Finally Vigilante Justice!

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't about whether firing is a good idea after brandishing a weapon, as you are pretty much forcing the issue at this point. It is whether you should brandish it in the first place. This is where training should be a prerequisite for such involvements.

Is the man a criminal? Most likely.
Is the man armed and capable of killing? Does he have a gun? Is he acting like he is willing to use it?
Is the crime being committed a capital offense? Not yet and a person with a conceal carry would probably liked to have shot first before it became one.
Will shooting the alleged criminal make people safer?
How will the shooter handle killing a person?

Like most things in life, shit is complicated!

Most likely? He threatened people with a gun and stated that his intention was to rob them.

Okay, what part of "most likely" doesn't exactly fit the bill for you?

And the assumption when someone points a gun at you should always be that they're willing to use it.

I haven't read anything anywhere indicating that he pointed the gun at the man who killed him.

 

[Bronzeage]

There are two rules in a gun fight:
1. Shoot first.
2. Shoot straight.

If you have a gun and you confront another person who also has a gun, during some sort of serious crime, a simple challenge of "Drop it!" is likely to get you killed. This is especially true if you are already in his line of fire. If you are behind him, there's a small chance he will comply. He's more likely to bolt and run, if he can.

However, if he is facing you, he's more likely to obey the rules of a gunfight.

This isn't about whether firing is a good idea after brandishing a weapon, as you are pretty much forcing the issue at this point. It is whether you should brandish it in the first place. This is where training should be a prerequisite for such involvements.

Is the man a criminal? Most likely.
Is the man armed and capable of killing? Does he have a gun? Is he acting like he is willing to use it?
Is the crime being committed a capital offense? Not yet and a person with a conceal carry would probably liked to have shot first before it became one.
Will shooting the alleged criminal make people safer?
How will the shooter handle killing a person?

Like most things in life, shit is complicated!

Whether training is prerequisite or not, it doesn't change the rules of a gunfight. A man who pulls a gun on another man who has a gun, must either be prepared to fire immediately, or be prepared to die in the near future.

To put it simply, the decision to brandish the gun is either a decision to fire, or a decision to risk certain death or injury.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't about whether firing is a good idea after brandishing a weapon, as you are pretty much forcing the issue at this point. It is whether you should brandish it in the first place. This is where training should be a prerequisite for such involvements.

Is the man a criminal? Most likely.
Is the man armed and capable of killing? Does he have a gun? Is he acting like he is willing to use it?
Is the crime being committed a capital offense? Not yet and a person with a conceal carry would probably liked to have shot first before it became one.
Will shooting the alleged criminal make people safer?
How will the shooter handle killing a person?

Like most things in life, shit is complicated!

Whether training is prerequisite or not, it doesn't change the rules of a gunfight. A man who pulls a gun on another man who has a gun, must either be prepared to fire immediately, or be prepared to die in the near future.

To put it simply, the decision to brandish the gun is either a decision to fire, or a decision to risk certain death or injury.

And I'm asking about training to deal with the issue to help conceal carries understand whether brandishing a weapon is a proper decision in these types of cases. Am I speaking in Greek here?

 

[Deepak]

Whether training is prerequisite or not, it doesn't change the rules of a gunfight. A man who pulls a gun on another man who has a gun, must either be prepared to fire immediately, or be prepared to die in the near future.

To put it simply, the decision to brandish the gun is either a decision to fire, or a decision to risk certain death or injury.

And I'm asking about training to deal with the issue to help conceal carries understand whether brandishing a weapon is a proper decision in these types of cases. Am I speaking in Greek here?

I think the issue is that this is about as clear cut of a case as you can get. No training manual, whether civilian; police; or military, would recommend a different course of action.

Not sure about the MiB.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRXNNqNfQBs[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And I'm asking about training to deal with the issue to help conceal carries understand whether brandishing a weapon is a proper decision in these types of cases. Am I speaking in Greek here?

I think the issue is that this is about as clear cut of a case as you can get. No training manual, whether civilian; police; or military, would recommend a different course of action.

Not sure about the MiB.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRXNNqNfQBs[/YOUTUBE]

No. The clear cut situation is if you have a guy shooting a gun at people. Of course, presuming he isn't a concealed carry trying to shoot a bad guy.

