1911Forum banner

Well this was a bunch of bad ideas rolled into one

16K views 215 replies 61 participants last post by  BHPower 
#1 ·
#81 ·
Big difference between supporting criminals and condemning the shooters actions. You are responsible for every round you fire. If you injure or kill someone over shoplifting, is it worth it?

I've been a police officer for 15 years, 5 of those as a Robbery / Homicide Detective. I didn't see an attempted vehicular homicide, I saw a guy put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in. The vehicle backed up to get room to pull forward and get away. A real attempt at running him over was not made in my opinion. I've seen police officers disciplined for excessive use of force for similar situations because they placed themselves in harms way and escalated from there.

Over the years I have had the pleasure of shaking people's hands and saying good job after they used their firearm to defend a life. I've also had the misfortune of charging someone with a crime after they made a very stupid decision.

The bottom line in this case is the good samaritan went home and thankfully no innocent bystanders were hurt. Knowing your state laws is paramount, but so is good judgement.
 
#76 · (Edited)
Another side to the story is to ignore the rule of law. I proposed he (the shooter) had no probable cause and no one has brought evidence to suggest otherwise.

What I see is, the lynch mob mentality without the rule of law being respected and adhered to. We see this very evident in this thread in my opinion. The mentality that is. The lynch mob mentality is live and well here in these United States. Its evident on a small scale here in these forums.

It was present in Jesus' time, and nothing has changed.

It boils down to the fallen state of mankind. The evil in men's hearts. Some may construe these comments to give the thieves a pass. Very misinterpreted in that case. But I digress. Off my soap box. Lets hang'em!:rock:
 
#78 ·
Understandable, not very Smart

I understand the gentlemen's reasons for what he did. I do not support a citizen taking it upon himself to undertake an action that could have easily resulted in a bystander getting injured or worse. To draw and discharge a large caliber handgun when there are no lives in danger serves only to provide the gun adverse crazies with more ammunition to take our rights away. I would only ever use my weapon to save a life or defend against the threat of grave harm.
 
#80 ·
If you are not willing to shoot the person who is trying to run you over, I would think putting a few holes in the trunk of the car would be good for marking the car so that the police could more easily identify it later might be acceptable.

Bullets aimed at tires? I'm not so sure about that one...

And for those who think, "It's *just* shoplifting", I suspect they are not aware of how much these *criminals* can manage to steal. These are not people who are stealing a few pair of underwear or something. These are people who steal *thousands* of dollars in their organized *theft* endeavors.

If you had $5 in your wallet and someone tried to rob you, would you defend yourself?

If you had $10K in your wallet and someone tried to rob you would you defend yourself?

Assuming your answer to the first question was "no" and the second was "yes", then at what amount does the answer change from "no" to "yes"? Does your state have a law that specifies the amount? My state doesn't. I am just as legally allowed to shoot someone trying to rob me of $5 as I would if I had $10K on me. It really is pretty simple -- if you don't want to get shot trying to rob someone of $5, then don't try to rob people. Same goes for shoplifting as far as I'm concerned.
 
#116 ·
If you are not willing to shoot the person who is trying to run you over,
But if someone put themselves in that situation by stepping in front of said car, they instigate.

I would think putting a few holes in the trunk of the car would be good for marking the car so that the police could more easily identify it later might be acceptable.
And if one of those bullets happened to go through the sheet metal trunk, bounce off the pavement and killed my daughter sitting in her car 5 stalls down?
I would not be cutting the shooter any slack in any way, and if they failed to lock them up for the killing, well, let's just say jail would be the least of their worries.

Shooting was not needed in any way and he should have not confronted the thieves.

Bullets aimed at tires? I'm not so sure about that one...

And for those who think, "It's *just* shoplifting", I suspect they are not aware of how much these *criminals* can manage to steal. These are not people who are stealing a few pair of underwear or something. These are people who steal *thousands* of dollars in their organized *theft* endeavors.
If you had $5 in your wallet and someone tried to rob you, would you defend yourself?
If you had $10K in your wallet and someone tried to rob you would you defend yourself?
Assuming your answer to the first question was "no" and the second was "yes", then at what amount does the answer change from "no" to "yes"? Does your state have a law that specifies the amount? My state doesn't. I am just as legally allowed to shoot someone trying to rob me of $5 as I would if I had $10K on me. It really is pretty simple -- if you don't want to get shot trying to rob someone of $5, then don't try to rob people. Same goes for shoplifting as far as I'm concerned.
So, if a local kid on a stupid dare decides to steal your $5 lawn ornament?

Nonviolent crime, where someone is not attacked or harmed, should be punished, but not by hot lead!
If the Zombie Apocalypse (WOW DID I SPELL THAT WRONG!) comes around and someone who is starving, and attempting to steal your last chicken, then that is something else to be considered.
 
