The Sorry State of Today's Journalism

[texasjohn]

Respectfully, somebody is not listening relative to the cost incurred by the SHOOTER once the event happens. Extremely high risk of major personality changes, life disruption with possible multi-year incarceration, financial cost, stresses on marriage and family.
And, all because there is a theory that shooting a robber will deter future robbers...which flies in the face of the societal, persona and opportunistic forces which surround these events making it arguable that such shooting actually results in behaviour modification of non specific individuals at indefinite time in the future.

 

[bumperm]

In 10 years on the Oakland PD, I pulled my gun on a number of occasions, but only ever had to use it once to put down a deer injured by a motorist.

The "test", in many states, in determining if civilian shooting is justified is, whether you were in fear for your life, serious bodily injury or for that of others. For cops, at least when I was one, there was an additional reason for justifying. That being if the suspect was a violent fleeing felon when all other means of apprehension were likely to fail. That one was rarely used, in fact I can't remember a single incident where that came into play.

Unfortunately, when it comes to cops and bad guys, the cops are often at a significant disadvantage. It's not a dual or the shootout at the OK Corral, the bad guy very often has the upper hand as he has the element of surprise and gets to "go first" if and when he sees an opportunity. The cops job is to always minimize that opportunity without overtly and needlessly threatening the general public - at least that's the plan.

When I was a field training officer, I'd tell my rookie that we were going to do a practice traffic stop. I'd be the driver and he was to approach the vehicle and engage me. Part of my "prep" was to tell him in advance that during the stop I was going to kill him (well, pretend anyway). So he knew. I never ever failed to "kill" my rookie - but I'm sure I made them a little safer for it. (Still, sadly, one of my rookies was killed a year and a half after later, though not on a traffic stop.)

I was on a police motorcycle and stopped a car for a traffic violation in downtown Oakland. No back up, it was dark, there were four male occupants in the vehicle. Did the usual, ran the plate, checked driver's ID for warrants, gave him a ticket and cut them loose. Not 15 minutes later I hear on the radio the description of an armed robbery suspect vehicle, but no plate or discreet info, just make and color with 4 male blacks. I recognized it as probably the vehicle I'd stopped earlier and put out the additional info, including vehicle license and driver's license address on the radio. Other units located vehicle and arrested bad guys. Next day I get a call from the detectives handling the case. Seems one of the occupants was talking and told them that they planned to shoot me if given the opportunity.

 

[texasjohn]

Bumperm, glad you are still with us. thanks for your service. Everything you say makes sense. Appreciate your insight.

 

[RSKY]

Reply to Steppenwolfe:

I understand about stopping thieves.....but, as I understand the situation, if you are involved in a JUSTIFIED SHOOTING expect to loose six months of your life and six months of your income. That was what was quoted to me by a co-worker who shot two men because they came after him for dating one of their ex-wives. Then after the criminal issue is settled you will have to deal with the civil issues. Being sued by the dead person's family, etc..

Also you do not know the outcome of a shooting situation. Will you not put them down with your first shot, will they also be armed, will they fire back and hit you either killing or crippling you? Will they fire back and miss you but strike one of your children or your wife? If they are not a threat to you or your loved ones lives, let them go and let the police get them.

The most precious things in my life are my family. My wife, daughters, and grandchildren. Thieves can take off everything I own before I put my family at risk by engaging in gunplay. But make no mistake, I will defend them by whatever means it takes. Threaten them and the situation will get serious in a hurry. Break into my house when I'm at home by myself and I will run out and let you have it. Break into my house when my grandchildren are there and one of us will be carried out.

Trying to be a hero is a good way to get oneself killed, crippled, or ruined financially.

RSKY

 

[houstonscott]

Respectfully, somebody is not listening relative to the cost incurred by the SHOOTER once the event happens. Extremely high risk of major personality changes, life disruption with possible multi-year incarceration, financial cost, stresses on marriage and family. And, all because there is a theory that shooting a robber will deter future robbers...which flies in the face of the societal, persona and opportunistic forces which surround these events making it arguable that such shooting actually results in behaviour modification of non specific individuals at indefinite time in the future.

