If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[Alexx1401]

Did we find out the deceased didn't have an [airsoft] gun in his belt?

ALWAYS leery of what the "news" claims but yes. The article was saying the one shot had one in his belt. Story from survivors was kid with one in belt also was going to the store to ask about problems with it. Now if this is true it was VERY dumb to carry in that way but a lot of kids do stupid crap like this. Kids playing with these things in public is asking for trouble.
Now if this kid had pulled that toy out on someone and then got shot? Would still be a huge deal but far different. The one going to prison still decided to play Cop and he is going to pay big time for that choice.

 

[Koda]

ALWAYS leery of what the "news" claims but yes. The article was saying the one shot had one in his belt. Story from survivors was kid with one in belt also was going to the store to ask about problems with it. Now if this is true it was VERY dumb to carry in that way but a lot of kids do stupid crap like this. Kids playing with these things in public is asking for trouble.
Now if this kid had pulled that toy out on someone and then got shot? Would still be a huge deal but far different. The one going to prison still decided to play Cop and he is going to pay big time for that choice.

If the mall cop claimed the kid was reaching for a gun and it turns out the kid did in fact have a gun then the mall cop has a chance of not being prosecuted here.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

If the mall cop claimed the kid was reaching for a gun and it turns out the kid did in fact have a gun then the mall cop has a chance of not being prosecuted here.

That was my first thought also, but it's the totality of the circumstances. Sounds like he lied to the police about what happened cuz video conflicts with what he said. Just not enough info to know much of anything though.

 

[Koda]

That was my first thought also, but it's the totality of the circumstances. Sounds like he lied to the police about what happened cuz video conflicts with what he said. Just not enough info to know much of anything though.

Agree. My suspicion is the mall cop is trying to cover his effup but Im also waiting for more news cause I know the media will do anything to paint a CCW as the bad guy.

 

[Yarome]

I generally side with you on this but I also totally understand others who don't want to get involved indirectly due to what liberals have done to today's justice system regarding self defense. Even in the most righteous shoot the family can still sue you and the liberal courts will side with them. Intervention is wide open to ruining the rest of your life.

I totally get that, too. Some will decide that avoiding any hardship in their life, at any cost, is ultimately more important than anyone else's life. "Not my problem". Others may be aware of the risk but decide that a family being able to have their loved one come home has more value than potentially having to deal with some hardship within their own life. "We all bear a responsibility".

To each their own.

I simply get a bit weary of hearing the liberal rhetoric propagated. IE., "You're an idiot and only living out some stupid hero complex if you intervene on anyone's behalf but your own." Or, "If they haven't actually shot anyone yet, just let em threaten to kill and take whatever they want."

 

[Alexx1401]

If the mall cop claimed the kid was reaching for a gun and it turns out the kid did in fact have a gun then the mall cop has a chance of not being prosecuted here.

NEVER going to happen here. The video from the scene is being claimed he did not and even if he did this guy is toast here. This is not TX. They are going to throw the book at him and make sure he goes away. The BEST outcome he can pray for is a plea deal that only gives him a couple decades in prison. People who live up this way often still want to pretend they have not walked into the mess they have until this happens. He has lost everything now. I have long warned about one of his BIG mistakes. He apparently did a lot of talking to the Police after. If he had been smart enough to say nothing till lawyer he would be in a bad spot. Of course if he was that smart he would not have shot the kid in the first place.

 

[parallax]

Edit….. beer posting … the struggle is real

 

[Koda]

Others may be aware of the risk but decide that a family being able to have their loved one come home has more value than potentially having to deal with some hardship within their own life. "We all bear a responsibility".

To clarify your analogy here the difference is only which family will be able to have their loved one come home either dead or in prison or financial ruin.
Remember, I generally side what what your saying but its the liberals that created why some choose to not intervene on strangers behalf. I struggle with the idea myself.

 

[Koda]

NEVER going to happen here. The video from the scene is being claimed he did not and even if he did this guy is toast here.

Agree, this is the part that makes me think hes going to rot in prison.
"After the initial shots, he stood over the teen on the ground and continued to fire, according to court documents."

 

[Yarome]

To clarify your analogy here the difference is only which family will be able to have their loved one come home either dead or in prison or financial ruin.

I don't disagree. In part that decision can also depend on where you are in life. Older, your children all grown and no longer reliant on you.... it's much less of a personal risk and easier to choose someone elses life over the potential consequences. 3 squares, a rack, free health care, no "honey-do" list, and unlimited free time to pursue personal interests... that's not exactly a death sentence.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlj_tPVzY5s

 

[Koda]

I don't disagree. In part that decision can also depend on where you are in life. Older, your children all grown and no longer reliant on you.... it's much less of a personal risk and easier to choose someone elses life over the potential consequences. 3 squares, a rack, free health care, no "honey-do" list, and unlimited free time to pursue personal interests... that's not exactly a death sentence.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlj_tPVzY5s

In todays liberal legal climate its a much greater risk than your describing, especially if you make the wrong call. Cases like this thread are examples of how well intended individuals easily misjudge situations. In my 20s after I got my CHL and got in a situation I quickly realized I didnt know bubblegum about carrying. So I took a legal class and (I cant recall exactly where I got it from but I think it was this class...) one lesson taught was on intervention.... The story was told: you see a derelict bum beating the bubblegum out of a businessman in a back alley, do you intervene? After the students answered yes or no the rest of the story was told how the "derelict bum" was an undercover officer trying to arrest a violent criminal.
Its also worth asking if the only reason one is intervening is because they are armed? (generally an indicator you shouldn't...)


