JuanCarlos
New member
You've probably got a point there, JR47. I'll probably leave this one alone for a little while until at least a few more details come out.
Running gun battle in Denver
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
Gee, it sounded like the Brady Bunch came in here and started posting the "You have the police to protect you"; "Call 911"; "Give them what they want"; "Don't resist"; Innocent bystanders could die"; mantra. All that was left out was the 43:1 Kellerman study.
We all say that we have firearms to protect us because the cops are never there when the round is in the air. Here we have a guy who didn't wait for the pizza and he gets derided by those who post here on how wrongly he acted.
Did some of you miss the part in the thread header about "I-70 and Tower Road is out near Denver International Airport in a sparsely populated area"?
How about the part about "The victim was on the phone with police while chasing the suspect"?
See the next post for the latest on this. It seems that the police are being far nicer to this guy than thoise who gather here.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Or maybe it sounds like a bunch of level headed gun owners spoke up when another gun owner did something irresponsible. Just as owning a gun does not make a person a crazed killer; owning one also does not mean you are of sound judgement.
When gun owners take the mentality of defending someone just because they used a gun then we do the oppositions work for them.
Once the perps where away and no longer a threat to him or his property he was no longer protecting himself. he crossed the line from empowered citizen to vigilanty.
Here is the latest. They caught the guy.
The homeowner made sure this guy would not be doing any home invasions in the near future and should be commended. Unfortunately, those who gather here ascribe to him no skills in firearms and how he was irresponsible without knowing a single iota about him.
Was Joel Myrick wrong when he retreived his firearm and stopped Luke Woodham at Pearl High School? His firearm could have discharged and hit an innocent bystander. Yet we cheered his actions here.
Were the students at the Apellachian School of Law irresponsible? Their firearm could have discharged and hit an innocent bystander. Yet we cheered their actions here.
Was the business owner who stopped the school shooting in PA irresponsible? His firearm could have discharged and hit an innocent bystander. Yet we cheered his actions here.
I guess it all depends on who is doing the apprehension as to whether we approve or disapprove of their actions. We groused about not getting honest coverage on those incidents cited above. Now we say that this guy is giving ammo for negative press to the antis.
So which is it? Either the three heroes of the school shootings were wrong or this guy was right.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=69582
The homeowner made sure this guy would not be doing any home invasions in the near future and should be commended. Unfortunately, those who gather here ascribe to him no skills in firearms and how he was irresponsible without knowing a single iota about him.
Was Joel Myrick wrong when he retreived his firearm and stopped Luke Woodham at Pearl High School? His firearm could have discharged and hit an innocent bystander. Yet we cheered his actions here.
Were the students at the Apellachian School of Law irresponsible? Their firearm could have discharged and hit an innocent bystander. Yet we cheered their actions here.
Was the business owner who stopped the school shooting in PA irresponsible? His firearm could have discharged and hit an innocent bystander. Yet we cheered his actions here.
I guess it all depends on who is doing the apprehension as to whether we approve or disapprove of their actions. We groused about not getting honest coverage on those incidents cited above. Now we say that this guy is giving ammo for negative press to the antis.
So which is it? Either the three heroes of the school shootings were wrong or this guy was right.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=69582
In your world he was a vigilante. In my world, he was a responsible citizen stopping a perpetrator from victimizing other members of society.
In your world, he should have unleashed them on an unsuspecting public. In my world, he stopped a serious threat to that public.
To loose them on society is to take responsibility for all of the wrongs they do to that society. They were not about to somehow "see the light", praise Jesus and cease their abberant ways.
They were not fleeing this crime; they were fleeing to their next crime.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
You are making alot of assumptions. Like that the perps would have gotten away if had not chased them.
I could very easily say that if he had not chased them, aggitated them to the point of gunfire, and then caused them to flee on foot and armed into a populated area with innocents and children they could have simply been picked up after being discreetly tailed by police.
Noone passed judgement on his skill with a firearm. They said what he did seemed irresponsible. None of the info you highlighted in bold type shows me in anyway why he should be driving down a road firing from a car window. Does he know what was potentially in front of each missed shot?