Had the concealed carry not shot the robber, there is a high likelihood that no one would have been shot. He goes in, takes the money, and leaves... gets arrested a short while after. Additionally, there is also the risk to everyone else, once shots start flying.

 

[Deepak]

No. The clear cut situation is if you have a guy shooting a gun at people. Of course, presuming he isn't a concealed carry trying to shoot a bad guy.

Had the concealed carry not shot the robber, there is a high likelihood that no one would have been shot. He goes in, takes the money, and leaves... gets arrested a short while after. Additionally, there is also the risk to everyone else, once shots start flying.

I'm presuming someone announcing their intention to rob another individual at gunpoint isn't someone trying to shoot a bad guy. And pulling a gun on someone is about the deadliest deadly threat possible short of shooting someone. What if the assailant fires a warning shot? What if he shoots someone but he intended to fire a warning shot?

The notion that someone needs to be hurt or killed before someone intervenes in a violent encounter is perverse, and I'd surmise most people would disagree with such a notion.

More to the point, homicides committed during a felony (looking at specified categories) are most prevalent during a robbery by a wide margin according to the FBI. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls I'm sure non-fatal injury statistics would follow suit.

 

[ksen]

I don't know man, I'm not seeing the appeal of living in a society where people are killed for non-capital crimes before they even have a chance to go to court.

And if a vigilante (aren't they by defiinition already breaking the law?) shoots and kills a person in a situation where a trained and competent police officer wouldn't then I find that to be a problem and not something to be lauded.

Red Dead Redemption is a videogame, not something to aspire to in real life.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. The clear cut situation is if you have a guy shooting a gun at people. Of course, presuming he isn't a concealed carry trying to shoot a bad guy.

Had the concealed carry not shot the robber, there is a high likelihood that no one would have been shot. He goes in, takes the money, and leaves... gets arrested a short while after. Additionally, there is also the risk to everyone else, once shots start flying.

I'm presuming someone announcing their intention to rob another individual at gunpoint isn't someone trying to shoot a bad guy.

Can you please decide if you are discussing this specific case (where a known armed robbery is occurring) or vigilante acts (where such presumption can't be assumed in all cases)?

And pulling a gun on someone is about the deadliest deadly threat possible short of shooting someone. What if the assailant fires a warning shot? What if he shoots someone but he intended to fire a warning shot?

What if he explodes a chestful of explosives? The question isn't whether there is a threat. The question is a third party using deadly force appropriate, in this case specifically (regarding public safety) and others (where presumptions may be made that aren't accurate, public safety).

The notion that someone needs to be hurt or killed before someone intervenes in a violent encounter is perverse, and I'd surmise most people would disagree with such a notion.

For fuck sakes, can you please respond to me within the context of my replies. You stated an armed robbery was the most clear cut threat for approval of vigilante action. I did not say people need to be dying before action can/should be taken.

More to the point, homicides committed during a felony (looking at specified categories) are most prevalent during a robbery by a wide margin according to the FBI.

Yes, thank you. You have thoroughly proven to me that an armed robbery isn't a completely safe transaction and should be treated as if some level of threat actually exists. I know my posts must have indicated that I thought armed robbery was no more dangerous than MP3 piracy for you to go through the effort to demonstrate to me that armed robbery is dangerous and not benign.

I only wish that I had posted my actual thoughts that what I'm asking is whether if a Conceal Carry Permit is a Permit that allows Vigilante acts, whether training should go along with it, to ensure that more people aren't hurt in such incidents.

 

[Deepak]

I'm presuming someone announcing their intention to rob another individual at gunpoint isn't someone trying to shoot a bad guy.

Can you please decide if you are discussing this specific case (where a known armed robbery is occurring) or vigilante acts (where such presumption can't be assumed in all cases)?

And pulling a gun on someone is about the deadliest deadly threat possible short of shooting someone. What if the assailant fires a warning shot? What if he shoots someone but he intended to fire a warning shot?

What if he explodes a chestful of explosives? The question isn't whether there is a threat. The question is a third party using deadly force appropriate, in this case specifically (regarding public safety) and others (where presumptions may be made that aren't accurate, public safety).

The notion that someone needs to be hurt or killed before someone intervenes in a violent encounter is perverse, and I'd surmise most people would disagree with such a notion.

