David Armstrong
Moderator
That is just so wrong on so many levels.
My wife was in shooting range of an armed robber. What would you do?
- Thread starter yarborg
- Start date
CrazyIvan007
New member
So...the victim chooses to be attacked? If the victim fights back and the assaulter does not stop so the forcefull defense is heightened, that is the victims choice? If you pull & point a gun at someone in response to them charging you with a knife, and they do not stop...it is your choice that they decided to attack you?
Hmm...interesting comment.
When someone chooses to attack an innocent, they are choosing the outcome for not only the victim, but for themselves. How far they take their assault will dictate the outcome, for both themselves and the victim, and not always in a good way. One or the other may end up dead. But, it was not the victims choice to do or take part in any of it. They are only responding to the threat. And, if you are saying choosing to properly and legally respond to an assault is wrong...well I would have to say something is wrong with THAT.
Hmm...interesting comment.
When someone chooses to attack an innocent, they are choosing the outcome for not only the victim, but for themselves. How far they take their assault will dictate the outcome, for both themselves and the victim, and not always in a good way. One or the other may end up dead. But, it was not the victims choice to do or take part in any of it. They are only responding to the threat. And, if you are saying choosing to properly and legally respond to an assault is wrong...well I would have to say something is wrong with THAT.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Ivan - every do any civilian class FOF? Just curious?
CrazyIvan007
New member
I've taken 3 advanced CCW classes offered by 3 different companies, all CCW class certification providers.
These classes included tactical movement, shooting, unarmed and armed self defense in CQ and study of self defense law.
This winter I plan on taking winter-scenario tactical survival class up in the hills and some other handgun classes.
Next spring, I will be entering P.O.S.T. certification training.
These classes included tactical movement, shooting, unarmed and armed self defense in CQ and study of self defense law.
This winter I plan on taking winter-scenario tactical survival class up in the hills and some other handgun classes.
Next spring, I will be entering P.O.S.T. certification training.
I won't go so far as to say I'd never intervene or that intervening is always the wrong approach. I will say that it's not likely to have a good outcome although there is the potential for the overall result to be more positive than it would have otherwise.
I think if one were to end up near a situation where a criminal was executing innocents (like the Luby's in Killeen or the VA Tech scenario), it would be very hard not to intervene. Depending on the situation, I would like to think I would intervene in such a case but with the understanding that it would very likely be suicidal. Getting in the middle of an armed robbery is another story entirely.
I think if one were to end up near a situation where a criminal was executing innocents (like the Luby's in Killeen or the VA Tech scenario), it would be very hard not to intervene. Depending on the situation, I would like to think I would intervene in such a case but with the understanding that it would very likely be suicidal. Getting in the middle of an armed robbery is another story entirely.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
When someone chooses to attack an innocent, they are choosing the outcome for not only the victim, but for themselves.
I would think the classes would have indicated that the outcome is an interaction of options on the part of the aggressor and the victim. That's what folks are trying to say. Subtle point, I grant you.
Most quality classes deal with the contingent nature of an incident and then go through an intensive debrief of it.
So in one class, a bar fight starts - the new student choose to intervene to stop two bar patrons as one seems to be truly hurting the other. Should the student intervene? He did and shot an innocent and was shot by a buddy.
In a simulated drug store robbery - an armed BG grabs drugs. His gun is in his waistband. He signals that he is going to take the drugs and run.
Challenge or let him go. There are innocents in the store.
For the record, I challenged and shot him. Then I was thoroughly interrogated by the law. The debrief emphasized I could have just stayed low and let him go. He could have shot me - I looked down the muzzle of his gun in the melee.
Thus, the outcomes are not determined but an evolving interaction. Unless you are making a statement that doing a crime determines that you CAN be shot, the statement as posted is incorrect. Classes should point that out. For example, Ayoob's LFI class (one of the best of the legalisms) clearly discusses that. The TX CHL classes also spend quite a bit of time on these issues.
I would think the classes would have indicated that the outcome is an interaction of options on the part of the aggressor and the victim. That's what folks are trying to say. Subtle point, I grant you.
Most quality classes deal with the contingent nature of an incident and then go through an intensive debrief of it.
So in one class, a bar fight starts - the new student choose to intervene to stop two bar patrons as one seems to be truly hurting the other. Should the student intervene? He did and shot an innocent and was shot by a buddy.
In a simulated drug store robbery - an armed BG grabs drugs. His gun is in his waistband. He signals that he is going to take the drugs and run.
Challenge or let him go. There are innocents in the store.
For the record, I challenged and shot him. Then I was thoroughly interrogated by the law. The debrief emphasized I could have just stayed low and let him go. He could have shot me - I looked down the muzzle of his gun in the melee.
Thus, the outcomes are not determined but an evolving interaction. Unless you are making a statement that doing a crime determines that you CAN be shot, the statement as posted is incorrect. Classes should point that out. For example, Ayoob's LFI class (one of the best of the legalisms) clearly discusses that. The TX CHL classes also spend quite a bit of time on these issues.