Shooting a robber makes it his last robbery. Are you advocating doing nothing? Just give in let them have it? To wimpy and soft for me. HS

 

[Bird]

I'm one who has no sympathy for the thieves; don't mind you, or someone else, shooting them. However . . . ., I don't want to be, and will not be, the one to do it. As others have said, when a life is in danger is the only time I would expect to shoot anyone.

I also wonder how many of those who have CHLs know that there is liability insurance available specifically for that purpose. Just go to bing.com and enter "CHL liability insurance" to see some of companies in that business. Of course, such insurance is limited, so you certainly DO NOT want to assume it'll keep you from going to jail and/or being ruined financially.

 

[bumperm]

Shooting a robber makes it his last robbery. Are you advocating doing nothing? Just give in let them have it? To wimpy and soft for me. HS

It may also be the *least* safe course of action. When dealing with an armed suspect you have to assume that he will use his weapon even if you comply with his demands. If you have, or can make the opportunity to take him out, then that may be the best option.

I remember one robbery in downtown Oakland, bad guy walks into a savings and loan, pulls a gun, demands money and for no reason shoots a woman in the stomach. If a bad guy has a weapon you have to assume he's going to use it, even if you comply with his every demand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiqwF_Y9S5Q

In the police academy, I'll always remember one instructor told us, "Decide right now if you are willing to shoot a bad guy. Out on the street you can't take the time to decide".

Where it's legal to carry, I always have a gun with me. Heck, I'd wear one in the shower if it was all stainless :c)

 

[jlgurr]

It may also be the *least* safe course of action. When dealing with an armed suspect you have to assume that he will use his weapon even if you comply with his demands. If you have, or can make the opportunity to take him out, then that may be the best option.

I remember one robbery in downtown Oakland, bad guy walks into a savings and loan, pulls a gun, demands money and for no reason shoots a woman in the stomach. If a bad guy has a weapon you have to assume he's going to use it, even if you comply with his every demand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiqwF_Y9S5Q

In the police academy, I'll always remember one instructor told us, "Decide right now if you are willing to shoot a bad guy. Out on the street you can't take the time to decide".

Where it's legal to carry, I always have a gun with me. Heck, I'd wear one in the shower if it was all stainless :c)

To further clarify, my earlier stance (no pun intended) was with respect to the OP and subject of robbery. If the threat is exiting then I will stand down rather than chase down. On the other hand, if the threat is live and not retreating then YES I will use appropriate and necessary force to secure my safety and those around me.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Anytime you shoot and kill someone who is not a threat, or is presumed to be a threat, you are treading on thin ice if the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court means anything.

 

[RSKY]

This thread is getting to be one of those "Don't mess with me or I will blow you away!" items that I despise.

Let me go over this again.

Even if it is a justified shooting you are never going to be the same. Your family will not look at you the same. The law will not look at you the same. Taking a life changes everything!

Even if it is a justified shooting you are probably going to loose more financially hiring lawyers, being sued, etc. than if the burglar got away.

Even if it is a justified shooting your neighbors and friends will always think of you as 'the guy who shot somebody'. I have seen this happen.

As I said above there is no material thing that I own that is worth losing my life over. There is no material thing I own worth killing somebody over. I hate thieves. I will do whatever I can do to help the law enforcement apprehend them. BUT..... Any time you engage in a deadly force situation you take the chance that YOU will be the one who is killed. It happens to trained police officers who go into a situation knowing the danger. I am retired and enjoying life and I intend to stay that way. On the other hand if it is a person who is threatened, especially one of my family, then I will respond with every weapon I have, with every ounce of energy I have, with every drop of blood I have to protect them. They are precious to me as material things are not.

RSKY