• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Good guy with a gun actually stops mass shooting.

Nessie said:
Tackle, as in deal with. Not rugby/American football tackle.

Would you at least accept the two men who shot the shooter should be subject to an investigation to establish exactly what their intentions and motives were?
Click to expand...

I'll betcha it's already been done. And the men released.
 
Armed civilian kills gunman, stops shooting spree at Walmart in Washington state

Washington Post said:
A gunman who opened fire inside a Walmart in Washington state and injured at least two people during carjacking attempts was fatally shot by one of two armed civilians on Sunday evening, according to police.

Police in Tumwater, just south of Olympia, said they were still piecing together the full story.

About 5 p.m. Pacific Time, authorities received a call about a possibly drunk driver heading the wrong way on a main road near a local high school, said Laura Wohl, Tumwater police public information officer...

...At about 5:30 p.m., they started getting numerous calls of shots fired in and around a nearby Walmart. Wohl said they later confirmed that the man doing the shooting was the same person involved in the carjacking...

...two armed civilians in the parking lot confronted the suspect, one of whom fatally shot the man...
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...stops-shooting-spree-at-tumwater-wash-walmart
 
AJM8125 said:
Summarily executed in 3... 2...
Click to expand...

Its OK, I get that in the USA it is perfectly acceptable to shoot someone dead who has gun on them when committing a crime, no matter the circumstances. Details do not matter.

Maybe you could define what would count as a summary execution, because so far, nothing appears to.
 
hmm, more incidents, or more reporting of incidents?

Hass the mass media, who want to report controversial incidents in order to raise readership, come full circle? Now they publish more on the stopping of mass shootings than in mass shootings themselves? One dead, one injured, hasn't been national news.
 
Nessie said:
Maybe you could define what would count as a summary execution, because so far, nothing appears to.
Click to expand...
You're joking right? Weren't you the one who was trying to convince us that self defense was actually summary execution earlier in this thread?

Perhaps you should better define what a summary execution is.
 
Nessie said:
Its OK, I get that in the USA it is perfectly acceptable to shoot someone dead who has gun on them when committing a crime, no matter the circumstances. Details do not matter.
Click to expand...

Sure they matter. Like the minor detail the shooter was an active threat to public safety, not just someone who merely had gun on them when committing a crime.

A tad different.
 
Ranb said:
You're joking right? Weren't you the one who was trying to convince us that self defense was actually summary execution earlier in this thread?
Click to expand...

I was not convinced members of the public going after a shooter is self defence.

Perhaps you should better define what a summary execution is.
Click to expand...

I am happy with the dictionary definition.
 
AJM8125 said:
Sure they matter. Like the minor detail the shooter was an active threat to public safety, not just someone who merely had gun on them when committing a crime.

A tad different.
Click to expand...

The original case I was referring to was where the shooter was an active threat to people in a restaurant, but not to people elsewhere.

If someone travels to shoot people in a specific place, I do not think they are necessarily also an active danger to everyone and anyone.

Otherwise, anyone who has a gun in public is a potential active threat to public safety.
 
Nessie said:
The original case I was referring to was where the shooter was an active threat to people in a restaurant, but not to people elsewhere.

If someone travels to shoot people in a specific place, I do not think they are necessarily also an active danger to everyone and anyone.

Otherwise, anyone who has a gun in public is a potential active threat to public safety.
Click to expand...

You really can't see a difference between someone who has just been shooting at people in a restaurant and a random person carrying a gun?
 
We don't know if the armed civilian made any attempt to disarm or de-escalate or if he just shot the guy. We don't know if the shooter threatened the armed civilian. These people don't wear bodycams and don't have training and policies geared towards taking criminals into custody.

Some people would argue that this is good and it's how police should operate anyway. If some guy has shot somebody(s) they should just be killed right away. Don't clog the courts and prisons with these scumbags who cost taxpayers lots of money.
 
Nessie said:
The original case I was referring to was where the shooter was an active threat to people in a restaurant, but not to people elsewhere.

If someone travels to shoot people in a specific place, I do not think they are necessarily also an active danger to everyone and anyone.
Click to expand...

Baloney. Both were active shooters and an immediate threat.
 
Roboramma said:
You really can't see a difference between someone who has just been shooting at people in a restaurant and a random person carrying a gun?
Click to expand...

You really think that a shooter keeps on shooting even once they have left their intended target?

If someone shoots up a restaurant and is not traced for a few hours, during which they have not shot at anyone else, is it acceptable to just shoot them dead?
 
AJM8125 said:
Baloney. Both were active shooters and an immediate threat.
Click to expand...

So once someone has shot at others, no matter what they do, even if it is stop shooting and just leave the scene, with no further shooting, they should just be shot dead?
 
Nessie said:
So once someone has shot at others, no matter what they do, even if it is stop shooting and just leave the scene, with no further shooting, they should just be shot dead?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The above didn’t happen in either case. The OK shooter was justifiably shot when he opened fire on a citizen who was attempting to apprehend him. The WA shooter was firing indiscriminately in public whilst trying to carjack his way out. Neither were simply trying to leave, they were trying to evade arrest.
 
AJM8125 said:
The WA shooter was firing indiscriminately in public whilst trying to carjack his way out.
Click to expand...
FWIW, the armed civilian who shot that guy would not have known of his earlier shootings that day, only what he witnessed in front of his eyes.

Earlier he had shot another person while carjacking elsewhere and also shot at a glass display case inside the Walmart. The armed civilian wouldn't have known about that earlier stuff.
 
William Parcher said:
FWIW, the armed civilian who shot that guy would not have known of his earlier shootings that day, only what he witnessed in front of his eyes.

Earlier he had shot another person while carjacking elsewhere and also shot at a glass display case inside the Walmart. The armed civilian wouldn't have known about that earlier stuff.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.kiro...shooting-inside-walmart-in-tumwater/771756019

No, they wouldn’t know about the first carjack, you are correct. The shooter was killed while attempting a third carjack in the Walmart lot. That was after the shooter critically wounded the second carjack victim, also in the Walmart lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom