Good guy with a gun actually stops mass shooting.

[P.J. Denyer]

I'm Canadian, and find the fact of the US to be awash in guns reprehensible.

I understand the viewpoint of our brothers here from the UK.

But we're dealing with the here and now, in the US. We can't necessarily foist upon Americans our particular way of dealing with gun crime. As long as so many folks have ready access to arms, they have a lot more deal with than we in more 'enlightened' societies.

As I see it, in the circumstances the two citizens did nothing particularly wrong. A man who had just shot several people was still armed, and they tried to ensure he did no more harm. In the minutes before police could arrive some number of other victims *could possibly* result. They tried to convince the shooter to drop his weapon, backed up by their own guns aimed at him. The shooter's choice to retaliate by aiming/firing at them (if this indeed occurred) precipitated what followed. If he had seen reason and complied, he'd be alive.

The two citizens were faced with a conundrum. They could not know if the shooter was finished, and just wanted to stroll back home for tea. For all they knew, he was just getting started. They could have observed from a distance, tracking to aid police when they got on scene. But what if the shooter then went on to fire on more people? Any injuries/deaths then would weigh awfully heavily on the conscience of those who had decided to effectively let the perp go.

That's the kind of thinking the two guys would have been under great pressure to resolve. Act now, or possibly suffer awful regret later. And having got the drop on the shooter, they would think that a rational person would see reason and lay his weapon down. Or turn tail and bolt. Not invite his own demise--unless that's what he wanted.

To assume that our two guys were vigilantes just looking for a chance to kill is a bit of a leap. Having just witnessed someone cold bloodedly shoot several people, they'd have been in some shock. Their minds would racing over a jumble of thoughts getting in the way of each other due to the fight or flight response. And being amply aware of the commonality of mass shootings going on in their country, the potential for this being another just such could have figured prominently. And so the awful responsibility of stopping such a potentiality would hang heavily.

According to what we know thus far, they gave the shooter ample opportunity to disarm himself. The consequences of his choice are his responsibility alone. Mentally unstable or not. A threat to innocents is not to be countenanced. In my view, given the circumstances as I understand them, the right outcome resulted.

I'm from the UK, in these discussions I'd normally be on what is characterised as the 'anti-gun' side as I'm in favour of very strong gun regulation. I agree with everything you've written here.

In retrospect we can sit around and argue what the best possible outcome could have been. In reality these people did what seemed best in a terrible situation under a reasonable belief that not acting could have worse consequences. I don't envy them having to make that decision.

 

[applecorped]

Shouldn't this whole thread be in the unintentional humor section?

 

[applecorped]

I think this is a new low for you.

I have faith that it will go even lower

 

[Meadmaker]

A similar shooting in the UK would definitely result in the charging of those who shot the shooter with murder.

Really? Can anyone else chime in on this? Is Nessie right about this?

Which is why back at the start of the thread I referred to Wild West Culture being alive and well and very obvious in this situation.

I prefer the term "American exceptionalism", but, ok, Wild West will do.

Come to think of it, when the shooter fired those shots into the restaurant, he may as well have put up his own Wanted Poster on Instagram, complete with "Dead or Alive".

In all seriousness, I have a hard time believing that this is a uniquely American reaction. I'm surprised, and skeptical, that Europeans would not congratulate people who confronted a would be mass murderer, even if they killed him in the process.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As I think Nessie has a UK law enforcement background I hesitate to contradict but I would be astonished if the men were charged with murder had this happened in the UK. Arrested on suspicion, yes. Charged, I don't see it.

I think the difference in view here is probably characterised by Nessie's remark that the men were not afraid. What we're arguing over is two different scenarios. I'm thinking of a situation where the shooter is challenged while still at the scene where mere seconds before he was blasting at random into the restaurant. Nessie seems to envisage a different situation where the shooting is clearly over and two individuals, in no fear for their own or anyone else's life, decide they're going to track down the shooter and kill him.

 

[fuelair]

As I think Nessie has a UK law enforcement background I hesitate to contradict but I would be astonished if the men were charged with murder had this happened in the UK. Arrested on suspicion, yes. Charged, I don't see it.

I think the difference in view here is probably characterised by Nessie's remark that the men were not afraid. What we're arguing over is two different scenarios. I'm thinking of a situation where the shooter is challenged while still at the scene where mere seconds before he was blasting at random into the restaurant. Nessie seems to envisage a different situation where the shooting is clearly over and two individuals, in no fear for their own or anyone else's life, decide they're going to track down the shooter and kill him.

You are quite correct on Nessie's background! Based on previous posts where he has mentioned same.