#86 ·
I'm sure you feel very protected in NJ so please do not ever leave. You guys whine about the strict gun laws there but you have no idea how to act responsibly with a firearm in public if they did remove all the gun laws tomorrow. And that is why you criticize those who do in free states.
There's got to be some common ground between states that allow offenders to do as they please and states that will kill you if you do. How about chopping the hand off of a thief?
Too harsh for New Jersey? How about a finger each time you're caught until you run out of them (gives a repeat offender ten things to think about each time he thinks).
Too lenient for Montana? How about a recidivist losing the other hand on his second time around. Two times your out instead of three.

7.62Kolector, I am in full accord with your sensible sentiments. But I think there's a stalker on your trail...:eek:
 
#91 · (Edited)
I looked up the laws in Montana and 7.62 is correct. Unlike New Jersey....

Apparently it's acceptable in that state to run a drunk driver off the road, break into the home of a dead beat dad and reclaim his child support money, beat your neighbor with a bat if their dog barks too loud and fire warning rounds into the donut shop ceiling if your coffee is served with less milk than you asked for.

Really is a free state.
 
#93 ·
Hmmm... Makes me want to live there... Well, except for the winters... :)
 
#92 ·
Most states have laws that cover and allow citizen's arrest.
Even Kalifornia.

=============
California Penal Code section 837

A private person may arrest another:

1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his or her presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
=============

However some states don't have many citizens that would ever consider doing anything except coddle criminals.
 
#95 ·
Well I've read this entire thread

...And apparently the majority won't be happy until/unless this man is brought to justice and punished for breaking no laws, and is also held accountable for all of the bad things that could have gone wrong but didn't, and all of the innocent bystanders that weren't wounded.
 
#96 ·
...And apparently the majority won't be happy until/unless this man is brought to justice and punished for breaking no laws, and is also held accountable for all of the bad things that could have gone wrong but didn't, and all of the innocent bystanders that weren't wounded.
Busa Dave is formulating his baseless case right now with all his power....:rofl:
 
#103 ·
More personal insults from one without a leg to stand on.

'You're wrong and I'm right' omg. who sounds like a two year old now? :rofl:
You know zero about me, my age, contributions to this country, experience or basically anything except that I am a hypocrite. Enjoy yourself
Fixed it for you. Just let it go or you can go post pictures of ladies undergarments to his post. Your fetishes are your business but at least this way you will not be thinking about me and ladies under clothes as we say here. I think most are afraid to know anything about you I know I am...
 
#108 ·
Dave, you're an idiot. Go **** up someone else's post. I'm pretty sure you'll never have anything to contribute. You really should be forced to carry around a potted plant to replace all the oxygen you steal.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
#110 ·
Just read the whole thread and what I find very interesting is he spoke with the police explained his actions and was not charged with anything. Apparently he didn't see all these posters that think he should he should be charged with something. I mean you guys had to have been there and saw him do all those terrible things cause any sensible gun owner would know that the media isn't going to tell the truth so unless YOU were there how in the world could you say he did so many things wrong. However I do agree sounds like mob mentality. Let the flames begin and all of us Westerners will pray that the easterners quit trying to change our laws

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
 
#122 · (Edited)
Just read the whole thread and what I find very interesting is he spoke with the police explained his actions and was not charged with anything.
This has been brought up multiple times throughout this thread and has been the basis for the argument he was justified, as if it has one ounce of validity. I don't find it interesting at all.

My brother-in-law had 7 DWI's over the course of 30 years, starting on the west coast and moving to the east coast. He was on the revoke for all that time and continued to drive...He got pulled over on the revoke with beers in his gut again, after 30 years of driving with no license and the cop told him to park his car and call for a ride. He must have been perfectly within the law that day according to you. How in world could any cop let him go if he broke the law according to you? Easy...they say, ummm go.

It's a futile argument with no backbone or common reason. Happens EVERY DAY. It's a phenomenon we will never understand...Maybe the cop had to take a mean poop...maybe the shooter reminded him of his dead brother, maybe he just didn't do his job cause he hates his Chief.

Some of you here act as if a person thinks someone got away with poor judgement and was extremely lucky for such that we are anti 2A. I don't give a rats ass if that guy has 20 machine guns, and uses them to protect himself. I'm gonna call a spade a spade. He was stupid and broke the law worse than what he was trying to defend, but got lucky EVEN IN MONTANA. Good for him, not good publicity for responsible gun owners and not good for protecting MY right or YOURS to own and bear arms responsibly.

Yup, I'm over here in Jersey where Dems run rampant and everyones a snowflake. So, you can poke fun at my screwed up state but I'm stuck here with my job, family and ****ty gun laws...the reason I'm so passionate about this kinda crap is because every time this kind of crap happens, it fuels the NJ legislators tanks. You have the luxury of claiming marshall law at my expense. By defending this mans obvious negligent actions- You're NOT helping to make the system stronger, you're contributing to its weakness.