You were the one who called his shooting "wild".
Actually, I think the term was "Rambo" ...
and "menace".
As I stated. The I-70 corridor where the shooting took place is in BFE Adams County where nearly noone lives. You immediately assume that he ignored the fourth rule of shooting. If you are going to make an assumption along those lines, it should be about the perps and their "wild shooting".
How did the good guy become the bad guy in this anyway?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
If the area was so remote how did the perps flee on foot "near a mobile home park" after crashing the vehicle? Do people that live in trailers not count? I have some relatives that might give reason to support that line of thinking. 
JuanCarlos
New member
Not familiar with the third, but I know that in the first two there are a couple huge differences; those people never pulled the trigger, and certainly didn't pull the trigger from a vehicle where their chances of actually hitting their target where slim.
Also, while I may be making an ass out of me and mption, I'm guessing that in the situation the guy was in he was not able to accurately assess his surroundings and the chances of stray bullets hitting bystanders. This may be a remote stretch of road, but that doesn't mean nobody is around.
Finally, one big difference between the posters here and the Bradys is that I've not heard a single suggestion that this is a reason to take away your, my, or even his guns yet. We're just sitting around playing a little Monday morning quarterback discussing whether the choices this guy made were the best. Which I don't think is a horrible thing; if you don't learn from last Sunday's mistakes, either yours or those or others, you're more likely to repeat them next Sunday. Because unlike everybody's favorite football analogy, presumably all of us here are gunowners...so in theory we're all fellow quarterbacks ourselves. We could be called into the game at any time.
Heck, I don't even think the guy should be in any trouble...regardless of whether I think he made the best decision I don't think his actions were entirely unreasonable. He reacted to a situation he should never have had to be in in the first place. But that doesn't mean there's no value in assessing his reactions after the fact. Had a stray bullet, his or theirs, caught another motorist and killed them you can bet that not only would we be having this conversation here, but people across the nation would be having it for days to come.
But, as JR47 said everything I said here about his actual actions/reactions is based on sparse information anyway. So I'll go ahead and leave it there for now.
Playboypenguin
Here is a link to the intersection of I-70 and Tower Road in Aurora, CO. Click on the "Arial View" button in the upper right corner and see what is out there. Try the zoom buttons also and you will see it is pretty well undeveloped. It is mainly industrial parks and open farm fields. There is a new housing tract in the upper right corner but at the button 6 resolution it is a mile away. I believe the mobile home park is in the lower right and would be about a third of a mile away.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.ad...a&state=CO&zipcode=80010&country=US&geodiff=1
Here is a link to the intersection of I-70 and Tower Road in Aurora, CO. Click on the "Arial View" button in the upper right corner and see what is out there. Try the zoom buttons also and you will see it is pretty well undeveloped. It is mainly industrial parks and open farm fields. There is a new housing tract in the upper right corner but at the button 6 resolution it is a mile away. I believe the mobile home park is in the lower right and would be about a third of a mile away.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.ad...a&state=CO&zipcode=80010&country=US&geodiff=1
JuanCarlos
April 24, 1998: Edinboro, Pennsylvania
http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/25/school.shooting.pm/index.html
April 24, 1998: Edinboro, Pennsylvania
http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/25/school.shooting.pm/index.html
JuanCarlos
New member
Thanks, jimpeel.
It would still appear that the story is not getting any clearer, just longer.
For what it's worth, it appears that the variouis police jurisdictions are still more worried about the criminals than about the citizen. That may be regarded as a CLUE. Perhaps what actually occurred along the Interstate wasn't clearly stated in the article?
Level-headed gun owners usually wait for the facts to become public record before passing judgement on a person's actions.
I did mention that this was going to lose relevancy quickly. It appears to be well on it's way. We're already into:
As we don't know what happened yet, isn't everyone taking a position "making a lot of assumptions"?
It might save a lot of people from embarrasing themselves when their statements are quoted down the line.