 

[Ranb]

I made it clear here;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12307076#post12307076

The guys with the guns did not stop the mass shooting. It had already happened. It was also not a mass shooting by the usual definition.

It is then assumed the shooter is going to continue, but is there any evidence for that

You've been evading answers to questions and making up your own scenarios to suit yourself in this thread. And now you want to talk about evidence? Where is the evidence to support any of the claims you're made in this thread?

The guys with the guns did not stop the mass shooting. It had already happened. It was also not a mass shooting by the usual definition.

It is then assumed the shooter is going to continue, but is there any evidence for that

The usual definition? You know as well as I do that there are no "usual definitions" on this forum especially when it comes to gun crap. Assuming that the shooter was not done is the best assumption to make, for the police and any bystanders. That is why people ran away from the scene, and at least two of them retrieved their guns to stop the shooter and possibly to protect others.

You want to denigrate their actions using assumptions you made up. Ever stop to think that maybe these two men felt a responsibility to protect others nearby if they had the ability to do so. It is possible that these two men saw an opportunity to kill someone, but until we find out more details, it is best to not make up your own.

Twisting the narrative to suit an agenda. If you are that pissed off I am doing it, why are you not so up in arms about the claims two heroes stopped a mass shooting?

Where is your skepticism? I'm not up in arms about anything other than your bat **** crazy arguments.

 

[Ranb]

As I think Nessie has a UK law enforcement background I hesitate to contradict but I would be astonished if the men were charged with murder had this happened in the UK. Arrested on suspicion, yes. Charged, I don't see it....

In the UK law enforcement has tracked down a person and shot them dead based on a scenario in which they twisted an innocent man's actions into those of a terrorist. I think these two guys would get a pass in the UK if they used legal weapons.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Really? Can anyone else chime in on this? Is Nessie right about this?

I don't have Nessie's law enforcement background, but I have already stated that I think they would have fallen within the UK's rules for self defense or defense of others, the comment you referred to was originally directed at me in disagreement.

From a legal standpoint defense of others is certainly permitted-:

There is concern that individuals may face legal proceedings if they use force against an assailant and in so doing cause injury (or death) to that assailant. The law relating to self defence is extremely complex and these pages aim to provide a comprehensive insight into the subject.
We have endeavoured to state the law as it stood on 4 May 2018.

The lawyers' practitioner text (Archbold 19-41) states:

"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

A person may need to avail himself of this legal defence if he faces charges following an incident where he has used force to defend himself, another person, property, or as a result of attempting to prevent a crime. The defence, therefore, goes much further than just "self defence".
The concept of the defence exists both at common law and by statute. At common law the defence has existed for centuries and permits a person to use reasonable force to: defend himself from attack prevent an attack on another persondefend his property

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence

I think it is certainly possible that charges could be brought depending on whether the prosecution service took Nessie's view that the shooting was over and no-one else was in danger, but I would be somewhat surprised if they did. I'd be very confident that if it went to trial the jury would acquit them, this is no "Tony Martin" situation, they weren't lying in ambush and they had reasonable grounds to believe he was a threat to them or to other people.

Of course this is dependent on the guns being legally held and carried at the time, which would be unusual in the UK but not impossible. I've stayed in hotels that are frequented by shooters and have gun safes, a lot of country pubs are frequented by game shooters between the shoot and going home. Criminal shooters are rare in the UK so the chances of one coinciding with a legally carried gun in the hands of someone outside the police and military in public are tiny.

 

[Nessie]

Really? Can anyone else chime in on this? Is Nessie right about this?

There are examples, including the recent arrest for murder of a male who stabbed a housebreaker to death. Then there was the famous case of the farmer who shot someone in the back and killed him. The farmer went to prison.

I prefer the term "American exceptionalism", but, ok, Wild West will do.

Come to think of it, when the shooter fired those shots into the restaurant, he may as well have put up his own Wanted Poster on Instagram, complete with "Dead or Alive".

In all seriousness, I have a hard time believing that this is a uniquely American reaction. I'm surprised, and skeptical, that Europeans would not congratulate people who confronted a would be mass murderer, even if they killed him in the process.

Since no other country has a similar version of American exceptionalism or a Wild West history, I am surprised you are surprised other countries would happily accept its citizens doing the job of the police, to prevent a crime that has not yet been committed and is just presumed.

 

[Nessie]

As I think Nessie has a UK law enforcement background I hesitate to contradict but I would be astonished if the men were charged with murder had this happened in the UK. Arrested on suspicion, yes. Charged, I don't see it.

I think the difference in view here is probably characterised by Nessie's remark that the men were not afraid. What we're arguing over is two different scenarios. I'm thinking of a situation where the shooter is challenged while still at the scene where mere seconds before he was blasting at random into the restaurant. Nessie seems to envisage a different situation where the shooting is clearly over and two individuals, in no fear for their own or anyone else's life, decide they're going to track down the shooter and kill him.

From what I have read, the shooting was over, the shooter had left the restaurant and the two armed males then attempted to arrest him. That then precipitated a second shooting incident.

It is being justified because the shooter may have gone on to shoot others. Or maybe not, who knows. I have no problem that in America it is acceptable to shoot someone dead because they might do something. I do not live there.

 

[applecorped]

The crime was committed and not presumed

 

[Nessie]

You've been evading answers to questions and making up your own scenarios to suit yourself in this thread. And now you want to talk about evidence? Where is the evidence to support any of the claims you're made in this thread?


The usual definition? You know as well as I do that there are no "usual definitions" on this forum especially when it comes to gun crap. Assuming that the shooter was not done is the best assumption to make, for the police and any bystanders. That is why people ran away from the scene, and at least two of them retrieved their guns to stop the shooter and possibly to protect others.

You want to denigrate their actions using assumptions you made up. Ever stop to think that maybe these two men felt a responsibility to protect others nearby if they had the ability to do so. It is possible that these two men saw an opportunity to kill someone, but until we find out more details, it is best to not make up your own.

Where is your skepticism? I'm not up in arms about anything other than your bat **** crazy arguments.

It has still clearly gone over your head I am being sceptical of the good guy with gun preventing mass shooting, indeed shooting deaths in general, claims.

I am showing how it is a myth and how easy it is to put a slant to suit on what was done, rather than gather evidence.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

There are examples, including the recent arrest for murder of a male who stabbed a housebreaker to death. Then there was the famous case of the farmer who shot someone in the back and killed him. The farmer went to prison.

I assume the male who stabbed the house breaker you're referring to is Richard Olsen-Brooks, he was released without charge as our self defense laws do allow the use of lethal force if it is proportional to the perceived threat to yourself or another.

The Tony Martin case (the famous case of a farmer..) was a case of a man with illegally held shotguns, who had lost his license for a previous assault with a shotgun, who deliberately lured two two unarmed criminals into a trap and then shot them in the back as they were running away, killing one of them. It isn't honestly comparable with this case in any meaningful way other than someone dying from a gunshot wound.

 

[William Parcher]

Will armed citizens who are carrying need to wear body cameras just like some police are required?

Civilians are not trained in de-escalating violent conflicts. They do not typically carry non-lethal tactical weapons such as bean bag rounds, tear gas, stun grenades and Tasers.

How will we know if a civilian shooting is legal and righteous if we don't have video?

 

[Nessie]

I assume the male who stabbed the house breaker you're referring to is Richard Olsen-Brooks, he was released without charge as our self defense laws do allow the use of lethal force if it is proportional to the perceived threat to yourself or another.

Who, if he had followed the housebreaker into the street and then shot him dead, would likely have been charged with murder, not just arrested under suspicion and later released.

The Tony Martin case (the famous case of a farmer..) was a case of a man with illegally held shotguns, who had lost his license for a previous assault with a shotgun, who deliberately lured two two unarmed criminals into a trap and then shot them in the back as they were running away, killing one of them. It isn't honestly comparable with this case in any meaningful way other than someone dying from a gunshot wound.

There is no direct comparison, so I am showing the nearest equivalents.

 

[dann]

Will armed citizens who are carrying need to wear body cameras just like some police are required?

Sometimes they do!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Who, if he had followed the housebreaker into the street and then shot him dead, would likely have been charged with murder, not just arrested under suspicion and later released.





There is no direct comparison, so I am showing the nearest equivalents.

'Nearest Equivalent' meaning real life examples with no similarity to the one being discussed or now totally imaginary ones, which in both cases involve unarmed criminals who aren't shooting members of the public at random.

 

[William Parcher]

Sometimes they do!

Of course we do know that security cameras are not body cameras. Are there any examples of armed civilians who actually wear a body camera (not a phone camera) because they want the footage because they might possibly at some moment choose to use their gun during violent conflict?

 

[Ranb]

It has still clearly gone over your head I am being sceptical of the good guy with gun preventing mass shooting, indeed shooting deaths in general, claims.

I am showing how it is a myth and how easy it is to put a slant to suit on what was done, rather than gather evidence.

So how did that get you to accusations of a summary execution? Surely understand that you are making this accusation towards two men who may not deserve it.