Printable View
Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store - ABC4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News
I hope this question doesn't stir up bad blood for any reason, but what would you have done, or what do you think is the right thing to do?
The man pulled his gun and told criminal to drop weapon!
Would you have done the same, or shot to kill the man?
I'd like to think I would have made the same decision, but the truth is I don't think any of us knows what we would do in the same situation.
I get what you're saying for sure...you NEVER know what you would do. The reason I asked this question is because I sent the story to my boss after finding it on this forum, and he said to me that the "Guy with the gun" should have killed the guy since he drew his pistol. I think since he told the criminal "Stop of I will shoot you" and he obeyed, that there was nothing wrong with that. The criminal stopped, and the pistol holder did not have to kill anyone that day!Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly
If he was to continue stabbing people, I would think the story would have ended with a BANG!
That is the reason I ask.
I agree. I think in a situation like this, where the man with the gun was not in immediate danger, he made the right choice by not shooting first.
Given the situation that the man with the gun faced, with people already having been stabbed, it would most likely have been deemed a justified shooting had he chosen to fire. However, he would have then been faced with the aftermath of having shot someone. That can't be easy even when it's entirely justified. With the man with the knife surrendering as soon as he was confronted by the man with the gun, the best possible outcome for that situation was achieved.
Just because you can shoot doesn't always mean you should.
This is exactly how I feel! I would have done the same thing. Since the man stopped, dropped the knife and surrendered, I feel the man with the gun did the right thing. Now if the man would have continued stabbing, then shooting would have taken place I would imagine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philco
I imagine it would be hard living with the fact of taking someones life, even when yours, your family, or any innocent people are at harm.
by not shooting/killing the perp he avoids the legal BS that goes with it not to mention the media circus. The glory is not in the kill but the defense of others
People have already been stabbed?
Blood all over the place.
Shoot.
I am not a cop.
I do not arrest people.
Attempted murder(s) are in progress and one may be me.
Shoot
AFS
Any time you can stop a threat without shots being fired, you have won. I was seriously assaulted while on duty and had to retire from my injuries. many have made comments like, "you should have shot that guy!, or I would have killed him!" When I presented my duty weapon and demanded that he stop, he did. My associates took him into custody, and other than a long recovery, it was over.
It is hard to explain unless you have been there, but I am thankful I didn't have to use deadly force, not for HIS sake, but for MINE. I also don't hate the guy, because that would only tear me up inside.
To answer the specific question, I would shoot in defense of myself or innocents if I had no other choice.
Now I like this answer, and agree 100%. I feel if the criminal stops from a draw weapon and verbal warning, and I didn't have to kill anyone, it would be a better day than if I had to shoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by crescentstar69
Absolutely agree !Quote:
Originally Posted by Philco
Yeah this is good i am also absolutely agree with you and i am also thinking to invite my friends on this forum or send this forum to them for their information and the are share and get information from this thread i like this....
Fortunately, this situation worked out OK. Those of us that carry hope that we NEVER have to use our weapon. I'd sooner flee than fight. The bad guy here appears to have been a "crazed killer" or a maniac. The armed citizen did what the police would have done. But they're trained in these matters and there probably would have been more than one officer on the scene. The bad guy could just as well have attacked the guy holding the gun on him. Now you've got to hit a moving target in a split second. And you've compromised your tactical advantage. If a favorable tactical advantage arose (clear shot, no bystanders in the line of fire or in the background, etc.), I probably would have dropped him without any warning. But it's not something I want to do. And in this situation, I wouldn't be at all concerned about the legal ramifications. It's a righteous shooting with plenty of witnesses. Hindsight is always 20/20.
We bought my 67 girlfriend a handgun for self defense, and we spend countless hours on defensive drills on my shooting range. I taught her that if she ever wakes up and sees someone in the house (she lives alone in a very rural area and she hasn't given anyone a key), SHOOT! Don't say, "Stop, I've got a gun".
I just didn't want readers of this thread to think that giving a warning is always the appropriate thing to do, as this armed citizen did. In fact, in most scenarios it would not be advisable. He took a big risk which could have back-fired on him. On the other hand, he could have been trained, and totally confident in his ability to control the situation. I'm glad it worked to everyone's advantage. But again - hindsight is always 20/20.
Those of you who said you don't know what you would do are not prepared to (and probably shouldn't even try to) defend yourself with a firearm, as you may end up dead or in prison for the rest of your life. Take a defensive handgun training class. Otherwise you're living under a false sense of security just because you "have" a gun and "think" you can protect yourself. Simply having a guitar doesn't mean you're a musician, and simply having a gun doesn't mean you can protect yourself. 98% of those who own handguns can't hit squat. If you're one of those who said they're not sure what they would do, you're part of that 98%.
Don <><
Do what you believe the correct action is for what is happing, but do so knowing that you will have to deal with any emotional and/or legal repercussions soon thereafter. Some things cannot be undone after the fact and 'Gee I'm sorry' fixes nothing, saying "but I was in fear for my life" is not a magic get out of jail card, abuse it and you lose a lot more that your right to CCW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly
I agree. We all want to think we are heroes, but when you see a gun pointed in your face, all your hero tendencies disappear
___________________________
convert mp4 to wmv
I respectfully disagree with ya Dorsey. In this senario a gun wasn't pointed in the good guys face. And even if it were, there are measures that can be taken, IF YOUR TRAINED IN THEM! In the described scenario the good had a tactical advantage and gave it up by giving a verbal warning. He, and others, had already witnessed the mayhem and blood shed caused by the attacker. I sure wouldn't assume that the bad guy in this scenario would heed my warning. He's obviously not acting rationally. For those of you who don't understand what a tactical advantage is and what it entails, you REALLY need to take a self defense class. You will also learn about "situational awareness." Tactically, the good guy made a bad move by giving a verbal warning, thereby calling attention to himself, and providing the attacker with the opportunity to attack him. That's all I'm saying. Thank God it all worked out OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by DorseyS
Don <><