CrazyIvan007
New member
GEM,
I agree with you.
My point is that the outcome is directly a result of the aggressor. Any choices made by him or the victim during the confrontation are only made because of his initial choice to attack. That is all my point was meant to mean.
Of course a victim is responsible for how they choose to respond. But they should not be held responsible for someone getting hurt or killed because of their response as a victim. That was my point. The outcome, the result, is the offender's sole responsibility because of his choice to make the first idiot move.
And I can assure you, I would react differently were I to be attacked alone walking at night as opposed to witnessing an attack on someone in a bar (which I usually avoid because of stupid behavior anyway) And, if you are carrying your gun when you go to a bar to have a drink, that is irresponsible. Here in Colorado, any level of blood-alcohol is grounds to remove your CCW Permit and receive a fine if you have your gun on you at the time of having any BA level.
I agree with you.
My point is that the outcome is directly a result of the aggressor. Any choices made by him or the victim during the confrontation are only made because of his initial choice to attack. That is all my point was meant to mean.
Of course a victim is responsible for how they choose to respond. But they should not be held responsible for someone getting hurt or killed because of their response as a victim. That was my point. The outcome, the result, is the offender's sole responsibility because of his choice to make the first idiot move.
And I can assure you, I would react differently were I to be attacked alone walking at night as opposed to witnessing an attack on someone in a bar (which I usually avoid because of stupid behavior anyway) And, if you are carrying your gun when you go to a bar to have a drink, that is irresponsible. Here in Colorado, any level of blood-alcohol is grounds to remove your CCW Permit and receive a fine if you have your gun on you at the time of having any BA level.
David Armstrong
Moderator
No, didn't say that.
Nope, didn't say that either.
Nope, didn't say anything like that either.
Sorry, but wrong again. The victim frequently has several choice points in an incidnet that can define how involved they want to get or how involved they choose to get.
It might be interesting if you would discuss what I have said instead of guessing about what it means. I have said that one should usually choose a response that results in the minimal loss of personal resources to them and their family. Macho emotionalism is the antithesis of that.
You might want to try getting some tactical/gunfighting training as opposed to CCW training. IME the two are quite different.
CrazyIvan007
New member
EDIT: You know what, I put a bunch of text here, but erased it. I am done with this closet liberal... Call the cops, they might show up before you are found dead.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I guess, that when in a debate on guns and tactics, if you don't like the argument you call someone a 'liberal'. It is a desperate rhetorical ploy.
Sorry, that again demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues. Whether Dave is a 'liberal' or not on social issues really isn't relevant.
I'm sure all the trainers that teach contingency and evaluation as Dave and I mentioned are all 'liberals'.
Sorry, that again demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues. Whether Dave is a 'liberal' or not on social issues really isn't relevant.
I'm sure all the trainers that teach contingency and evaluation as Dave and I mentioned are all 'liberals'.
CrazyIvan007
New member
I call him a liberal because in my opinion, it seems to me that he believes the decision on part of the offender is more important than the law and more important than the victim. It seems to me that anything anyone says is not good enough for him to qualify anyone to defend themselves with force and that his opinion is that he knows everything about it all and folks who carry guns for self defense should engage in decades of training before being allowed to carry a weapon because they will make wrong choices in the heat of the moment that training may direct a better response. It is my opinion that he believes police and trained tacticians should be the only ones available to carry a weapon. These are my opinions and based upon these opinions, it is my opinion he is a lefty liberal trying to save the health and lives of violent criminals at the expense of innocent citizens who may be carrying a weapon with them at the time. Perhaps I am wrong, I wouldn't be suprised if I was. I don't know everything, but I admit it. His attitude rubs off on me as though he believes he knows it all. Liberals have a tendency to tell you you don't know enough, ever, therefore should have no right to do something. This is where I derive my opinion of him as a liberal, anti-gunner. This opinion is not based on any one post he has presented, but a miriad of posts where I have encountered his opinions on "restraining yourself" when you are fighting for your life.
Perhaps the mistake is made on my part when I am not presented a specific scenario, I engage in discussion in the "Tactics" forum and come from a standpoint of "worse case scenario." There are always lighter versions of force that are equally able to dissolve a situation not deemed "worst case." But, I tend to prepare for the worst, therefore my comments are based upon my position should I be put in a worst case scenario. Worse case scenario of being attacked violently dictates a forcefull response to the offender. He is telling me that is wrong. What am I to think of him?
Oh, and excuse me if I believe the process of violently losing one's life should envoke a certain level of an emotional response.
Perhaps the mistake is made on my part when I am not presented a specific scenario, I engage in discussion in the "Tactics" forum and come from a standpoint of "worse case scenario." There are always lighter versions of force that are equally able to dissolve a situation not deemed "worst case." But, I tend to prepare for the worst, therefore my comments are based upon my position should I be put in a worst case scenario. Worse case scenario of being attacked violently dictates a forcefull response to the offender. He is telling me that is wrong. What am I to think of him?
