lets say im at wal mart and some crazy person.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
will the states i live in is Bentonville AR(the home of wal-mart) and all Wal-mart do have posting protocols that must be followed and a legal notice sine posted....... that was what i was meaning...... so would you not be in big trouble
 
That would be because Wal-Mart, big as they are, does NOT make the law.

Now, back to the stupidity... It's entertaining as all get out.
 
its not stupid it is the law if there is a posted no guns posting and you would be wrong 120MM !!!!!!!! look it up for your self.....
 
its not stupid it is the law if there is a posted no guns posting and you would be wrong 120MM !!!!!!!! look it up for your self.....
Click to expand...
That may be true in your state, but not all states

The Wal-Mart ant CCW issue has been addressed here many times
It always ends with a letter from the corporate office stating that they welcome legal CCW
 
It's been said many times here that "the bg just wants the money". I've seen many tapes where the guy shot and killed the clerk after he gave up the money.

It's that callous disregard for life that inspired me to be ready to stop such a person should I ever have the misfortune to find myself in such a situation. The stakes are exceedingly high, and I'm not talking about legal or monetary ramifications. I'm talking about doing the right thing under extreme stress and standing before my God after it's done. He is the real law, the one that matters.
If I can stop such a person and don't for fear of losing money, or going to jail, or being sued then my values are askew.
 
Is your goal to make a moral statement or to resolve the situation such that there is the minimal injury to folks?

Is 'stopping' the bad guy and saving some money worth the possibility of serious injury to people IF your realistic take on the situation is that the loss of property will go down without injury. While debatable, most robberys go down this way.

A few don't. However, as an armed citizen you must decide before you start a gun fight if that gun fight is necessary to protect life.

I really don't care if the bad guy kills or shoots you. That's an evolutionary exercise brought on by your choice. I do caution that from FOF exercises, the gun fight doesn't always go your way. But if you want to prove Darwin is right over property and not life - go ahead.

However, starting a gun fight in WalMart, full of innocents, is not morally acceptable UNLESS you think you are going to protect life and NOT cash.

Bravado, posturing, etc. do not make a coherent argument for risking innocents over that level of property.

If you are alone by the ATM, start the gun fight. In a crowd, think about it. I
I have little problem with fighting to protect life.

Some are saying that the simple presence of a gun makes it a life threatening situation and that justifies the shot in the crowded store. These two parts don't necessarily go together. It is a risk probability you have to decide on. The gun is life threatening BUT will the guy just leave or start to shoot? You have to think about this and not automatically open fire in a crowd.

If you do shoot - how does that play out? If you train and/or shoot matches -you know that all those who say they will just drop the guy are full of it.

I've been shot at by the hidden backup - how about that?
I've missed the BG
I've been the BG and took a shot in the hand, picked up the gun with my other hand and put five rounds into the GG.
I've seen the GG shoot the innocent.

To conclude - to me, your goal is the best life preserving outcome (the lives of others - you can die). It is not to make a moral statement over property if it costs innocents that didn't have to get hurt.
 
as an armed citizen you must decide before you start a gun fight if that gun fight is necessary to protect life.
Click to expand...

Most people on this thread that have advocated action against the bg have decided to do that because they feel it is necessary to stop the bg to save life.

Also, most all of them said they would only act if they had a clean shot, not further endangering people.
 
If I can stop such a person and don't for fear of losing money, or going to jail, or being sued then my values are askew.
Click to expand...
The problem, as Glenn so aptly opointed out, is that your decision effects more than you. I don't care if you lose money or go to jail either. I do care about you increasing the danger to me and everyone else in the area. There is also your family to consider. You might want to check with your spouse to see if she wants to spend the next 20 years visiting you at the state pen, or raising the kids by herself. She might not want to lose the house, the car, and so on because you wanted to take a questionable moral position. She might prefer to have you around, and your kids might prefer to have both parents available to them.
 
Doing nothing is definetely always safer.

Remember the guy at the end of the bar that watched the fat-off-duty cop beat the female bartender senseless?

He played it safe and did nothing. He did not endager anyone in that bar.
 
Wow!
This is such a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force that I can't believe there is even a debate and what's with all of the bad advice?
In the majority of states (particularly the ones w/o the requirement to retreat), you would have no issues with criminal charges if you shot the BG. Many of those states also shield you from civil suit from the BG or his survivors.
The presence of a gun (real or fake) in the BG's hand constitutes a threat to everyone's life or serious bodily injury. That is the requirement for most states. Clearly that requirement is met. If you shot him and it turned out to be an airsoft gun, you would not be charged.

Know you state's laws pertaining to use of deadly force. The decision to shoot or not is up to you. The wisdom of that decision can be debated, but all this talk of not being justified, losing everything you own or you're definately going to jail is incorrect in most states and certainly in AZ.
 
The issue is not whether it is justifiable. For most states, an armed robbery is a justifiable lethal force situation.

What people are ignoring is whether the risk of the gun fight is worth it - for the 10,000th time. Can people get it through their heads?

A clear shot in a WalMart in a dynamic situation is a risk - again. You probably have people at 360 deg around you.

Mattro - your contribution is that in XYZ, someone wasn't brave. So what, that doesn't justify doing something risky that isn't necessary to save lives.

It is a different matter to debate whether you wouldn't save a worthy innocent because of your fear of law suits.
 
Once again, people advocating shooting have detemined it was necessary in order to save lives, and they would only act if they had a clean shot with minimal or zero collateral.

