Carjacking in Georgia stopped by CCW

Status
Not open for further replies.
"....He didn't want to get involved"
Click to expand...
I have to say that I find it interesting that someone could read through this thread and be left with the idea that it's all about not wanting to get involved.

I came away with an entirely different impression. It seems to me that the thread is actually all about wanting to get involved but discussing why it sometimes is not prudent to do so.

Of course, that analysis doesn't lend itself to a snarky oneliner response.
 
I have to say that I find it interesting that someone could read through this
thread and be left with the idea that it's all about not wanting to get involved.
I came away with an entirely different impression... snarky oneliner response.
Click to expand...
Hardly. As you might recall, it was a two-part response,

Part One being:
I admit up front that circumstances define the moment.
Click to expand...

Context is everything, ...including the whole response.
 
There was a more detailed follow-up on the 11 o'clock news last night. There was a lot more to the story than initially reported and it cannot all be seen on the video. Police spokesmen interviewed were advising that jumping on the hood of the car was a bad idea. But once that happened, and with all of the details available they felt the man who used his gun did exactly the right thing.

The carjacker apparently stopped at some point and given the opportunity to just walk away, but chose to drive the car in an aggressive manner towards others. Initial reports and the video lead you to believe the guy just opened fire at a fleeing car with a woman on the hood.

And for anyone who has not figured out the humor, Glocks headquarters is in Smyrna.
 
I admit up front that circumstances define the moment.
But I would not want my epitaph after a long life to read:

......."....He didn't want to get involved"
Click to expand...

Pulling a gun from concealment, chasing a stranger's car with a woman hanging off of it and shooting the carjacker through a window is not the ONLY way to get involved. Here are some other ways:

1. unholster your cell phone and call the police;
2. note the tag number of the car;
3. get a good look at the carjacker so he can be later identified, assist in the police report and be willing to be a witness for the prosecution.

I'm not a cop. I don't have sovereign immunity like the cops have. I'm not wearing any body armor, and I'm not trained on how to stop a perp driving away in a car while I'm on foot by my self. In fact, most cops aren't. The guy was either really good and well trained, or he was really lucky.....or both!
 
Mainah
Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree.
Click to expand...
I see your point of view; I'm not advocating for armed, roving vigilante hordes stepping into the midst of every fracas they come across.
That said, a couple of years ago, on the street not a mile from where I reside, someone in a van tried to grab a middle school student who was walking home from school. If I were present when someone were dragging a child kicking and screaming into a van, I don't feel that I could in good conscience watch this happen and simply say to myself "glad it's not my kid." CCW or no CCW, I'd have to do something.
 
I see your point of view; I'm not advocating for armed, roving vigilante hordes stepping into the midst of every fracas they come across.
That said, a couple of years ago, on the street not a mile from where I reside, someone in a van tried to grab a middle school student who was walking home from school. If I were present when someone were dragging a child kicking and screaming into a van, I don't feel that I could in good conscience watch this happen and simply say to myself "glad it's not my kid." CCW or no CCW, I'd have to do something.
Click to expand...

That's a much different scenario. I couldn't walk away from that either.
 
this thread seems to have turned into defending the good guy when it should be about protecting the innocent and then stoping the bad guy.

Saying that property can be replaced and its better to let the bad guys just take it is BS in my mind. I work hard for what little I have and I'm not going to give it to some scumbag because ins. will hopefully replace it, and in turn my Ins. rates will go up.
 
I work hard for what little I have and I'm not going to give it to some scumbag
Click to expand...

That might explain the lady who clung to her car. But, how does that explain a stranger who lacks body armor and lacks the protection of sovereign immunity from shooting someone through the window of a moving vehicle, when HIS life, HIS stuff, or HIS family was never in danger.

Hey, if the government wants to provide me with absolute sovereign immunity in pursuing bad guys with my firearm (without becoming a cop), then I might change my mind on this. I wouldn't be opposed to this - it's just not the way things are currently.
 
Again, context is everything.

In the Georgia case, seconds counted. The car w/ the woman on the hood was headed directly
into the intersection of a major thruway between Marietta & Smyna

> She thought the move would halt the theft, but once
> on the hood, she realized she could not get off and
> thief ignored her screams to stop, said the report
> released Monday.
>
> Another car wash patron pulled a pistol and also
> shouted several times for the thief to stop before
> firing a shot, which shattered the driver-side window
> and struck the thief’s shoulder, the report said.

The video does not show the actual shooting, but rather the CCW individual beginning his
pusuit of the car which then goes out of the frame. When you see the location the
car finally stopped upon the driver being shot driver's side, you see where it had entered
the adjacent road -- woman still on the hood.
http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/smyrna/2015/04/06/carjacker-shot-smyrna-car-wash/25381707/

If anyone here has ever been to Marietta, S Cobb drive is a huge high speed/8-lane divided freeway.
The CCW had literal seconds to decide, and took the point-blank shot

He did good.