For fuck sakes, can you please respond to me within the context of my replies. You stated an armed robbery was the most clear cut threat for approval of vigilante action. I did not say people need to be dying before action can/should be taken.

More to the point, homicides committed during a felony (looking at specified categories) are most prevalent during a robbery by a wide margin according to the FBI.

Yes, thank you. You have thoroughly proven to me that an armed robbery isn't a completely safe transaction and should be treated as if some level of threat actually exists. I know my posts must have indicated that I thought armed robbery was no more dangerous than MP3 piracy for you to go through the effort to demonstrate to me that armed robbery is dangerous and not benign.

I only wish that I had posted my actual thoughts that what I'm asking is whether if a Conceal Carry Permit is a Permit that allows Vigilante acts, whether training should go along with it, to ensure that more people aren't hurt in such incidents.

Go back and reread every one of my posts - it's quite clear that I'm responding to the actual thread topic. If you're changing the conversation topic and everyone else is confused - maybe that says more about your attempt at making your point than others' attempt at understanding it.

To answer your question there are circumstances where a CC holder is within their rights, and I'd argue obligated, to intervene. Obviously good judgement needs to be applied in these situations. To bring your derail back to the OP, and to deflect the implication that I think we live in Tombstone - what about this specific case do you think was an exercise in poor judgement. I'd like to get some insight into your proposed curriculum.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What bothers me is this part of the article:

Guglielmi told AP the police department takes no position on whether legally armed bystanders should take action in such situations.

Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that police departments, and the justice system as a whole, should be taking a position on? It seems a relevant question for their line of work which they should provide an answer for.

 

[Deepak]

I don't know man, I'm not seeing the appeal of living in a society where people are killed for non-capital crimes before they even have a chance to go to court.

And if a vigilante (aren't they by defiinition already breaking the law?) shoots and kills a person in a situation where a trained and competent police officer wouldn't then I find that to be a problem and not something to be lauded.

Red Dead Redemption is a videogame, not something to aspire to in real life.

I disagree - living in a society where we watch someone get murdered when there is an opportunity to intervene is abhorrent to me. And your hypothetical misses the mark - any competent police officer would have shot Gildersleeve. Moreover, if the person shooting Gildersleeve by definition was breaking the law then he'd be incarcerated and awaiting trial - not released after the police conducted an interview. If you think there are other factors involved in this case beyond your implication that this is prima facie a violation of law then you should cite some corroborating evidence.

 

[Deepak]

What bothers me is this part of the article:

Guglielmi told AP the police department takes no position on whether legally armed bystanders should take action in such situations.

Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that police departments, and the justice system as a whole, should be taking a position on? It seems a relevant question for their line of work which they should provide an answer for.

I'd argue that this is a legislative function. If such a thing should be discouraged then the legality should reflect that, rather than a statement by the police dept.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can you please decide if you are discussing this specific case (where a known armed robbery is occurring) or vigilante acts (where such presumption can't be assumed in all cases)?

And pulling a gun on someone is about the deadliest deadly threat possible short of shooting someone. What if the assailant fires a warning shot? What if he shoots someone but he intended to fire a warning shot?

What if he explodes a chestful of explosives? The question isn't whether there is a threat. The question is a third party using deadly force appropriate, in this case specifically (regarding public safety) and others (where presumptions may be made that aren't accurate, public safety).

The notion that someone needs to be hurt or killed before someone intervenes in a violent encounter is perverse, and I'd surmise most people would disagree with such a notion.

For fuck sakes, can you please respond to me within the context of my replies. You stated an armed robbery was the most clear cut threat for approval of vigilante action. I did not say people need to be dying before action can/should be taken.

More to the point, homicides committed during a felony (looking at specified categories) are most prevalent during a robbery by a wide margin according to the FBI.

Yes, thank you. You have thoroughly proven to me that an armed robbery isn't a completely safe transaction and should be treated as if some level of threat actually exists. I know my posts must have indicated that I thought armed robbery was no more dangerous than MP3 piracy for you to go through the effort to demonstrate to me that armed robbery is dangerous and not benign.

I only wish that I had posted my actual thoughts that what I'm asking is whether if a Conceal Carry Permit is a Permit that allows Vigilante acts, whether training should go along with it, to ensure that more people aren't hurt in such incidents.

