TX shooting

Discussion of firearm-related news stories. Please use "Off Topic" for non-firearm news.
Forum rules
Do NOT post the full text of published articles. If you would like to discuss a news story please link to it and, at most, include a brief summary of the article.

Re: TX shooting

Postby mrp on Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:01 pm

Interview with the guy who confronted the shooter.

37 minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HEchh ... e=youtu.be
User avatar
mrp
 
Posts: 960 [View]
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:54 am

Re: TX shooting

Postby 340PD on Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:22 am

I'm sorry for the length of this but maybe someone can clear something up for me. First, let me preface my following comments by saying that I am a long time gun owner, pro 2A 100%, had my carry permit but it has expired and I need to renew it, and that I think what this individual did to stop the Texas church shooter was right and correct, morally and ethically.

Now, I know that in MN at least the law allows you to use the amount of force necessary to "stop the threat." However, once the threat stops you must STOP. Again, I personally have no problem with what this individual did to stop this person who shot up this church in TX. HOWEVER, in playing devils advocate and to simply further understand the law. Again, in MN (I realize this happened in TX) the way I understand it, you can't pursue and shoot at someone who is fleeing the scene as at that point they are NO LONGER a threat to you. Now, I also know there is a a law or something that allows LEO to do just that. It allows them to say, shoot someone in the back who is running away PROVIDED they have knowledge that this person has just committed a felony such as shooting up a church or a bank or whatever. The thought being is that they are allowed to use lethal force to stop this person (even if they are running AWAY from the officer), before they can do any more harm to anyone else.

I was NOT aware (again I'm speaking about MN) of this extending to people who are NOT LEOs. Maybe it does and someone just needs to educate me on this, I'm not sure. I don't know what the laws are in TX. But assuming that they have similar laws (again simply playing devil's advocate) so TECHNICALLY would arming yourself, leaving your home, walking a block or more away TOWARD the gunfire, engaging the shooter and exchanging fire and then chasing the shooter down the road and potentially continuing to shoot at and potentially kill the shooter, be LEGAL, technically? Does this idea of stopping the shooter before they can do more harm extend to none LEOs either in MN or TX? Or, is it a case of no, it's not technically legal but given the situation there's NO WAY they are going to try and charge this guy since he's already being considered a hero in the media. And, at this point trying to charge and convict him of wrongdoing would be a media and social PR nightmare? I'm just throwing things out there. Please enlighten me on this concept. I would appreciate it.

I have (we all have I"m sure) seen articles and video of say a convenience store owner who has a couple of guys come in and try to rob him at gunpoint. The store owner produces his own firearm and shoots at the bad guys. He drops one of them right away and the other one flees the store. The store owner runs after the bad guy who is running away but is unable to catch him. In coming back into the convenience store and as he's walking past the other bad guy who is still laying incapacitated on the floor, shoots the guy again. This final shot may have even been considered the one that actually KILLS the guy, (I don't remember all the details of the story I'm thinking of at the moment) . If I remember correctly, the convenience store owner gets charged with the shooting and possibly the death of that individual on the floor. He gets charged not for initially shooting the guy but for firing that last shot AFTER that guy was down and no longer a thread. I realize this example is much different than the Texas church shooting situation but I think you get my point with the idea of taking action after the bad guy is no longer a DIRECT threat to you personally in this somewhat similar but admittedly very different scenario.
340PD
 
Posts: 58 [View]
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:09 am

Previous

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron