Good Tactics vs Ethical Dilemma Gets CHL Killed

Status
Not open for further replies.
T. O'Heir said:
"...CHL entered the barbershop to stop the robbery..." Not his responsibility to pursue a vigilante justice result. The guy watched too much TV.
"...don't care enough about their community to lay their lives on the line..." That's not what CCW/CHL(or whatever it's called where you are) is about. He is presumably untrained in the tactics required to enter into combat, alone, with 2 armed criminals with no back up. That CHL does not swear one in as a cop.
Click to expand...

I spent 36 years in Canada. Twenty-five of them teaching Military/Security/Police to survive violent attacks! But Dorothy! I am in Florida now, with a Yank thought pattern.

The chance that one of those customers would respond to being robbed, is not so far fetched. That would have been my first Gunfight! (Hypothetically!) Plus I survive on a Canadian old-age pension. So I wanted my Cell phone (I am still paying for) and my wallet back.

No backup? Way back when, in the UK, I was in a fight in an Indian Restaurant, in which I put 4 local thugs in the hospital! Two broken noses, three broken ribs, the same person. and one broken arm, with the help of a chair. The local Bobbies (Cops) escorted the four of us (my wife, my Wifes younger sister, plus useless Brother in law!) back to my rented VW.

I bid that older Cop good night! Who gave me his report on the injuries, from his little notebook! I was also hurt, cut on my right fist! Glasses still on my face, collar and tie still neat. But I was 33 YOA then! Not 84.

I also have to admit, lots of combat experience as a Bouncer in Liverpool Clubs for five years! Only got stabbed twice! At the Cavern Club of Beatles fame, in 1962.

My 43X Glock with 11 rounds of Federal 147g HST would have had a workout.

Five rounds left. In this hypothetical (love that word) I had those two armed criminals facing me! No statements were given by me, waiting for the Lawyer provided by the USCCA insurance card in my wallet (See I had to get that wallet back!)
 
Last edited:
I would not have walked away. I don't know what my actions would have been because a hundred or more things would have entered my mind and influenced whatever my decision eventually would be. Depending on the gravity of my observations, I would have certainly stepped in and defended fifteen people even at risk of my own death, given a level of certainty that only my intervention would save lives. There are many ways to observe mindfully and maintain cover. Several or many lives can be saved from death at the hands of the criminals, maybe, maybe there will be no sensible reason to intervene.

Saving your own skin is admirable in only one way, it is admirable that you choose to avoid the pain and suffering of your circle of family and others. if people only preserved their own safety and happiness, there wouldn't be a single volunteer soldier or cop out there.

I live in an area that has a lot of foot traffic. There are a lot of occasions when couples walk past engaging in horrible screaming matches. It worries me and sometimes I feel so concerned that I get a gun and watch through a window until they pass out of sight. A lady was murdered a few blocks south of here, two people were murdered only two blocks away, two years ago, swat and a dog dragged a felony offender out from under a porch. It happens everywhere.

Two weeks ago my wife and I arrived home from shopping and we had spent a couple minutes at the car. My home is on a hillside and a chest high wall blocks the view to the east. There was a blood curdling shriek around the corner of that wall, and I had my gun in my hand and was around the corner in a heartbeat. Oh, that woman screaming was actually a guy strangling his german shepherd. My wife agreed with me, it had sounded like a woman screaming. We both thought that someone was in probable danger.

That could have been my niece, my neighbor, the woman who works at the gas station down the road.

I am just going to have to trust in god that I am never killed trying to preserve another one of his children, possibly one who has far more value to this world than I do. A kid who was walking home that day may cure aids twenty years in the future. I will also trust that he isn't going to let me do harm.
 
I live in an area that has a lot of foot traffic. There are a lot of occasions when couples walk past engaging in horrible screaming matches. It worries me and sometimes I feel so concerned that I get a gun and watch through a window until they pass out of sight. A lady was murdered a few blocks south of here, two people were murdered only two blocks away, two years ago, swat and a dog dragged a felony offender out from under a porch. It happens everywhere.

Two weeks ago my wife and I arrived home from shopping and we had spent a couple minutes at the car. My home is on a hillside and a chest high wall blocks the view to the east. There was a blood curdling shriek around the corner of that wall, and I had my gun in my hand and was around the corner in a heartbeat. Oh, that woman screaming was actually a guy strangling his german shepherd. My wife agreed with me, it had sounded like a woman screaming. We both thought that someone was in probable danger.

That could have been my niece, my neighbor, the woman who works at the gas station down the road.
Click to expand...
None is that is relevant to the thread.

In thee incident discussed in the OP, the civilian with the gun would have been lawfully justified in using deadly force to defend the others. It was clear that, under the circumstances at the time, they would have been justified in using deadly force to defend themselves.

It's just that he did not go about things wisely.
 
Our CHL had survived one encounter with the robbers which is a win. When his community was threatened he decided it was time to take a more risky approach. I know there a lot of CHL's that don't care enough about their community to lay their lives on the line for it or their fellow men, certainly not caring more about those things than their own lives. That is not really the discussion.
Click to expand...

Isn't it? Since you mention all this and it being an ethical dilemma, it would certainly seem to be a significant part of the discussion. Motivation for response is the ethical dilemma and will frame how one responds.

This hero logic seem to be a huge leap of faith. We don't know the motivation of Derrick Gholston. He was killed and never stated his motivation. You seemed to have conjured up this highly positive interpretation without actually basing it on any solid evidence, save for the possibility that he went in after the other 51 year old victim was shot, which is information that isn't definitively reported, though you claim to know the truth, apparently based on your assessment of the news sources political views. Other sources report the gunfire started AFTER Gholston confronted the robbers.

We don't know if Gholston went after the robbers out of anger of being robbed, to get his stuff back, because he hoped to get payback, or because he wished to protect his community even though he wasn't willing to protect himself originally. Lives do appear to have been saved, but whether that was by intent or not is unknown. Any claims to know differently would be purely speculative given the conflicting information available.

Even if he engaged after the 51 year old victim was shot, we don't know the timing of that. Was he already inside when the 51 year old was shot? Was he on his way in when the shooting happened? Did he hear the shooting and the opt to respond? The information just isn't available for us to know at this point.

His options?
1. Flight. Move off the proverbial X. He was robbed in front of the barber shop where the robbers went in and chances are, they are coming right back out the same door which means they will be in proximity to him again. Not being in a place where danger is expected to be would be an appropriate act of self protection.
2. As noted, be a good witness, but from a position of safety, away from the front of the barber shop
3. As noted, go and call 911
4. Go on the offensive (regardless of motivation). The crime is still in active process and people's live are in danger and threat of or use of lethal force would appear to be appropriate within the guidelines of the law.
5. Take up cover, such as behind the food truck, and ambush the robbers as they exit the barber shop...which may or may not be legal depending on how the situation unfolds.
 
There is always risk to taking action with a firearm. Anyone who thinks differently is fooling himself or herself. There are no video game resets in real life.

Mr. Gholston is being hailed as a hero, and it is entirely possible that he gave his own life to save fifteen others, and that he made a conscious decision to risk himself to save others.

His kids are three and five years of age. I have to wonder, in the coming years, whether they will be glad that their dad took that risk. That is a question we all have to ask ourselves in the moments when we are choosing to intervene. Our loved ones may be proud of our actions, but we deprive them of something irreplaceable when the risks we take are realized.
 
That is a question we all have to ask ourselves in the moments when we are choosing to intervene.
Click to expand...

Tailgator I agree with much of what you have said but I need to take issue with this. If you wait until the moment of action to decide what circumstances you are going to act in you may make the wrong choice. Part of my "they should have seen to their own defense" outside of my own obligations relates to my children. If I am gunned down I lived a long enough and good life. However it severely impacts my 5 and 6 year old. Thus, unless your a child at risk, my wife, or an employee or customer I have a duty to, you had the opportunity to defend yourself and should have availed yourself of it - not my problem. I have already made that decision and I think its important to make those decisions ahead of time
 
So much has been discussed already.

What I see is:

1) the inner conflict he may have experienced by first having to "surrender" without resisting in his personal encounter first, which left him a winner in my book for that situation.

2) likely inner conflict about what was the right thing to do next. Warn others somehow, help directly? I would completely understand having feelings that something was unresolved, unsatisfactory.

3) Overwhelming disadvantage for a *responsible* gun owner. To approach an establishment with 15 patrons with 2 valid targets inside, imagine the difficulty of "good" angles and chaos of movement. He had seen the perpetrators before so that's good. If he was purely driven by feelings of revenge without regard to safety of others, he could have just done something like stand back at 25 yards and start shooting through the windows, or wait til the situation was over and got the perpetrators on the way out. But he didn't.

He tried his darndest, and was faced with more restrictions than his adversaries and was outnumbered.
 
Good point,Tailgaitor.

Most of this page has degenerated into another rpointless semantics argument and whizzing contest. Its boring and contributes nothing to the discussion.

Decades ago,some nutbag decided to start blowing holes in the ceiling of my local supermarket pharmacy with his AK-47. Maybe he needed a refill.

I wasn't there. At that time,I would not have been carrying. Talk is cheap,and I make no claim I would have been a hero.

Under those circumstances, what would be better ,if possible,than a shot to the back of the head from a position of cover and concealment ?

"Dasratardly" would be a meaningless subjective opinion.

We knew that. The sort of thing that ruins a good beer.

How about this : "If you find yourself in a fair fight,your tactics suck."
 
HiBC said:
Good point,Tailgaitor.



Most of this page has degenerated into another rpointless semantics argument and whizzing contest. Its boring and contributes nothing to the discussion.



Decades ago,some nutbag decided to start blowing holes in the ceiling of my local supermarket pharmacy with his AK-47. Maybe he needed a refill.



I wasn't there. At that time,I would not have been carrying. Talk is cheap,and I make no claim I would have been a hero.



Under those circumstances, what would be better ,if possible,than a shot to the back of the head from a position of cover and concealment ?



"Dasratardly" would be a meaningless subjective opinion.



We knew that. The sort of thing that ruins a good beer.



How about this : "If you find yourself in a fair fight,your tactics suck."
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure how this post differs notably from the others here.

The law and best tactics aren't always one in the same. The law does, depending on locality, take into account the circumatances of a shooting in a way that may require more "fairness" than is optimal. We also have the difference between criminal and civil prosecution. To some points mentioned above, yes USCCA and other organizations exist. I'm a member of some of them. That doesn't give you carte blanche nor is going through a long court proceedings something you may want to do.

Before it's mentioned, yes I know sometimes you may have to make a choice to preserve your life that may see you on the opposite side of the law. But that doesn't mean we can't make an effort for that not to be the case.

As for tactics, the only different option I've seen presented here is find cover and/or concealment and shoot from there. Great, assuming that was an option.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
3) Overwhelming disadvantage for a *responsible* gun owner. To approach an establishment with 15 patrons with 2 valid targets inside, imagine the difficulty of "good" angles and chaos of movement. He had seen the perpetrators before so that's good. If he was purely driven by feelings of revenge without regard to safety of others, he could have just done something like stand back at 25 yards and start shooting through the windows, or wait til the situation was over and got the perpetrators on the way out. But he didn't.
Click to expand...

These are excellent points. It is likely the CHL had been in the barbershop before but with so many people in there it would be a nightmare to engage two armed gun men there. Laying in wait would be questionably legal.

I just don't see a lot of good option here for stopping the violence inside the shop.
 
Hmm, they robbed him and he was unharmed after they left, that’s pretty lucky, in one of the deadliest city’s in America.

He then pursued them resulting in a gunfight he lost. Luck goes out the window when you push it. I suppose he died an honorable death...

What if he went 2-0 on the bad guys vs 1-1 but another bystander was injured? Would he have then been on the line for starting the shootout? After all, the one think we can prove is that they didn’t want to hurt anyone or they wouldn’t have left him after taking his stuff and they only did that so their baby could eat that day or maybe pay for college tuition.

At least that’s what the prosecution would have told the jury at his trial, again, if he were not dead.
 
Ruark said:
Yes, this, plus knowing what's going on inside. We didn't see that part. Did he hear shots inside the barber shop, and rush blindly through the front door with utterly no idea what he was going to encounter, where the BGs were, etc.?
Click to expand...
Is that a bulletproof bistro table?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Not sure where the boggle lies when it comes to "Good Tactics vs Ethical Dilemma".

Nothing in the articles presented indicates the deceased victim had any thought regarding "good tactics", or the use of them.

An ethical (or moral) dilemma is often something contrived in the mind of the beholder. Now, the statutory laws, justice system and the courts can provide some guidance on what might be considered "reasonable", appropriate for the circumstances and justified ... including after the fact of some particular circumstance.

The deceased victim seemingly felt he owed something to his neighborhood, community or perhaps even some person(s) in the business being robbed. His choice and his decision to act. Consequences occurred. Since he made the effort to obtain a CHL, it's reasonable to presume he'd probably thought about the consequences of acting in the manner he acted.
 
If you wait until the moment of action to decide what circumstances you are going to act in you may make the wrong choice. . . . I have already made that decision and I think its important to make those decisions ahead of time
Click to expand...

I disagree only to the extent that each situation is unique. Certainly a deep and thoughtful advance consideration of these issues is in order for anyone who carries.
 
I agree that a person should come to terms (ahead of time) with what they are actaully willing to do and in what circumstance. Morally, ethically, legally, and at what cost or risk. These are very general consideration of course but consideration which in my opinion should be reconciled as far in advance as possible. As defenders we are already behind the curve, we need to take advantage of the time afforded us. We cant do that if we are running "what if" scenarios in our mind when we should be taking action. You can be sure that the badguy will exploit our moral-ethical-legal conflicts in their favor. The goal is to face the situation without being conflicted. What you say, what you think and what you do- needs to be in harmony.

Generally speaking, I will not chase after or seek out a badguy. I will simply call 911 and be a good witness. If confronted by criminal violence directly, I will use whatever force necessary to preserve innocent life ( my life). If I can walk away, I will walk away. I do not see myself as a public sentinel and only feel an obligation to defend and protect myself and my family. I will extend that protection to friends and those with me. I will not fight someone elses fight.


No matter the risk to self, I will fight to avoid being:

disarmed by a criminal
tied up by a criminal
isolated away from a group or be transported by a criminal
placed on the floor by a criminal
hooded or masked by a criminal
 
Last edited:
Im with FireForged though we may differ slightly. For instance if I’m in a bank robbery and told, as a group, to get on the floor so be it. But being restrained or moving locations will not be done as long as I have the ability to fight

I’m not going to resort to violence when the criminal act is transactional in nature. My will not do list is based on belief that these things represent anti-social violence in that it’s unlikely my self and those under my care will not experience unacceptable outcomes
 
Last edited:
I respect the elements of the thoughts articulated in posts 57 & 58. One of the things learned by some off-duty cops is that it can easily become counter productive to act and escalate a situation from a property crime to a situation where now bullets are flying and innocents become at risk.

I can remember learning of a couple incidents in my early years as a cop where other cops, present in public with family members, decided to intervene in armed robberies where the suspects had not fired any shots. They confronted the suspects and shooting erupted. In both of those incidents family members of the off-duty cops ended up being shot and killed ... over money being stolen from a business.

Learning of those tragic incidents stayed in the back of my mind. I'm unwilling to unnecessarily put the lives of my family, and the family of anyone else, at potential risk without very good reason, meaning it's a situation where if I don't act those lives reasonably appear to be at immediate risk of being lost due to the unlawful and violent actions of someone.
 
I respect the elements of the thoughts articulated in posts 57 & 58. One of the things learned by some off-duty cops is that it can easily become counter productive to act and escalate a situation from a property crime to a situation where now bullets are flying and innocents become at risk.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are getting at. Armed robbery is not a property crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top