Okay 7.62 NOW i'm done. And please accept my apology for being a dick to you.
 
#113 ·
The man was trying to do right, preventing thieves from leaving the scene until police arrived, the shooting (at the tires) in self defense once the vehicle was backed up and threatening his own safety. The last two shots (at the tires) may not have been needed, but by then the heat of the moment was no doubt intense.
My hat is off to the Mr. Newman. This, from someone ignorant members here would call a "Libtard" (for whom I have choice words, but being a gentleman, will not use).
I wonder what kind of tires stop .45 caliber bullets?
Steel belted, no doubt, but still...

Obama never came for MY guns. How about yours?
 
#117 ·
Hey, if the Zombie is hungry who are we to intervene? In the forgiving world some seem to be advocating, why should my hunger trump his, no matter who owns the chicken?
 
#119 ·
Oh, he was a Marine?

I take back calling him stupid.

Those guys training sticks, some can't ever turn it off.

It was probably something akin to muscle memory, being devil's advocate here, but I wonder if it was something like that.

Thsts why we have separate police and military in this country.
 
#125 · (Edited)
Okay, good points made. If he did indeed act within the law, and did not get some sort of pass, then really, god bless Montana. Kudo's for citizens acting as law and taking matters into their own hands. I've never seen it so blatently done in my 48 years on earth, but I admit, I've never been to Montana.

I will say this. If that is good gun laws, I don't want them in my State. Montana can keep him. So far, as much as jersey sucks, I can go to the mall without worrying about some kookaluk going on a shooting spree over under garments, because when it comes to shoplifting we don't grab a tire iron and start swinging randomly, we usually just call the cops.
 
#126 ·
Okay, good points made. If he did indeed act within the law, and did not get some sort of pass, then really, god bless Montana. Kudo's for citizens acting as law and taking matters into their own hands. I've never seen it so blatently done in my 48 years on earth, but I admit, I've never been to Montana.

I will say this. If that is good gun laws, I don't want them in my State. Montana can keep him.
The police can't be everywhere every time right on time. And guns are not always needed to solve rough situations as in what just happened here.

http://www.floridaconcealedcarry.co...a-homeowner-uses-martial-arts-to-stop-burglar

But I am still glad there are people out there willing to confront scumbags rather than snap pics of plates and HOPE they get caught later. By then all evidence would be gone and nothing would happen.
And Johnny it's the Internet. No apology from you is necessary as well as there's only one Richard Cranium on this forum.
You think Montana is lax? Read up on what folks in Texas can do to thieves AFTER dark even if they are fleeing.
Choot em....
 
#131 · (Edited)
Quote:
Originally Posted by archangel2003 View Post
If the Zombie Apocalypse (WOW DID I SPELL THAT WRONG!) comes around and someone who is starving, and attempting to steal your last chicken, then that is something else to be considered.

Foolish Yankee... Zombies don't eat chicken, they eat *brains*...
Well that should make archangel2003 feel more at ease; knowing now that he's off the Zombie's menu. :biglaugh:
 
#132 ·
People that live in some places like overly controlled cities develop an attitude caused by their surroundings. I don't want to say brainwashed but more like conditioned. They can't help it, it just happens. When they are told something over and over they believe it and it becomes part of them. They use words like shooting spree to describe a few shots. This is much like what the media does to over-hype things. They hear a gunshot and they automatically react negatively and think the worst thing possible. It is absolutely nothing to hear a gunshot in many less controlled areas and rural areas and it does not trigger the same response.

Notice the response of the bystanders in the video when the first shots were fired. The guy didn't panic one bit, he took a few steps back and quickly resumed his normal demeanor and then chuckled a little. In some overly controlled cities, everybody would be in full panic mode, waving their arms and screaming and running full speed to anywhere else.
And notice the reaction of the person taking the video. No hint of panic, the camera stayed on the subjects and vehicle. In some overly controlled places where the danger is over-hyped a lot, the camera would be jerking all over pointing at the sky and the ground.

Some city people are conditioned to think a shooter doesn't know what he is doing because that is the type of shooters they are used to and that is what is over-hyped by the media. So they use words like spray and pray just like the media would in those areas. But in areas where guns are a much more common part of life and people actually use guns outside of indoor ranges it is a much better bet that they really do know what they are doing.

Different people can watch the same events unfold and react completely differently based on their conditioning by their surroundings.
 
#133 ·
I agree with this.



And I would go so far as to add that those urban conditioned people are always the first to start saying what "could have happened", who "might have gotten shot by accident", etc. When you look at this discussion more closely, people seem to be WAY too focused on all of the things they imagine could have happened, not seeming to accept the fact that those things didn't happen. I don't see punishing a person for things that simply didn't occur.

I also see a pattern here in the responses that indicate to me that many on this forum appear willing to trade quite a bit of freedom/liberty for what they think will be safety. The fact that they are mistaken about the safety is lost on them completely.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top