him in an attempt to get away and he fired on them. He was so caught up in the moment that he continued firing at them after they fled. One died, shot in the back.

 

The trial ended in a hung jury and the prosecutor said there would be no retrial; that a jury in North Carolina would never find him guilty. I know of no civil suits, there was no Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpen circus; and no national coverage.

 

The aftermath of the events were under-reported but word of mouth was that he went broke because of legal fees and had to move because there were several drive by shootings and other harassements. Also, the two boys who survived have since been in additional run-ins with the law.

 

In comparing this to the the old guy in Florida, there is a difference. He was defending himself, his home, and his child from three invaders. I question if Old Guy was defending against an imminent threat or just decided to escalate the situation himself.

 

After Old Guy decided he should and could take action, he did a good job at first as far as I can tell. Don't know where the bat guy was in relation to gun guy being shot at. Gun guy could still be a threat running away, but bat guy hauling a$$ out the door wouldn't have been. Main thing that ruins it for me as far as handling the situation properly is when should he have quit shooting?

 

Oh, and in both cases, I don't know that I would have handled them any better. Getting caught up in the moment is going on auto-pilot.

 

-----

 

 

 

[Skywagon]

To the original question...His firing technique is not good. Jerky with the gun and what appears (hard to tell) outside the magic 22ft. Steady the gun, sgueeze, not basically thow it forwards and shoot like he does. Aim...didn't look like he was sighting at all. Shoot from behind cover it possible. When they leave, your job is done...don't tempt a jury.

 

Shooting on the range is much easier than when in a gun fight. I have watched (in my day and a former life) cops shoot up half the town when underfire and not hit anything. Very different.

[beemerman2k]

12 dead, 38 wounded in Batman movie shooting. IF this old man was in that movie theater, that gunman might have killed 2 or 3 people before finding himself taking cover under return fire.

 

I think firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is a great thing. People who assume this responsibility have my complete respect and honor. This is not a light burden they assume, and all of us are safer because of citizens like them

[Quinn]

12 dead, 38 wounded in Batman movie shooting. IF this old man was in that movie theater, that gunman might have killed 2 or 3 people before finding himself taking cover under return fire.

 

I think firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is a great thing. People who assume this responsibility have my complete respect and honor. This is not a light burden they assume, and all of us are safer because of citizens like them

 

To continue your hijack: In North Carolina, my understanding is that a concealed carry person could not legally be armed in a movie theatre because they charge admission.

 

-----

 

 

[Peter Parts]

We had a case here where a man was home taking care of his sick child when he heard noises coming from his attached garage. He got his .22 rifle out of the closet and went to investigate. He confronted three black teenagers who had broken in and were in the process of removing his motorcycle. They ran toward him in an attempt to get away and he fired on them. He was so caught up in the moment that he continued firing at them after they fled. One died, shot in the back.

 

The trial ended in a hung jury and the prosecutor said there would be no retrial; that a jury in North Carolina would never find him guilty. I know of no civil suits, there was no Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpen circus; and no national coverage.

 

The aftermath of the events were under-reported but word of mouth was that he went broke because of legal fees and had to move because there were several drive by shootings and other harassements. Also, the two boys who survived have since been in additional run-ins with the law.

 

In comparing this to the the old guy in Florida, there is a difference. He was defending himself, his home, and his child from three invaders. I question if Old Guy was defending against an imminent threat or just decided to escalate the situation himself.

 

After Old Guy decided he should and could take action, he did a good job at first as far as I can tell. Don't know where the bat guy was in relation to gun guy being shot at. Gun guy could still be a threat running away, but bat guy hauling a$$ out the door wouldn't have been. Main thing that ruins it for me as far as handling the situation properly is when should he have quit shooting?

 

Oh, and in both cases, I don't know that I would have handled them any better. Getting caught up in the moment is going on auto-pilot.

 

-----

 

 

 

Good try, Quinn. I see you are struggling with the moral fine-points, as we all should be. Problem is that the US is so far from the world norm in terms of violence and Americans (who are insular and don't travel much... and don't know that) don't know it.

 

I gather you are OK that the penalty for youth offenders attempting to steal a bike is death?

 

A Toronto grocery store owner was charged with abduction or something because he tied up a repeat shop-lifter and then called the cops. Yup, we all laughed and thought the cops nuts and the jury did not convict or would ever convict even in law-abiding, vigilante-averse Toronto. The law has been changed since.

 

So you see, around here, it is a crime to grab perps, let alone shoot at them. There, you say, it is more or less OK to kill kids running from your garage?

 

The "invisible elephant in the corner" is really the question of which system seems to work better (and with respect to crime, where you'd like to live)... and can the "genie out of the bottle" of US violence and everybody walking around with concealed weapons be brought under control?

 

Ben

[4wheeldog]

My main concern in this scenario is, where do the bullets go when they miss, or continue on after going through the target? My CCW instructor (Correctly) made a major point of the fact that you "Own" every bullet you throw. Guy in the video apparently did not hit any unintended targets, and seemed to be taking aim with his shots, but I don't think he was adequately careful about what was behind his target. He could have hit someone out on the street or in the building next door. Better to not shoot the bad guy than to hit an innocent bystander.

 

This is actually an argument in favor of the .380. It mushrooms well, and tends not to over penetrate. If had been shooting a 9mm, he could have put a slug through the wall, and killed someone on the other side of the street.

 

Oh, and I would not have taken that last shot with the kid sprawled on the ground. The threat was clearly ended, and shooting him in the ass while sprawled on the sidewalk was not justifiable. I understand that it can be hard to stop once you start, but you should train yourself for the default to be stop shooting, not empty the gun. Just sayin'.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I gather you are OK that the penalty for youth offenders attempting to steal a bike is death?

 

If he's threatening me with bodily harm at the time, yes, I ought to be able to defend myself with deadly force.

 

A Toronto grocery store owner was charged with abduction or something because he tied up a repeat shop-lifter and then called the cops. Yup, we all laughed and thought the cops nuts and the jury did not convict or would ever convict even in law-abiding, vigilante-averse Toronto. The law has been changed since.

 

In parts of the US, it's legal to detain a shoplifter until the cops show up. See shopkeeper's privilege.

 

So you see, around here, it is a crime to grab perps, let alone shoot at them. There, you say, it is more or less OK to kill kids running from your garage?

 

If they're running toward you, they can be considered a threat, and you can defend yourself with deadly force. In Quinn's case, it sounds like they were running toward the homeowner because the exit door was near him - but the homeowner doesn't know why they're running toward him. As for shooting them in the back when they're running away from you, well...that's, um, overkill. Strictly speaking, it's murder. However, he was not found "not guilty," it was a hung jury. He could have legally been retried, but the prosecutor declined - not because he thought the man's actions were permissible, but because he figured conviction in a subsequent trial was unlikely.

 

I've always felt this was an interesting essay about gun rights:

Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life

This is the final ethical lesson of bearing arms: that right choices are possible, and the ordinary judgement of ordinary (wo)men is sufficient to make them.

 

We can, truly, embrace our power and our responsibility to make life-or-death decisions, rather than fearing both. We can accept our ultimate responsibility for our own actions. We can know (not just intellectually, but in the sinew of experience) that we are fit to choose.

 

And not only can we — we must. The Founding Fathers of the United States understood why. If we fail this test, we fail not only in private virtue but consequently in our capacity to make public choices. Rudderless, lacking an earned and grounded faith in ourselves, we can only drift — increasingly helpless to summon even the will to resist predators and tyrants (let alone the capability to do so).