Posted on 09/06/2011 6:13:12 PM PDT by Kid Shelleen
If you are going to carry a gun, first learn how to shoot. And when to shoot.
I probably could have phrased my comment better. It’s unfortunate that the citizen got gut-shot. He will likely face a long and painful recovery. The kind that the ‘bad guy’ should be having.
The 15 year old should get to spend a loooooog time in prison.
“I’m your huckleberry”
And many of the victims are left with permanent scars and permanently disabled. We rarely hear about that or get follow up stories on that aspect of the attack.
Larry Niven wrote “Organlegger” in the 1970s - everything was a capital offense to generate the necessary supply of replacement organs for the Baby Boomers. A guy goes down fighting the system after getting the death penalty for his third red light conviction.
We could certainly take a kidney, lobe of the liver, bone marrow samples - and especially frequent blood donations for those disease free.
It’s important to examine this from the point of view of tactics.
If you have CC that is readily accessible, you have decided advantages in a one-on-one armed robbery situation. To start with, the robber wants to rob you, not get caught, and maybe not even be observed. His mind is going in a multitude of directions, but you have a single focus: pull your gun, take it off safety, maybe charge it and fire.
You can act when you choose to act, so you might actually appear to cooperate, so you will have an element of surprise. On the other hand, the robber wants to *rob* you, not shoot you, then he wants to escape.
Often such robbers fortify themselves with drugs or alcohol first, which is again to your advantage.
Now, this situation is somewhat different, as there are three robbers, with one of them being armed. This makes it harder for you to get the element of surprise. So likely your best bet is to use maneuver as well.
In this case, you want to limit your profile to the gunman, by facing him sideways instead of head on, the side opposite your gun, to help conceal your draw, and you want to move diagonally, hopefully to put one of his confederates between you and him. If it is possible to dart around a wall corner or utility pole, for cover, even better.
Finally, if at all possible, shoot to kill, as it will cost the taxpayers a good $2m to incarcerate each of those robbers otherwise.
While you would prefer to shoot the gunman, it is better to get off a shot quick into one of his confederates, for the shock effect, and then keep firing continually at all of the robbers, do not wait to see the effect of bullets or the reactions of the robbers.
love how the punk gets “allegedly” and the permit holder doesn’t.
That's because what the punk "allegedly" did is a crime while what the permit holder did isn't.
it is alleged that this happens in China.
So, if you end up on prison for a misdemeanor, or a thought crime, and your blood type is the right (or wrong) one, you could end up with an essentially capital punishment for your crime.
I could never be in favor of this, or any permutation of this.
What started the conversation was a discussion of violation of the speed limits. At first, the police might only write a person who was going 12 mph over the limit. Then, as compliance was obtained, they would set the threshold at 10 mph, and keep adjusting it accordingly as people reduced their speeds. Finally, the police would write for going just a few miles over the limit. At this point, I remembered the story about the man who went berserk and fought the system because he was being punished for very minor violations.
If you’re a white student at Temple, you damn well better be packing.
“I could never be in favor of this, or any permutation of this.”
Agree. I stand corrected.
“Mr. Eells should have just given him his wallet and complied with his demands”- typical local police chief and/or police media spokesperson
Interesting...Thanks.
Criminal lowlifes have a choice - quiet money in one direction, loud person with no money in other direction. Being lazy and witless, lowlife's will go for the money.
This kid who did the shooting might have sensed money wasn't going to be enough. White male students with money often invoke rage among losers... the shooting might have been the best choice.
That last bit is what could be called “arson theory”.
Fire departments have long known that by taking pictures of the crowds around arson fires, they can often catch arsonists, who cannot resist hanging around to see their handiwork.
And police regularly have to contend with onlookers and rubberneckers at crime scenes, accidents, and especially at very high risk sites, such as where an explosion is threatened.
People can be amazingly dumb this way, so intent on wanting to see the effects of events, especially their own actions, that they pause and gape instead of acting or evacuating. And this pause can be deadly to them.
Think of the scenario of an armed robbery, from your perspective as a potential victim, not just of robbery, but for being maimed or killed.
1) Fairness is not at issue. Being fair to a robber is downright stupid and could get you killed. This means not letting him shoot first, or letting him have any advantage at all. If you can cold bloodedly kill an armed robber, do so. Arresting armed robbers is what police do.
2) Optimally, you get out of there with both your valuables and without getting wounded or killed. If this is *all* you get, you have won, even if you are armed, and *might* have shot the robber.
3) If both of you are armed, your advantage could lie in a few seconds, or even milliseconds. The brilliant physicist Niels Bohr actually proved that in a gunfight, that the time it takes for a person to react is shorter than the time it takes to consciously act. But a new study shows that the person reacting might not win the gunfight. The reaction time advantage is a few milliseconds, which is not enough time to beat few hundred millisecond lead that the first man has over the second. Furthermore, in more complicated tests of reaction versus action, the person who reacts makes errors more often than the person who consciously acts.
But what nobody considered was the effect of bullets. It is actually rare that single bullets kill instantly. Likewise it is uncommon that single bullets with even disable a person enough so that they cannot fire their gun effectively, if they are prepared to fire. Most bullet fatalities, except for accurate head and heart shots, take place minutes to hours, to even days after the injury.
Likewise, they assumed that the shooters were otherwise equal. But this is not the case in an armed robbery. The robber has to pay attention to everything around him, front and back, while trying to get money and goods, and usually *not* shooting their victim. Their victim, however, can focus, which is a huge advantage. He also has the advantage of surprise, unless the robber knows he has a gun.
4) It is good practice, if you meet up with a criminal, such as one bumping your car with his car to get you to pull over, to instead get out of there to a safe place, and then call the police. This is insurance against “leaving the scene of an accident”, with the excuse that you did not feel safe staying in the area.
In the case of letting slip with a hail of bullets, it is a superb time to “beat feet”, and call the police when you are a considerable distance away. No reason in the world to hang around and go “Ha-ha!” at the armed robber bleeding to death.
That’s how we know the 21 year old went too easy on the perp. :’)
Thanks for all the hints. I’m still trying to figure out though, why would the punk pick an armed man to rob? ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.