Obviously everything is hypothetical and we only have a very coarse description of the situation.

People either think a guy threatening with a gun to shoot someone during a robbery is a threat and should be taken out; or they should wait and see if he really means his threat by killing someone, then do something; or no matter what, they will crawl out the back door and be a good witness.
 
I think we agree that a shot is justifiable.

It all comes down to the risks.

I think a clean shot in a WalMart is a problem. That is a risk. You could miss even with a clean shot. It could not be effective and you generate return fire into you (but I don't really care about you) or an innocent. You may get into a gun fight with the backup.

I think that given most armed robberies in a crowed venue, the BG won't shoot and no one gets hurt.

To me it is all the risk ratio. Saying someone isn't brave because they don't shoot, doesn't get us anywhere.

At the NTI, I was on both ends of it. I tried to tackle a shooter and was told that he was only going to shoot his target and leave. I shot an armed robber who would have left if I did nothing. I took cover and tried to negotiate with a team of nutsos and died.

There is no right answer but only using your brains to minimize injury to innocents.

My botom line is that the scenario is flawed in that the 'clean shot' no-risk is improbable at the service desk of a crowded WalMart. If I were in back of the guy and could put my gun in his ear perhaps. BTW, done that in FOF and got into a gun fight with the backup.

So I ask posters what is your goal?

1. Stop the crime?
2. Minimize injury?
3. What injury rate to others is acceptable to stop the property crime?
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
So I ask posters what is your goal?
Click to expand...

It's always the same: Save my hide, &/or that of a loved one.

Speculating as to any further action on my part is an exercise in futility not to mention categorically impractical.

Being there in the heat of the moment and assessing the risks real-time is sure to influence my ultimate action/inaction as compared to what I think I might do while pondering the scenario behind this keyboard.

Speaking of pondering while behind a keyboard... while sitting here with all the time in the world to decide what I might do... I seem to remember those slow-fire shots that I pulled while concentrating in ideal conditions on a paper target. I'm sure that wouldn't happen during a real shooting. :rolleyes:
 
My goal is to stop the criminal. My goal isn't to stop the crime, it's to stop the crimes, the ones that he or she is likely to be involved in after this incident if he is allowed to walk away. He is too dangerous to ignore.

I might miss. I might hit an innocent. I might get shot. I might die. I might get prosecuted, spend 5 to 10 in prison for negligent homicide or worse. I might get sued and lose everything I own. The BG might be wearing armor. He might have accomplices (an issue I addressed in my first post). There may be other CCW holders who mistake me for an accomplice, or that I mistake for an accomplice. I might put 8 rounds in him only to see him smile and shoot me in the face while I struggle to reload.

Those are just some of the risk. I accepted them the minute I picked up a gun and decided to carry it for defense. I have thought about them. I spent nine hours at work last night thinking of all the ways this situation could go bad. And in the end, I decided to keep carrying my gun with the intention of acting within the law to perform the legal defenses allowed by my state if and when I deem necessary.

I made a lot of assumption in my previous post/s that I will address here. If I speak of taking action, I assume I've already decided my hands aren't shaking so bad I'm going to miss, and that I can (probably...nothing is ever certain until after the fact) take action without making the situation worse. I assume I'm alone, not with a loved one (because then my priorities change, althought that doesn't necessarily change that action I said I'd take). In this specific situation I've already got the drop on the BG, so I don't have to worry about drawing and firing in a split second. I have time to look over the situation, take cover, and aim. He's holding up a WalMart in broad daylight in the middle of the day (I assume), so I know he's probably not the brightest individual in the world or the most prepared.

Again, I assume these things. I could be wrong. I could always be wrong. That's the chance I take, and like it or not it's my decision whether to take it or not.

Even if I decide everything is in my favor, I might still mess up. That's a fact of life I accepted when I decided to carry a gun, and I don't think I'm the only one. I could second guess myself into never taking action because I, or someone else, could get hurt or killed but I'm not going to do that. Doing that means I'll never do anything, in any situation, because it can always go wrong. I realize my decisions will affect other people. That's the risk we all take in living in a world with other people who have the ability to think and make decisions. I'm willing to take the chance and face the consequences if something goes wrong.
 
Rampage has it right. I'm responsible to stop the outrage if I can.
I guess if someone has to do this much thinking about what they would do they shouldn't carry at all, it's safer to let the police handle the situation. You may be dead, several others too, but no one will sue you, right? Make up your own mind for sure before you haul a gun around with you, if you are going to cogitate endlessly while some crackhead is killing people maybe you should not carry at all
If an emergency room doctor is overly stressed about medical liability I don't want to be his patient, instead give me a doctor who is ready to do the right thing NOW and let the rest sort out later. I can't believe people are saying anything else, that is what is REALLY scary from a gun forum.
 
if you are going to cogitate endlessly while some crackhead is killing people maybe you should not carry at all


Maybe one shouldn't carry if one can't read the initial scenario? BTW, the reason one does FOF - conducted by very well trained, brave and smart people is exactly to test and discuss these issues. If you don't want to think about this - that is disheartening.

I seemed to have missed where the robber was actually shooting someone in the OP.

The issue is the risk of loss of life in an armed robbery without or without a CCW shooting in a crowded store with the risk of returned fire.

You know blustering about some other situation is being done in quite a few posts and is not really relevant.
 
Sounds to me like people are talking themselves out of responding before they even leave the house. Yes, lets talk about it, but those who don't think they can respond (In the initial scenario or anything remotely like it) should not carry, period. That is my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top