A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Where was the Sheriff 'the 39 times they were called, plus the two times the FBI was called' BEFORE the incident...

"Out of Service"! But that's history now: We have a new scapegoat.

[grean]

There is only one person at fault, the shooter. As far as the deputy, maybe he should have tried to stop him. I'm not going to damn him because he couldn't do what so many others if put in that spot could not do either. A lare majority of officers never ever come close to that scenario in their lives.

Running towards bullets, even as a police, goes against our insticts. Police want to think they will and simply have to pray they can be courageous if it is ever required.


Had he been in the same hall with the shooter, maybe he would have found his courage.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

More like a long line of failures, aka scapegoats, along the way.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Out of Service"! But that's history now: We have a new scapegoat.

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Out of Service"! But that's history now: We have a new scapegoat.

The unarmed teachers had more guts then the officer and you have.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by bamscram

http://www.syracuse.com/us-news/inde...r_resigns.html

Unless you are too chickenshit to do your job.
Or don't think a hand gun is a good choice against a long gun.

I would take a Marine with a handgun over Cruz with an AR15.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bamscram

The unarmed teachers had more guts then the officer and you have.

Parrots don't know. They just mindlessly repeat shit.

[Guest050619-1]

Originally Posted by grean

Had he been in the same hall with the shooter, maybe he would have found his courage.

Or maybe not....

Maybe he would have just kept his pistol holstered and just let Cruz do his thing....is that what you're suggesting?

Meh...

I'd like to think he'd have no other choice but draw down on Cruz and drop him where he stood. Personally my money's on Peterson wishing he'd been in that same hallway when the fire alarm was triggered and bullets began flying. Taking a bullet in the line of duty would sure look a lot better to him right now than the living hell his life is going to be henceforth.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bambino

I would take a Marine with a handgun over Cruz with an AR15.

It would depend on so much. Primarily regarding the Marine's training and experiences.

Next time you are in a mall on a busy shopping day in a narrow area of the walkway ... look ahead of you and spot someone may be 50-60 feet ahead of you coming out of store and pretend that person is your target (the "shooter"). Count those moving "parts" in front of you before the "shooter" and those moving "parts" behind the shooter for as far as a missed round or pass through would go! And then pretend the shooter is firing as rapidly as he can in your direction. That's all pretend. Then make it real.

Now critique.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Keep in mind that that shooter is not following any rules you would and they would not be taking careful and calculated aim. Most like they are just spaying bullets in a direction. Take some level of cover, aka don't be a sitting duck. Being dead isn't going to help you achieve much.

Aim high, aka for the melon between his shoulders. Or aim for the standing person that is not running in all directions. Though to be fair, 20 yards is a little bit long for an average pistol, not unreasonable just a little long, but many can do it dependably with a decent pistol. So maybe the answer is to invest in quality hardware and practice often.

Now, let;s make it more realler :-); Make sure your door is closed, if possible. A typical classroom is maybe ~20'x30' in size and the shooter would be coming through the door which is ~36inx80in high, which would frame the shooter in a tight package and be well within even the least expensive handgun capability. Not to mention, the armed 'teacher would not be at the furthest part of the room and probably fairly close to the door. Ideally, they would get within a couple feet of the door way, just out of sight range through the opening. That would bring the shoot down to within 5 or 6 ft. Easy pickings, melon popped! The alternative is they would be huddled in a mass with the students and become victim #whatever, 'cause that shooter ain't gonna stop otherwise.

You are correct, good training teaches you to always be aware of what is beyond the target. Now, this is the great unknown; with 30+ people being shot each minute, would you risk breaking that rule, knowing you could be saving 60+ lives in under 2 minutes? That would be the trickiest part.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It would depend on so much. Primarily regarding the Marine's training and experiences.

Next time you are in a mall on a busy shopping day in a narrow area of the walkway ... look ahead of you and spot someone may be 50-60 feet ahead of you coming out of store and pretend that person is your target (the "shooter&quot. Count those moving "parts" in front of you before the "shooter" and those moving "parts" behind the shooter for as far as a missed round or pass through would go! And then pretend the shooter is firing as rapidly as he can in your direction. That's all pretend. Then make it real.

Now critique.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

#1
That would bring the shoot down to within 5 or 6 ft. Easy pickings, melon popped! The alternative is they would be huddled in a mass with the students and become victim #whatever, 'cause that shooter ain't gonna stop otherwise.

#2
You are correct, good training teaches you to always be aware of what is beyond the target. Now, this is the great unknown; with 30+ people being shot each minute, would you risk breaking that rule, knowing you could be saving 60+ lives in under 2 minutes? That would be the trickiest part.

#1: Teacher is hit before teacher can fire even if the teacher is wearing the weapon while teaching.

#2: I've not seen any codified "defense" to aggravated assault or murder based upon a missed round or pass through hitting a bystander, even in a mass shooting situation. If there is it would be nice if someone provided a citation and the state to take a look at how it is crafted. It would not be a capital offense, because the intent to kill the person hit is absent, but the intent to commit the act of firing is present. My guess is CHL holders were taught that hitting bystanders is problematic.

I've consistently said that an ounce of "prevention" is worth a pound of "cure"!

Stop people before they get on campus.

It's done in this country for government buildings and airports, as well as a lot of private, commercial businesses. What's the big deal with schools? Liberals! They don't like "guns" and "police"!

As far as I am concerned by the time the shooter gets to a claissroom (unless the target IS IN THAT CLASSROOM) already there are casualties and the neutralizing the situation is complicated ... entering, identifying, and confronting.

