Posted on 11/24/2009 9:29:36 AM PST by DCBryan1
So what part of them firing randomly into the store did you not read?
Ok...if they pull a gun I’m going to...oh crap, ok, if they wave the gun around I’m going to...crrrrraaaaaaaap...ok, now if they hold it to someone’s head i’m going to...oh man, this isn’t going well...ok well if they decide to start shooting, then I’ll decide if I, as a cop should do something.
Great process.
From the article:
One of the men fired several shots inside the restaurant and outside in the parking lot as they fled...
The detailed descriptions of the perps sort of surprises me. Had this happened in the Twin Cities we would have been told that there were two people, with both skin AND eyes.....
“One of the men fired several shots inside the restaurant and outside in the parking lot as they fled... “
If the cop saw that the gun fire was merely to intimidate the people, then he is one cool, operator while under pressure. Even more so because he didn’t go macho man.
My hats off to him. No one got killed in a dangerous encounter.
You sure you’re not comparing apples to oranges here? Are you saying an off-duty cop with a pistol vs two armed robbers, is the same as multiple armor-wearing SWAT guys with heavy weapons?
I mean, I sympathize with you about SWAT not going after the known places of drug dealers and gang houses (ie what they supposedly were created to deal with) and instead go after one small-time thug who may or may not even be armed and get the address wrong and kill those people’s dogs and leave without even an apology...but I can’t say this situation is anywhere near the SWAT issue.
Regular cops aren’t necessarily SWAT-minded. I don’t think this incident can automatically be branded as cowardice.
The off duty officer wasn’t a rent-a-cop, he was a customer. He may have had a few drinks and didn’t believe himself to be in good enough condition to engage the robbers.
The Monday morning quarterbacks need to think about what it means to start shooting the robbers in a crowded restaurant.
Let’s say the cop takes down the short, fat robber. As he starts firing at the robber, the tall, skinny robber starts shooting at the cop. Being a typical gangbanger, he can’t hit the cop, but does shoot two or three innocents before the cop can shoot him.
Is that a better result?
“I think the article said the shots were fired outside....”
No, they were fired both inside the restaurant and outside.
At that point with shots being fired inside, being a CCW holder that spends much time on a combat pistol course, I would have opened up in fear for my life. For sure, killing the first one as I wouldn’t fire till I had a clean, “target-rich” sight picture; and hopefully killing the 2nd one as well in a matter of seconds. I suspect double-tapping the first one would have made an easy kill as he wouldn’t see it coming till it was too late. The 2nd one may have, or may not have, been just as easy depending on his reaction. But for sure, the family of the first one would be planning for his dirt nap right about now. BTW, cowardice will take one to an early grave. IMHO, they lucked out.
and the winning entry is Pessimist...
thats great, Id prefer that if shots were being fired around my wire & kids, that they would be behind the weapon of the good guy, rather than downrange of 'randomly shooting' BGs...
We have, however, seen what you've written. You're very confident about what should have happened. You are indeed very free with your comments about what others should have done in any given situation.
I suppose that we are meant to imagine, from the knowing tone of your comments, that your shirt bulges with muscles and chest hair, and that you can kill with your eyebrows.
Oh, what a pity you were not there to stop the bad guys with a well aimed handful of pocket lint, which is a deadly weapon in your hands.
“Seth Thomas”
I thought he was a clockmaker?
Maybe he had a motorcycle accident last week and both arms are in a cast? Maybe he knew he was going to get tore up at dinner so he loaded his pistol with dummy rounds, you know, for safety?
Police Officers are under an obligation to protect the public even if they are off duty. They’re not the garbage guy or the mail man.
And if he was drunk, then he shouldn’t have even been armed. If you’re too drunk to use it, you’re too drunk to carry it. Do you have information concerning whether or not he was armed? You can’t have it both ways.
That may very well be true, but something tells me you'd defend the guy without even reading the entire article...
once all patrons are 'forced to lie down', mr leo had a great opportunity, and voted present...
“I think you are right and you have to pick your battles”
When I took the NRA pistol course, the instructor said something interesting that stuck with me. He said when you shoot, imagine that each bullet is a lawyer who will soon be interrogating you on the witness stand. Better have a good story.
I guess I didn’t assume that firing random shots meant specifically targeting people for execution. Either way there’s a good chance the cop wasn’t in a good situation to go on the defense/offense against them.
I don’t feel like armchair quarterbacking this one, I just don’t think this automatically falls into the camp of cowardice.
But who knows the situation? Pizza parlors have lots of little ones running around. At any given time there could have been numerous children between or behind the OD police officer and the gunmen. So biding his time until he got a shot, they left without killing anyone, or they started shooting people would have; in that case, been the correct thing to do. IMHO.
Nope.
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.