I haven't seen anything about how much permanent damage he suffered, that's not the sort of thing that usually gets in the paper. Most stabbings do result in some lasting effects, though.
At every point it is clear that his goal was to protect the children. Including protecting them from witnessing an unnecessary death.
This 75 year old man was able to accomplish his goal of protecting his charges without anybody dying.
Why do you insist his better course of action was to have had a gun so he could kill the kid?
Because I care about the fact that he got stabbed, you apparently don't. This isn't Hollywood--nerves don't regrow. Any nerve that gets cut is gone for good and there aren't a lot of places you can cut without inflicting at least some nerve damage.
Of course the better outcome would be if the man had not been stabbed. A better outcome would have also been if the boy had received whatever mental health help he so desperately needed. I hope that he is receiving help now.
I do not think that this man was duty bound to use hand to hand combat to disarm a much younger assailant. I do, however, admire that he was willing to do so and that he was successful.
Now, if circumstances had been different and the older gentleman had been armed, I think that it is quit probable that he would have been justified in using his firearm, even if it resulted in the death of that poor disturbed boy. That option would have almost certainly endangered the lives of others, including young children.
This is not Hollywood. Not every shot hits its mark. Not every shooter knows what his real target is. Innocent bystanders are often unintended victims.
I do so much admire this man who bravely made sure the children got to safety and disarmed a disturbed young man and that no lives were lost. He exhibited bravery, resourcefulness, grace under extreme pressure, dedication to purpose. Those are all qualities to be admired.
No one would expect you to behave the same way, Loren.
- - - Updated - - -
A more ironic statement could not come from you.
What you seem to miss is that this guy got stabbed. This isn't Hollywood where you shrug off any injury that doesn't kill you.
Since I am the one who mentioned his injuries in the OP, either you lack reading comprehension or are you are being disingenuous. And, Mr Vaughn was in Morton, Illinois, and he did endure his injuries and he did save the lives of the 16 children even though that was not his job nor was he a trained professional. I repeat, if a 75 old chess tutor can disarm a knife-wielding homicidal 19 year old, why shouldn't society expect a trained and professional police officer to be able to disarm such people without killing them?
In other words, only life matters. Injuries are meaningless.
You're also assuming that if the incident were replayed 100 times he would prevail all 100 when more likely he simply got lucky because the guy wasn't expecting meaningful resistance from a 75 year old.
Oh, get off it Loren. YOU are the one who seems to have things confused with Hollywood, where the valiant hero's aim is always true!
No one. Not one single person in this thread has said that disarming the assailant and risking and sustaining injuries was the ONLY thing the man should have done. But please pardon us all if we are grateful that no one lost his life.
I sincerely hope that he recovers quickly from his injuries and is able to resume coaching chess. There is a great deal to admire in this man: his willingness to teach a group of young children on a volunteer basis, his courage and resourcefulness under an extreme threat, his dedication in ensuring that the children were safe, first and foremost. His ability to look ahead to the next chess session, rather than cower in a corner or thump his chest at his own bravery in gunning down a kid.
I seriously do not understand anyone who thinks a better outcome would have been if the kid was dead. That is sick and sad and pathetic.
I wouldn't expect a bloodthirsty racist to have any idea what civilized people are talking about.