For what it's worth, it appears that the variouis police jurisdictions are still more worried about the criminals than about the citizen. That may be regarded as a CLUE. Perhaps what actually occurred along the Interstate wasn't clearly stated in the article?
Level-headed gun owners usually wait for the facts to become public record before passing judgement on a person's actions.
I did mention that this was going to lose relevancy quickly. It appears to be well on it's way. We're already into:
As we don't know what happened yet, isn't everyone taking a position "making a lot of assumptions"?
It might save a lot of people from embarrasing themselves when their statements are quoted down the line.
By the by ...
Thus the media were able to ignore the fact that the incidents were all brought to a peaceful end through the intervention of private citizens with a firearm. Had they fired on the kids and killed them they would not have been able to ignore the presence of the firearm.
However, it must still be remembered that there were those who tried to get Myrick fired because "What kind of man would pull a gun on one of his students?" Honest. That really happened.
Thus the media were able to ignore the fact that the incidents were all brought to a peaceful end through the intervention of private citizens with a firearm. Had they fired on the kids and killed them they would not have been able to ignore the presence of the firearm.
However, it must still be remembered that there were those who tried to get Myrick fired because "What kind of man would pull a gun on one of his students?" Honest. That really happened.
JuanCarlos
New member
You know, my first reaction is to doubt that there's any way that could be possible. Then I remember some of the conversations I've gotten into with some people in the past, particularly anti-gun activists and/or pacifists...and sadly I can believe it.[/tangent]
There are a lot of things "wrong" with this event from my point of view. There were several places where the resident's liability was hanging in the breeze.
To put myself in his shoes I have to say there is a limit to such a pursuit. At some point the risk to the public and one's self outweighs the heroics/satisfaction/revenge of capturing the thugs.
I look at it this way;
- I don't have emergency lights to warn other motorists;
- Most of us are not trained for pursuit driving
- If they stop, THEY will control the location and subsequent actions
- If you manage to shoot the driver their vehicle becomes an unguided "missile" that you created.
- What do you do if they are forced to stop in traffic at a crowded intersection?
Following the subjects to report their travel is fine. When things start getting really hairy (high speeds, reckless driving, shots fired) its time to back off.
While some of us may admire the guy's tenancity if he was shooting back at the suspect vehicle while driving and using a cell phone, I can only see that as a serious tactical error for two reasons; 1: if he's close enough to take a 'safe shot' he's close enough to get the plate number and 2: it increases the odds an innocent person gets hurt.
To put myself in his shoes I have to say there is a limit to such a pursuit. At some point the risk to the public and one's self outweighs the heroics/satisfaction/revenge of capturing the thugs.
I look at it this way;
- I don't have emergency lights to warn other motorists;
- Most of us are not trained for pursuit driving
- If they stop, THEY will control the location and subsequent actions
- If you manage to shoot the driver their vehicle becomes an unguided "missile" that you created.
- What do you do if they are forced to stop in traffic at a crowded intersection?
Following the subjects to report their travel is fine. When things start getting really hairy (high speeds, reckless driving, shots fired) its time to back off.
While some of us may admire the guy's tenancity if he was shooting back at the suspect vehicle while driving and using a cell phone, I can only see that as a serious tactical error for two reasons; 1: if he's close enough to take a 'safe shot' he's close enough to get the plate number and 2: it increases the odds an innocent person gets hurt.
JuanCarlos
New member
I'm with you on the latter...but as for the former, is there another news story you're reading that tells us that the speeds were excessive? I looked around, but searching isn't turning up anything.
No JuanCarlos,
I'm just making the point that there are certain times when even a justified pursuit isn't worth the risk to innocent lives.
If they were driving 70-75 on a lightly populated freeway that's probably acceptable. But going 70 mph through city streets ratchets up the odds of a bystander getting maimed.
I'm just making the point that there are certain times when even a justified pursuit isn't worth the risk to innocent lives.
If they were driving 70-75 on a lightly populated freeway that's probably acceptable. But going 70 mph through city streets ratchets up the odds of a bystander getting maimed.