Some sarcasm, in prison theres often still a "honey-do" list to do...

 

[Member 45541]

Some sarcasm, in prison theres often still a "honey-do" list to do...

And if you're lucky, you might get to keep your teeth!

 

[Yarome]

... one lesson taught was on intervention.... The story was told: you see a derelict bum beating the bubblegum out of a businessman in a back alley, do you intervene? After the students answered yes or no the rest of the story was told how the "derelict bum" was an undercover officer trying to arrest a violent criminal.

I think it goes without saying that when intervening it's highly critical to make good calls and use a level of force appropriate to the situation. Like in the example, that would certainly not be a situation where you start throwing lead right from the get-go... or possibly even drawing your firearm. The question, "would you intervene", is kind of bogus unless you're specifically asking the question, "would you immediately shoot?". Intervening doesn't default to the use of deadly force as the only option, nor should any level of intervention be taken simply because you "do" have a firearm. I agree on that.

A situation has to be judged on it's merits, but there are also times when it's abundantly clear who the aggressor is, who is presenting an imminent threat to others and may warrant immediate deadly force. It's not one of those "always or never" type things, IMO.

Not all situations merit outside interference. IE., If I see two groups of individuals, approximately of the same age, wearing opposing colors, and/or being of similar demeanor and equally aggressive toward the other... and one of them pulls a gun on the other... I don't mean to seem callous but I really don't care who the main aggressor is or who might end up shot. I wouldn't attempt to intervene.

I believe in the, "if you play, you pay" principle. I would view both sides to be in that situation by choice so, "not my problem". Secure yourself from the area and call LE

 

[Koda]

I think it goes without saying that when intervening it's highly critical to make good calls and use a level of force appropriate to the situation. Like in the example, that would certainly not be a situation where you start throwing lead right from the get-go... or possibly even drawing your firearm. The question, "would you intervene", is kind of bogus unless you're specifically asking the question, "would you immediately shoot?". Intervening doesn't default to the use of deadly force as the only option, nor should any level of intervention be taken simply because you "do" have a firearm. I agree on that.

A situation has to be judged on it's merits, but there are also times when it's abundantly clear who the aggressor is, who is presenting an imminent threat to others and may warrant immediate deadly force. It's not one of those "always or never" type things, IMO.

Not all situations merit outside interference. IE., If I see two groups of individuals, approximately of the same age, wearing opposing colors, and/or being of similar demeanor and equally aggressive toward the other... and one of them pulls a gun on the other... I don't mean to seem callous but I really don't care who the main aggressor is or who might end up shot. I wouldn't attempt to intervene.

I believe in the, "if you play, you pay" principle. I would view both sides to be in that situation by choice so, "not my problem". Secure yourself from the area and call LE

Agree there are certainly more details to the story to consider but the main point was that one needs to fully understand that things are not always what they appear. You could be conscious about not using deadly force but end up facing a threat in an instant you perceive life threatening just for intervening, yet if the choice to intervene was wrong (like the alley story) then you'd be the aggressor in the eyes of the jury even if the threat was legit.

 

[RVTECH]

From the article and I believe it speaks volumes...

After the initial shots, he stood over the teen on the ground and continued to fire, according to court documents.

So, he stood there, psychologically numb, firing indiscriminately into a human who was NEVER a threat and most likely already dead?

 

[when_DM_smiles]

Its also worth asking if the only reason one is intervening is because they are armed? (generally an indicator you shouldn't...)

That right there is a great decision metric for civilians/private persons.

 

[Certaindeaf]

From the article and I believe it speaks volumes...

After the initial shots, he stood over the teen on the ground and continued to fire, according to court documents.

So, he stood there, psychologically numb, firing indiscriminately into a human who was NEVER a threat and most likely already dead?

One shoots to stop the threat. The ground is not some magic sanctuary last I heard.
And in hindsight, we now know they weren't an imminent threat. Did he then? Apparently not.

 

[lucusloc]

One shoots to stop the threat. The ground is not some magic sanctuary last I heard.
And in hindsight, we now know they weren't an imminent threat. Did he then? Apparently not.

The trick is "reasonable belief" which would be rally hard to get to here. Remember, preconceived biases are already understood to be out of the realm of reasonable, and it looks like this guy entered this situation with a heavy predisposition to a certain outcome. Amped up, ready to shoot and not looking for alternative resolutions. He went in with a terrible mental state and it got some innocent kid killed. I would not tolerate such action from a cop, and I would not tolerate it from a security guard or anyone else. Unless something comes out that was widely misrepresented in the article this seems to be a pretty clear cut case of some guy thinking he was playing the hero when he was actually the bad guy. Considering the police say they already have the camera footage and it contradicts his version of vents I will not hold my breath for that outcome.

 

[Certaindeaf]

The trick is "reasonable belief" which would be rally hard to get to here. Remember, preconceived biases are already understood to be out of the realm of reasonable, and it looks like this guy entered this situation with a heavy predisposition to a certain outcome. Amped up, ready to shoot and not looking for alternative resolutions. He went in with a terrible mental state and it got some innocent kid killed. I would not tolerate such action from a cop, and I would not tolerate it from a security guard or anyone else. Unless something comes out that was widely misrepresented in the article this seems to be a pretty clear cut case of some guy thinking he was playing the hero when he was actually the bad guy. Considering the police say they already have the camera footage and it contradicts his version of vents I will not hold my breath for that outcome.

Nor have I seen the video. Plenty of speculation that only time will sort out, barring politics and agendas.

 

[Xaevian]

I wonder what his NWFA screen name was?