[grean]

Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

Or maybe not....

Maybe he would have just kept his pistol holstered and just let Cruz do his thing....is that what you're suggesting?

Meh...

I'd like to think he'd have no other choice but draw down on Cruz and drop him where he stood. Personally my money's on Peterson wishing he'd been in that same hallway when the fire alarm was triggered and bullets began flying. Taking a bullet in the line of duty would sure look a lot better to him right now than the living hell his life is going to be henceforth.

No, I'm absolutely NOT suggesting that he just let Cruz do his thing! That is horrible. I'm saying Peterson was not caught in the middle of it. Running into the middle of something like that would be hard for lots of people, even the most battle hardened individuals.

I'm am only saying if he was in the middle of it instead of outside, I think he would, rather I want to hope, he would have taken action.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by grean

He was suspended without pay. Then he resigned.

The Sheriff said, in a press conference, that the officer did not do what was expected of him. Further he explained that it is protocol for any and all first responders to engage the suspect immediately. Back up be damned.

Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

Honestly, I thought of those words when I heard this story break.

Peterson, whose home is currently under round-the-clock guard by law enforcement, will have to live with this the rest of his life. I've no clue where he goes from here carrying a burden 14 youths and 3 adults were slaughtered "under his watch".

Why he froze we may never know. Personally speaking...if I was in his shoes...I'd be making plans to move. And as soon as possible. His life (as well any family members) has changed FOREVER. Cruz will have to deal with the fact he is a villain...a murderer. Or at least until the day the State of Florida decides to execute him should he receive the Death Penalty.

And unfortunately for Scot Peterson....he will also have to live with the fact people will regard him as some sort of a "villain", as well. A man...an officer....sworn to an oath to serve and protect....and he was remiss in those vows. The emotions he must be feeling today have got to be crushing.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes, I heard what the Sheriff said. The Sheriff has been making excuses since the shit hit the fan. Where was the Sheriff BEFORE the incident ... and who else is going to get fired. The "boss's" ass is on the line. The ranks circle.

But I'm talking about what was happening, being said, and done at the time ... not days later. It took a week + to sort out what was actually happening in Las Vegas with the "sheriff department" talking shit every day ... and we still don't know what happened in the hotel hall or room.....and there is fucking video!!!!

The Federal, State, and Local governments want to blame the deputy?

Now the media and the public! How "convenient"! We don't need to change anything!

It's the "chickenshit" deputy's fault!

"Indians" and "moccasins" come to mind.

Back when "Black Lives Matter" about two years ago, there was an incident where a crazed black man went bezerk at a car dealership in Arlington, TX. It was night but he damaged a bunch of cars on the lot, broke into the showroom and was vandalizing the place.

The police showed up and a rookie cop shot and killed the black intruder inside the showroom. The rookie cop said he though he had a knife. Videotape of this vandal shows a wacked out black man with a mohawk.

Since the policeman was on probation and "should have waited for backup" he was fired. Nevermind that his mentor cop and other officers where at the scene.

Sometimes you need a fall guy. City "quieted down."

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Parrots don't know. They just mindlessly repeat shit.

We know you do it daily, Polly

[grean]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

#1: Teacher is hit before teacher can fire even if the teacher is wearing the weapon while teaching.

#2: I've not seen any codified "defense" to aggravated assault or murder based upon a missed round or pass through hitting a bystander, even in a mass shooting situation. If there is it would be nice if someone provided a citation and the state to take a look at how it is crafted. It would not be a capital offense, because the intent to kill the person hit is absent, but the intent to commit the act of firing is present. My guess is CHL holders were taught that hitting bystanders is problematic.
.

I cannot find the actual legal defense but here is an article where police killed a bystander while attempting to stop a suspect from killing someone. They were not charged unless there was an update after the article was published.


https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5732032

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by grean

I cannot find the actual legal defense but here is an article where police killed a bystander while attempting to stop a suspect from killing someone. They were not charged unless there was an update after the article was published.


https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5732032

There is a distinction between a Grand Jury not indicting and a defense to the prosecution. The recent infamous case is the illegal alien in S.F. for the death of the bystander. He was charged, but not convicted. He was not shooting at someone, though. As I said I don't recall seeing that defense in a statute.

I took a quick peek at some information and the Florida self-defense statute as it relates to the general fact situation of the school shooting and bystanders getting hit .... the statute is not clear and I found the following comment in an article that underlines what we were discussing...

F.S. 776.032, on the other hand, states that a person who uses lawful self defense pursuant to Chapter776 of the Florida Statutes (ie: the ones on self defense) – is entitled to immunity from any civil suit brought “by the person . . . against whom the force was used”. It includes suits brought on such persons behalf by an estate, etc. A successful defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, court costs, loss of income, and all expenses incurred in defending the suit. Unfortunately, the law is unclear whether it would preclude a suit for negligence by an innocent bystander who was accidentally injured. Likewise, there is a possible question whether the statute would prevent a civil suit for the use of excessive force in an otherwise lawful self defense situation.

Although they are talking about "civil liability" it is still based on the person doing the defending availing themselves of the defense statute. Which means it's unclear from the wording of the self-defense statute ... and that's a legislative function and I believe a court cannot craft an application to the bystander.

And the operative words are: "“by the person . . . against whom the force was used”." .... Since the bystander IS NOT THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE FORCE WAS USED .. who would be the school shooter!