CHL and Vigilantes

F

firefox

Inactive
Is it me , or do many chl holders have an affinity to engage in firearm combat when it's avoidable. For example, witnessing a store robbery and reaching for their firearm. I read one article where a couple guys were checking on a house (housesitting) for some friends, when they found that intruders were occupying it. They then proceeded to go in *swat* style, pistols ready. Does this make any sense?!? I would have called 911 and left it at that.

I just thought the rule with handgun ownership was to not do anything you wouldn't do without a gun. Just because we have the power of a gun, does not always mean it should be used. Wouldn't you agree that the only time a weapon should be drawn would be in an immediate life-threatening situation?
What would happen if you got in a bar fight (adrenaline pumping and all) and you were just getting your ass kicked. Would you pull out a firearm? What about a carjacking? The thief probably just wants to take the car to a chop-shop and by pulling a gun (they would probably shoot - leaving both of you dead)... just something to think about.
 
Odd. If you call 911, expect to be put on hold. Recently I drove up on a car fire. I called 911. I was put on hold. I also have been too close to a few bad drug deals that went violent. I gave up on 911 being an emergency help number. I don't go looking for trouble. If it comes my way, I am prepared. The bar? I don't hang out in bars. I don't carry in bars if I do go out with friends. I don't see myself as Hondo or even a flawed hero. I have been able to handle MOST things with a look or a knockdown fist punch. If it comes down to it, I won't be a vigilante. I will be a living survivor. I can always leave. If more people had enough sense to leave, there would be few problems. GOA is better than DOA.
 
Wouldn't you agree that the only time a weapon should be drawn would be in an immediate life-threatening situation?
Click to expand...

If an armed robbery is taking place in my presence I already consider my life threatened. There are many cases where I would likely take care of my own business before I picked up the telephone to call one of the investigative, reporting and custodial agencies. It all depends on the exact circumstances. I have had similar experiences to Sir William; your best protector is you.
 
I guess it depends on your jurisdiction how well 911 works. I would like to think that a call to 911 *still* is the right thing to do, unless your immediate life or loved one is in danger. How we define danger is another story altogether. If a BG was approaching you on the street, clearly unarmed (say shorts and shirtless, hands exposed) looking to pound you, does this justify pulling a firearm? I wonder... It's just that I seem to keep reading about how these ex-marine/veteran types with chl's, do things that look like vigilante justice to some degree. If I witnessed the mugging I would get the best description of the perpetrator in my head and call the police immediately, whereas some chl's would pull a gun. This IMHO would get you killed or in deep trouble. It's one thing to be a responsible chl and understand safety and how to use your weapon, but another thing when the SHTF.

We can be very well trained in the logic parts of carrying concealed, but what happens when someone punches your spouse in the face, breaking her nose? Adrenaline rush becomes a factor and thus (fight or flight). When a firearm is at your fingertips, are you more than likely to pull it? Or would you pull the gun out , empty the chamber and magazine , and roll up your sleeves.
Either way, you've pulled a weapon, and the outcome differs signifcantly. Both from a legal and situational standpoint.

The situation could very well get much worse. Worst of all, if you end up fist fighting the BG, he could get a hold of *your* weapon. Anyone have further thoughts or comments?
 
Lak, you make a valid point about taking matters in your own hands. Cops and laws do little to protect you, they just try to discourage and respond to crimes. However, it should be a last resort. If you observed a robbery in a building, and if they weren't executing hostages, do you make the situation worse by grabbing the 45? Perhaps, or rather most likely. Now if the robber is popping caps in skulls and you're next in line, then by all means you have a right to defend yourself. Nothing to lose at this point. Heck, after a single person had been pistol whipped, I would have *prepared* to engage, but certainly not draw . But, if they are grabbing the money and shoving it in bags for an apparent quick getaway, by pulling a weapon you have just further endangered the life of others as well as your own. A bad situation could become a massacre. This is what some might call the flaws vigilante justice. Police and tactical teams are trained in the psychological element of crimes in progress, but as chl holders we are not. We simply don't encounter enough scenarios and live/breathe criminal mentality to make the right decision. Again, if someone is chasing at you with an axe, it's pretty obvious what you should do. :)
 
Is it me , or do many chl holders have an affinity to engage in firearm combat when it's avoidable.
Click to expand...
It's just you. The vast majority of holders choose flight instead of fight as well as have a tendacy to walk the straight and narrow.

It's kind of a "duh".

Anyone can pack heat, card or no card. The responsible and law abiding choose to comply with the law, and get the licence. Whatever gives you the idea that after taking the steps necessary to get a licence, they all of a sudden go *badge happy* and all *james bond-licence-to-kill*?

A few isolated incidents don't give a true picture of what the other millions do.

That's like saying licenced drivers have an affinity to drive recklessly, based on reading a few stories about someone getting cited for speeding.
 
Now if the robber is popping caps in skulls and you're next in line, then by all means you have a right to defend yourself. Nothing to lose at this point.
Click to expand...
Could you live with the fact that that first person died due to your inaction, when you had the means to stop the BG.
What if you or a family member are first in line. or they go in reverse order, or they do it randomly without respect to your position in line
Heck, after a single person had been pistol whipped, I would have *prepared* to engage, but certainly not draw
Click to expand...
At that point, if you were simply preparing to engage, you would probabl be too dead to actually finish your draw.

I you are invloved in an armed robbery you are already at a disadvantag.
The BGs have entered the builing with at least some kind of plan and at least the expectation of a robbery. You have entered the building with a plan to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk.
If you wait till the shooting starts to register that you are in a situation, you are at their mercy.

If you get the chance to end the threat before it escalates to pistol whipping and skull popping, do it. Worry about whether he was a kinder gentler scumbag later.

I read one article where a couple guys were checking on a house (housesitting) for some friends, when they found that intruders were occupying it.
Click to expand...
It was also stated in that article that the police were an hour (i believe) away and the two guys in question, that had some type of experience in house clearing, never entered the building or shot at the fleeing squatters when they could have. They could also easily have set up an ambush but did not.
 
First, it is not a vigilante action to engage in a defense situation instead of trying to egress from it without engaging. That is simply being proactive. The term vigilante refers to extracting justice on a person without the benefit of due course of the law. If you hunt down a bad guy after an incident and engage him with gunfire, that would be a vigilante action. Protecting yourself or another at the time of the event is called self defense.

Also, while it is true that cops and laws do little to protect folks directly, they are in place and do have many indirect effects. Contrary to a lot of opinions, the police usually do want to help, but our system is reactionary. The police usually don't shadow you all day long as personal protection and so if there is a crisis, they have to respond from where they are and by the time they get to you, the action is likely over. We complain about it, but nobody seems to have come up with a system where police, fire, and ambulance services are anticipatory instead of reactionary without spending the entire Federal Budget in the process.
 
firefox said:
"What would happen if you got in a bar fight..."

"Or would you pull the gun out , empty the chamber and magazine , and roll up your sleeves."

"Worst of all, if you end up fist fighting the BG..."
Click to expand...

If I had such a propensity for fisticuffs, I would indeed question the advisability carrying a weapon.
 
In my experience folks who obtain permit are among the least likely to engage in unnecessary violence of any type.

Key word here is unnecessary.
 
We complain about it, but nobody seems to have come up with a system where police, fire, and ambulance services are anticipatory instead of reactionary without spending the entire Federal Budget in the process.
Click to expand...
Ever heard the saying "There's never a cop around when you need one". It's not because cops are lazy and shiftless, hiding at the donut shop when there's people to protect.
It's because very few people are stupid enough to commit a violent crime when there is a cop nearby.
 
I read one article where a couple guys were checking on a house (housesitting) for some friends, when they found that intruders were occupying it. They then proceeded to go in *swat* style, pistols ready. Does this make any sense?!? I would have called 911 and left it at that.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly from the story, one thought they might have left the light on and didn't want to call 911 over it. As soon as they stuck the key in the knob the squatter(s) bolted out the back door.
 
PsychoSword's summary is pretty much correct. They guys felt comfortable trying to do a search of the house because they were armed. It isn't a decision I agree with, but it was well within the law and their responsibilities. The 'SWAT' part of the deal with only the approach and idea that they would do something of a dynamic entry, but that did not involve something like a 'door key' or 'door knocker' devices used to brute force through the lock and hinges. They were using a real key.