Go back and reread every one of my posts - it's quite clear that I'm responding to the actual thread topic. If you're changing the conversation topic and everyone else is confused - maybe that says more about your attempt at making your point than others' attempt at understanding it.

To answer your question there are circumstances where a CC holder is within their rights, and I'd argue obligated, to intervene. Obviously good judgement needs to be applied in these situations. To bring your derail back to the OP, and to deflect the implication that I think we live in Tombstone - what about this specific case do you think was an exercise in poor judgement. I'd like to get some insight into your proposed curriculum.

I applaud you attempt to drag my derail on vigilante act in a thread about a vigilante act back on thread.

What in this specific case was wrong? I haven't a fucking clue. An investigation would need to look into the specific circumstances of bystanders, threat assessment, etc... Are we wrong for asking?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What bothers me is this part of the article:



Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that police departments, and the justice system as a whole, should be taking a position on? It seems a relevant question for their line of work which they should provide an answer for.

I'd argue that this is a legislative function. If such a thing should be discouraged then the legality should reflect that, rather than a statement by the police dept.

That's a fair point.

My next question has to do with what happens if the vigilante misses and hits a bystander?

Given that police officers, who receive training in how to fire in stressful situations, have an accuracy rate of well below 50% in those situations, it seems much more likely that a member of the general population would have only a small chance of actually hitting the person he's aiming for. In a robbery situation with bystanders around, that increases the danger to those bystanders as well as serving as a trigger event to get the robber to start firing back as opposed to just holding his gun, thus increasing the danger even more.

Even though everything worked out well in this particular situation, having it be an acceptable way for people to act seems to me to be the kind of thing that unecessarily increases the risk of innocents dying.

 

[ksen]

I don't know man, I'm not seeing the appeal of living in a society where people are killed for non-capital crimes before they even have a chance to go to court.

And if a vigilante (aren't they by defiinition already breaking the law?) shoots and kills a person in a situation where a trained and competent police officer wouldn't then I find that to be a problem and not something to be lauded.

Red Dead Redemption is a videogame, not something to aspire to in real life.

I disagree - living in a society where we watch someone get murdered when there is an opportunity to intervene is abhorrent to me.

Way to shift the goalposts. The shooter was not watching Gildersleeve murder anyone when he killed Gildersleeve.

And your hypothetical misses the mark - any competent police officer would have shot Gildersleeve.

Assertion without evidence. Discarded.

Moreover, if the person shooting Gildersleeve by definition was breaking the law then he'd be incarcerated and awaiting trial - not released after the police conducted an interview. If you think there are other factors involved in this case beyond your implication that this is prima facie a violation of law then you should cite some corroborating evidence.

I stand corrected. In Illinoise you can use up to lethal force to stop a forcible felony.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There are two rules in a gun fight:
1. Shoot first.
2. Shoot straight.

If you have a gun and you confront another person who also has a gun, during some sort of serious crime, a simple challenge of "Drop it!" is likely to get you killed. This is especially true if you are already in his line of fire. If you are behind him, there's a small chance he will comply. He's more likely to bolt and run, if he can.

However, if he is facing you, he's more likely to obey the rules of a gunfight.

This isn't about whether firing is a good idea after brandishing a weapon, as you are pretty much forcing the issue at this point. It is whether you should brandish it in the first place. This is where training should be a prerequisite for such involvements.

Is the man a criminal? Most likely.
Is the man armed and capable of killing? Does he have a gun? Is he acting like he is willing to use it?
Is the crime being committed a capital offense? Not yet and a person with a conceal carry would probably liked to have shot first before it became one.
Will shooting the alleged criminal make people safer?
How will the shooter handle killing a person?

Like most things in life, shit is complicated!

Given there is a limited time to think is the man a perceived threat or a real threat, both of which are normally valid as a reason to open fire?

 

[ksen]

On the other hand the shooter of Gildersleeve should feel lucky the Chicago PD didn't show up while he had his gun out:

http://bearingarms.com/chicago-top-cop-warns-that-his-officers-will-shoot-concealed-carriers/

GunsNFreedom.com is reporting an astonishing statement made by Chicago police superintendent Garry McCarthy.

McCarthy is angry that Illinois has joined the other 49 states in the union that have authorized some level of concealed carry. In an recorded interview McCarthy issues a not so thinly-veiled threat that under his leadership, Chicago Police will shoot concealed carriers:

“You put more guns on the street expect more shootings,” McCarthy said. “I don’t care if they’re licensed legal firearms, people who are not highly trained… putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that. I’m telling you right up front.”