Oh, and excuse me if I believe the process of violently losing one's life should envoke a certain level of an emotional response.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I agree with that...does that make me a "lefty liberal".
Oops, I reckon to some on this Board I am...on the other hand, to others I am not
WildbutimlooneyAlaska ™
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
ROTFLMAO!
Dave is a lefty liberal !! Stop trying to save those criminals' health. Why the next thing, Dave will be wanting to change the Miranda statement to ask if crooks have health insurance before he shoots them. If not, a court appointed physician will give you an enema.
I'm sorry, all.
Dave is a lefty liberal !! Stop trying to save those criminals' health. Why the next thing, Dave will be wanting to change the Miranda statement to ask if crooks have health insurance before he shoots them. If not, a court appointed physician will give you an enema.
I'm sorry, all.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Well, I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said or how that makes someone a liberal. However, in either case, not only are you mistaken in fact but also mistaken in belief.
Then again you need to look at what is actually said and not worry about what it seems. I have regularly supported the use of force if appropriate. I don't think anyone should use force for emotional reasons or when it will increase the risk/loss to the person.
It's nice to have opinions. However, if you want to talk about what someone else believes you might want to ask them and actually find out instead of coming up with crazy stuff.
Yep, you are.
Believe me, the more I know the more I realize how little I know.
You will not find a single post where I advocate restraint when fighting for your life. What I advocate is restraint so you don't have to get into a fight for your life.
David Armstrong
Moderator
And I'm responsible for global warming and single-handedly inventing the Internet while saving a whale by making love to Jane Fonda when driving a Prius and extolling the virtues of the Vegan lifestyle!
I cannot even imagine why your wife wanted to stand around and see what was going on. No offense intended, of course, but thats just asking for trouble.
In all seriousness, I believe in most states you can carry rifles and shotguns in your vehicle, and what better time to do so than at that moment. A short-barreled Mossy from the trunk would really have done wonders. I mean obviously she shouldnt put herself or her children at risk, but in THAT scenario, the perp put everyone around him at risk.
Thats what folks dont understand. Its not just the victims of these kinds of crimes that suffer, its the potential victims. If a CC, or just a guy with a hunting rifle in his truck stops that ONE perp, he might have saved one or more lives.
Besides, its hard to prosecute a hero.
In all seriousness, I believe in most states you can carry rifles and shotguns in your vehicle, and what better time to do so than at that moment. A short-barreled Mossy from the trunk would really have done wonders. I mean obviously she shouldnt put herself or her children at risk, but in THAT scenario, the perp put everyone around him at risk.
Thats what folks dont understand. Its not just the victims of these kinds of crimes that suffer, its the potential victims. If a CC, or just a guy with a hunting rifle in his truck stops that ONE perp, he might have saved one or more lives.
Besides, its hard to prosecute a hero.
CrazyIvan007
New member
Here in Colorado, you can not have a loaded shotgun or rifle in your car. The rounds can be in the magazine (tubular shotgun or actual box mag like an AR-15) but can not be in the chamber.
So you may run into a problem of them accusing you of illegal long-arm transport. But, should witnesses stand by you and agree that the perp posed a threat and the reasonable reaction would be to take a shot...then you might get by without a hitch. But, who knows.
But then what if another weapon-holder sees your wife taking shots and thinks she is the perp and starts to shoot at her?
Could turn out bad. Unless it is somewhat of a controlled environment and you are sure of your target being the badguy...taking a shot at someone for a situation where you are not personally involved must be done with the highest diligence.
So you may run into a problem of them accusing you of illegal long-arm transport. But, should witnesses stand by you and agree that the perp posed a threat and the reasonable reaction would be to take a shot...then you might get by without a hitch. But, who knows.
But then what if another weapon-holder sees your wife taking shots and thinks she is the perp and starts to shoot at her?
Could turn out bad. Unless it is somewhat of a controlled environment and you are sure of your target being the badguy...taking a shot at someone for a situation where you are not personally involved must be done with the highest diligence.
I have a daughter, and I can hardly imagine a scenario in which my actions would put her in MORE danger. When children are involved, there obviously needs to be concessions.
While every situation shouldnt be "Im Dirty Harry, ill save the day", if plausible, assistance should be provided, so long as it doesnt endanger MORE lives, (crossfires, hostages, just plain ol bad aim) or endanger those who are automatically your responsibility due to the situation (your children, your loved ones or unarmed friends, etc.).
This is exactly why one should not only learn proper threat awareness and assessment, but also target identification in a combat situation. Stressful firefights, and -extremely- chaotic scenarios with ever-changing targets/innocents should be drilled until one is comfortable with it.
If you can afford a range, ammo, and goodies for your heat, then you can afford courses in target management and basic engagement drills.
Not to say "Dont get involved", but if you dont have those skills, then think VERY carefully about what you are getting involved in. If you cant assess the various targets and/or innocents in the situation, you really have no business putting a hand (or a gun) into the mix.
TheNatureBoy
New member
I would have gone back into the dentists office, stayed there, and called the police.