So it wasn't vigilante as they were within the law and it wasn't vigilante as they didn't try to extract justice on the intruders after the intruders left.

Was it an unnecessary risk? Maybe. For the guy who wasn't even responsible for the house, I thought it was. Then again, neither party really believed there was anything wrong and so it was going to be more like an exercise than anything else. While critical of the events, I could have quite likely been drawn into a similar situation simply because there really would not be much chance of anything actually being wrong, so the risk is low...but things can be wrong as was the case.

joab, you are too funny! There are some stupid people who do commit crimes in front of cops, but not many. We aren't fortunate enough to have the outlaw element be that consistently stupid.
 
What about a carjacking? The thief probably just wants to take the car to a chop-shop and by pulling a gun (they would probably shoot - leaving both of you dead)... just something to think about.
Click to expand...

That's possible, but my car wouldn't be on its way to a chop-shop. I see a continuing theme in your replies that seems to suggest a reluctance to take action and defeatist attitude that expects to lose.

I don't expect to lose.

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Don't worry, the government will take care of you.
 
If I am about to enter a store/business and see it is being robbed I would not enter. However, if I am inside the store/business being robbed then that's a different story. I'm not saying I will do something but the chances are much higher that I will. I already know the BG has no respect for the law and personal property. I don't think it's that much of a leap to assume he/they probably do not care much for human life, as well.

If someone punches my wife in the face you better believe ol' Roscoe is comin' out. I also believe it's a safe assumption that if a person will resort to unprovoked violence that they are more likely to use deadly force than someone who doesn't.

I will go out of my way to avoid trouble. I don't drink, go to bars, do drugs, etc. I keep to myself and mine. This doesn't mean that I'll go through life with zero incidents, but it sure helps. If something does happen it happens and I deal with it.
 
"It's just you. The vast majority of holders choose flight instead of fight as well as have a tendacy to walk the straight and narrow.

It's kind of a duh"
Click to expand...

Looking at some of these followup posts, it may not as be obvious as one would think. I think many would "flight" , but a lot feel much more obligated to do more. I just sometimes question the decision making of some holders since rarely do even well trained leo's do the right thing. There are many repercussions to drawing a firearm in an emergency situation, and your judgement *does* have an impact on the outcome. Whether it be good or bad. You can probably find many cases where our unsung hero indeed helped/saved innocent lives, but I'd bet that it sometimes ends in great tragedy. And no this was not meant to be trolling, I'm a chl holder but pondered these "what if" questions one saturday night. I think they're legitimate. Although many of us gentlemen, do not commit acts of vigilante or take non-life threatening situations in our own hands, fights and confrontations do occur without warning. You could step on somebody's toe, and they start throwing fists at you, or even worse for no good reason. As a legal handgun owner, what is the next justifiable move?

Something to ponder over ....
 
That's possible, but my car wouldn't be on its way to a chop-shop. I see a continuing theme in your replies that seems to suggest a reluctance to take action and defeatist attitude that expects to lose.
Click to expand...

I sure hope this isn't the overall consensus here. I don't think it's a defeatist attitude, but a smart one. Sometimes, it's better to give the car then to *fight*. I'm sure your family and loved one's would agree. Let's not let a macho attitude extend over the logical purpose of a handgun, to save yourself in a life threatening situation. Sure, a car-thief may indeed not respect human life, but I suspect you'll be going cowboy style over small altercations, and holdups that you witness from a far.

I don't expect to lose.
Click to expand...

Don't expect to win everytime either. Consider other lives when acting on your bravado mentality.
 
firefox,

The problem with confrontations is that they are not predictable, and even though you might not be the immediate subject of attention - that can change in a mere second depending on circumstances.

To take the robbery in a building example; while not at the immediate center of attention, you might have some advantages which should attention suddenly focus on you, might no longer apply. This is why I would generally say that during an armed robbery in my presence, I would already consider my life in peril from the start.

Because of the thousands of variables it is impossible to sensibly say, one would do this, or do that as a rule; but there are some constants to consider. One is that a not insignificant number of robbery victims get murdered after they have done what was asked of them - simple compliance alone is not a good idea IMO. Another is that in alot of confrontations where action is required - early in the game is better than later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top