> The man was back at work in the city of Smyrna's IT department on
> Monday, "...and is not facing any charges."

Admittedly snarky Comment: Gee, that's nice. :cool:


.
 
Last edited:
That might explain the lady who clung to her car. But, how does that explain a stranger who lacks body armor and lacks the protection of sovereign immunity from shooting someone through the window of a moving vehicle, when HIS life, HIS stuff, or HIS family was never in danger.
Click to expand...

He was protecting the innocent, why is that such a hard concept to accept or act on?

Living in NJ I see that attitude, the "not my problem" attitude from 99% of the people here but I still will do whatever necessary to help a stranger. If that means stepping in or just making a phone call, I will try to help.

Hey, if the government wants to provide me with absolute sovereign immunity in pursuing bad guys with my firearm (without becoming a cop), then I might change my mind on this. I wouldn't be opposed to this - it's just not the way things are currently.
Click to expand...

If more people did act in a manner to protect strangers, the bad guys would be outnumbered and crime would go down. This would lead to laws being changed to protect those who choose not to be a by-stander when the SHTF during a crime and more bad guys would either be in the ground or in jail.
 
Hind-sight is 20/20

There is only one character, in this scenario that I'm going to second-guess and that is the Car-Jacker. If he is still alive, he should ask himself if it was worth the risk. Other "Ganstas" should ask themselves this same question. I have been shot before but under different circumstances. It's not a pleasant experience and you don't have to go there to find out. ..... ;)


Be Safe !!!
 
He was protecting the innocent, why is that such a hard concept to accept or act on?
Click to expand...

You keep using the word "innocent." You have no knowledge of her innocence. You would be better served claiming he was a victim, but that doesn't make her innocent. Even then, is she really the victim? How sure can you be at time of employing lethal force in this case? Shoot/No-Shoot scenarios are based on these sorts of rapid developing, limited knowledge situations. Choose correctly, and there is no problem. Choose incorrectly in many states, and there are serious consequences.
 
So (in this case under discussion) just let the carjacker continue w/ the owner/woman
on the hood into the high-speed/multiple lanes of Cobb Drive?

Because there's "...just not enough information..." to make a decison ?




postscript: Grizz, I want you--and your take on this--at my back when the chips go down
 
If more people did act in a manner to protect strangers, the bad guys would be outnumbered and crime would go down.
Click to expand...

Likewise, if more people acted in a manner to PROTECT THEMSELVES, the bad guys would be out numbered and crime would go down. Ask yourself: "Do I carry a gun to protect myself? Do I carry a gun to protect others?"
 
So (in this case under discussion) just let the carjacker continue w/ the owner/woman
on the hood into the high-speed/multiple lanes of Cobb Drive?

Because there's "...just not enough information..." to make a decison ?
Click to expand...

I'm glad it turned out okay. But just to recap the owner of the car made the decision to jump on the hood, otherwise there would have been no real case for drawing and shooting. It was a dumb choice on her part.

The CCW had literal seconds to decide, and took the point-blank shot
Click to expand...

Again, glad it worked out. But he had seconds to determine if he was watching a car jacking, a drug deal gone bad, or some kind of domestic violence before he fired with the vicinity of a busy, multi-lane road.
 
We can't force others who carry to have the same mindset we do. If all the individual is interested in, as well as what they have made up their minds about, is defense of SELF and their immediate family, so be it.

The choice to carry is personal.
The choice to use deadly force in defense of life is personal as well.
 
Hardly. As you might recall, it was a two-part response,

Part One being:
Quote:
I admit up front that circumstances define the moment.

Context is everything, ...including the whole response.
Click to expand...
My response was specifically directed at your attribution of motive.

That is, your attempt to make the thread about what people WANT to do rather than accepting it for what it is--a discussion of what is PRUDENT to do.

By recasting a discussion about prudent courses of action into a character attack on those who disagree with you, you don't really have to debate the points, you can just focus on making those who disagree sound as despicable as possible and those who agree sound as upstanding as possible.

So, rather than talking about what's prudent in keeping with the context and flavor of the thread (which would be a difficult position for you to support), you started off by trying to attribute a motive to those who point out the possible pitfalls of getting involved. Specifically, by trying to make it sound like they don't WANT to help people instead of actually addressing the issues raised as to why it is sometimes inadvisable to get involved, or more specifically, why it may or may not have been inadvisable in this particular set of circumstances.

The point being that it is entirely possible for someone to WANT to get involved with every fiber of their being but realize that to do so under the circumstances would be terribly unwise. Even more to the point, this subforum is about tactics and training (preparing for and taking prudent action), not about emotion (what people want or feel).

Prudent tactics are not based on emotion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top