when is it ok? or is it ok?

Discussion in 'Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection' started by 500mag_guy, Feb 3, 2011.

  1. 500mag_guy

    500mag_guy New Member

    180
    0
    0
    Ok guys big debate at the local gun shop. i walked into the shop and there was 3 or 4 guys and all the guys working the gun department talking by the counter so i went to see what was up. they were talking about the Arizona shooting and how the guy who took the gun from the shooter had a concealed carry permit and WAS carrying that day but he choose not to shoot as he watched the shooter blast away people, but he waits for the right time to go take the gun from the shooter. after i listened for a bit i chimed in and informed everyone i was a religious carrier and if i had ever seen something like that happening i would most definitely take the shot and save innocent lives. one of the guys behind the counter said well you would never recover financially and your name would be **** for the rest of your families life. he said i would be charged with so many things that you may as well have been doing the shooting. then he listed about 20 different things i would be charged with. Is this true?

    Id love to here anyone and everyones opinion on this topic.

    Thanks 500

    I think tomorrow ill be going into the sheriffs department and talking to a good friend of mine to come to the bottom of this because if it is true it is absolutely pointless to carry.

    I live in Montana so if that is a question of anyones.
     
  2. Cory2

    Cory2 New Member

    575
    0
    0
    Personally, I dont care what the law says. If someone starts shooting people in a crowd and i have the power to stop them, then i will. Its as simple as that. Lets see someone get charged with anything when the media or atleast the public holds them up as a hero.
     

  3. spittinfire

    spittinfire New Member Supporter

    9,663
    4
    0
    I would have shot the guy. The reason I carry is to protect myself and my family first, next in line are the others around me. I think you would be safe in shooting in the given situation.

    Is Montana being invaided by libtards?
     
  4. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    In my state it is legal to use deadly force to stop deadly force. 500! Where do you live, so I don't mistakenly move there?
     
  5. collegekid20

    collegekid20 New Member

    207
    0
    0
    Can you be charged? Yes. Will his family sue you? Probably. There's a reason they have the saying. It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Also you will have your conscious to answer to.
     
  6. freefall

    freefall New Member

    2,325
    3
    0
  7. collegekid20

    collegekid20 New Member

    207
    0
    0
    Can you be charged? Yes. Will you be convicted, probably not. Will his family sue you? Most likely nowadays. Will you have to pay them? Depends on your lawyer and if theirs is better. Should you shoot him? Well that's up to you but I answer to god and he scares me more than any judge and jury.
     
  8. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    2
    0
    If you are going to carry a weapon, you have a duty to be able and willing to use that weapon to stop a threat.

    Now if you believe that this responsibility ends with "you" personally, that is your right.

    However I think you will find that most individuals here on this forum would disagree strongly with that belief and would personally extend that area of influence.

    While YMMV I would hope it doesn't. :mad:

    JD
     
  9. mach1337

    mach1337 New Member

    363
    0
    0
    I know me as a active duty military member if I were in that situation I am REQUIRED to do something if I have the means. Now if that means i have a gun hell yes im goin to shoot him and when the jury says why did you shoot him id say My family was in direct danger, i feared for my life and the lives of others around me, and its my job to do so. They teach us deadly force triangle. Oppertunity, Intent, Capablilty. if all those are met deadly force is autorized to protect goverment assets, people, and a few other things.

    better believe i would have shot him.... plus do you really think that if you saved the life of the governer that you would get in that much trouble for it??? Bet she is friends with the judges in that state!
     
  10. 500mag_guy

    500mag_guy New Member

    180
    0
    0
    Hahaha it seems that way! or just a bunch of stupid stupid people.
     
  11. 500mag_guy

    500mag_guy New Member

    180
    0
    0
    i carry for one reason and thats to protect myself and others around me in time of a situation.
     
  12. RJMercer

    RJMercer New Member

    519
    0
    0
    Local rookie cops are advised that lawyers and judges will have years and months to pick apart decisions the officer had a few precious seconds to make.

    I would imagine a civilian would have a harder time justifying taking a life to save a life. Life changing and life ending decisions happen as fast as the muzzle flash burns off. You just have to use a centered moral compass to make the decision to use lethal force.
    You might get arrested. You might get sued. At the moment you did the best you could where you were at with what you had.
    As far as being judged by 12 men or carried by 6? I'll take the 12.
     
  13. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,508
    792
    113
    Amazing how many people in gun shops have law degrees. :rolleyes:
     
  14. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,743
    506
    113
    I live in AZ. I would have shot him. Any idiot prosecutor that filed charges would be run out of town and probably sued for malicious prosecution. The biggest risk would be over penetration and hitting a bystander. Something to think about if you ever have to shoot someone. You are responsible for every round that you fire and any damage it does. A lot to be said for less powerful rounds like the 380.
     
  15. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    For me, its all about the particular situation at the particular time. If there are others in close proximity (we are talking >3 feet) there is likely no way I would take the shot. It doesn't justify shooting one BG to end a threat if I hit one or two bystanders.

    There are a number of factors, this is just the first one that came to mind.

    As far as the legality and I don't know your state law, but in Ohio I believe you would be A-OK. You may not be fearing for your own life (or maybe you are) but you are certainly fearing for the life of the person he has the barrel pointed at! All others aspects of a defensive shooting included, it would be justifiable aside from my biggest concern listed at the top.
     
  16. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    Look, unless you were there and experiencing the they mayhem and panic then you can't say if you would shoot or not. Perhaps the hero in this case did not feel that he was close enough to take a shot with certainty. Perhaps his reflexes told him to run and tackle instead of shooting. Either way, he stopped the threat. If you wanna have a debate about if it is better to shoot or put hands on the assailant, then that is another thread.

    Bottom line, not there at the time so I can't say what my reflexes would tell me to do. Those trained to take out such a threat know what their reflexes would tell them to do. Like SS or LEO. Average person with CC and some training, well...
     
  17. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    Very true. We do not know if the CCW guy even had a good shot. what if he took that shot and missed and struck another. There is no way to really know what you would dop until you have the situation presented to you. I'd like to think I'd of taken the guy out but given where it was I do not know if the shot could have even been made in a safe manner. And I would not want to share a cell with Mr. Loony McToons. THe man might have done what he thought was best. Did a life end because of his inaction? I don't know. I'm sure the person that made that choice knows all too well. But it's pretty safe to say that grabbing him probably did save someone's life..Maybe more than one. For that alone I don't think hero os a misused word for him.
     
  18. Mark F

    Mark F New Member Supporter

    2,918
    0
    0
    Apparently, opportunity presented its self to take the guy down without deadly force. IE: someone was already struggling with the guy. You can't shoot the BG with a Samaritan in the middle of the situation. I wasn't there, and I have no idea what actually transpired but I do know the situation was controlled. Why to people continue to pick this to death? This event has been cast in stone and there's nothing you, me or anyone else can do to change it. As far as what you would have done... well, we''ll never really know, now will we.
     
  19. pabstman

    pabstman New Member

    29
    0
    0
    I would take the shot. I would rather spend time and money defending what I did then let a mad man kill someone! The answer comes easy if you step back and look at the situation. Every single person that was harmed had a family that will most likely never recover completely.
     
  20. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,508
    792
    113
    In cases like this one, you will always hear about the woman that was there.

    IDA DUNN