 

[Deepak]

I'd argue that this is a legislative function. If such a thing should be discouraged then the legality should reflect that, rather than a statement by the police dept.

That's a fair point.

My next question has to do with what happens if the vigilante misses and hits a bystander?

Given that police officers, who receive training in how to fire in stressful situations, have an accuracy rate of well below 50% in those situations, it seems much more likely that a member of the general population would have only a small chance of actually hitting the person he's aiming for. In a robbery situation with bystanders around, that increases the danger to those bystanders as well as serving as a trigger event to get the robber to start firing back as opposed to just holding his gun, thus increasing the danger even more.

Even though everything worked out well in this particular situation, having it be an acceptable way for people to act seems to me to be the kind of thing that unecessarily increases the risk of innocents dying.

You're responsible for your bullets - full stop. Actually - I think this should apply to police as well.

What you'll find is that police aren't really much better than the average individual who spend some free time at the range. http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf

As far as I'm aware, most agencies only require a cop to certify yearly at a range - and outside of specific agencies like SWAT, FBI, and DEA they don't really take part in any sort of stressful situation training for average police officers. The only real stressor is the fact that their qualifications require a degree of accuracy within a specific time.

They're certainly no better, and I'd say that avid shooters i.e. people who spend a lot of time at the range are better shots. Occasionally these people are also cops. Ditto individuals who actually train in stressful situations http://blog.beretta.com/incorporating-stress-in-gun-training

 

[KeepTalking]

The problem with this and any vigilante case

Gonna go ahead and stop you right there. Despite the characterization in the OP title, which was apparently just worded that way to get people to click on it, this is not a vigilante case. This is a case of self defense, or defense of another.

A vigilante is a person who takes law enforcement in their own hands, without legal authority. It would be typified by attempting to bring someone to justice after the fact of the commission of their supposed crimes. In a case where someone is under imminent threat from a crime being committed at that time, the term to use is defense.

Please adjust your rhetoric, and continue.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's a fair point.

My next question has to do with what happens if the vigilante misses and hits a bystander?

Given that police officers, who receive training in how to fire in stressful situations, have an accuracy rate of well below 50% in those situations, it seems much more likely that a member of the general population would have only a small chance of actually hitting the person he's aiming for. In a robbery situation with bystanders around, that increases the danger to those bystanders as well as serving as a trigger event to get the robber to start firing back as opposed to just holding his gun, thus increasing the danger even more.

Even though everything worked out well in this particular situation, having it be an acceptable way for people to act seems to me to be the kind of thing that unecessarily increases the risk of innocents dying.

You're responsible for your bullets - full stop. Actually - I think this should apply to police as well.

What you'll find is that police aren't really much better than the average individual who spend some free time at the range. http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf

As far as I'm aware, most agencies only require a cop to certify yearly at a range - and outside of specific agencies like SWAT, FBI, and DEA they don't really take part in any sort of stressful situation training for average police officers. The only real stressor is the fact that their qualifications require a degree of accuracy within a specific time.

They're certainly no better, and I'd say that avid shooters i.e. people who spend a lot of time at the range are better shots. Occasionally these people are also cops. Ditto individuals who actually train in stressful situations http://blog.beretta.com/incorporating-stress-in-gun-training

Right, so it sounds like you agree with me that allowing people with conceled carry permits to fire at armed robbers should be illegal because it increases the risk of harm to innocent bystanders. The way I see it is that while cops need guns in order to do their jobs, increasing the number of people who are firing their guns in populated areas while they are under stress is a horrible idea that leads to unecessary loss of innocent life.

Things happened to go well for the guy in the OP. If that sort of thing becomes an acceptable way to act, however, increasing the number of times it happens is going to increase the number of innocent deaths and the more people you have drawing their guns on robbers, the more of them you're going to have who didn't receive sufficient training to be able to handle this type of situation, making things even worse. It's the same way as how it's illegal to close your eyes and speed through a red light, regardless of whether or not you get into an accident when you do so. The charges you face are a lot worse if you do cause an accident, of course, but your decision to increase the risk of harm to innocents around you makes the act itself illegal even when no innocents are harmed by a specific occurance of it.