Leaderboard

Okay, answer me this: Where is this stand by and watch nonsense coming from? I don't think ANYONE here would/could/will stand by and watch. There is a great difference in getting out of Dodge as fast as possible and standing by to watch. If I had been in this situation, I would not KNOW that the person screaming had been stabbed until I saw it on the news that evening. I don't think anyone here who would choose not to be involved would be sitting on the tailgate with a soda and popcorn watching the show. It's easy for any of us to critique one another and make claims to our intents, but the truth will only out when the ball drops. If the ball drops in or around my court, I'm not playing the game, I'm getting out. Everyone claims to carry a weapon for self defense or personal protection. That's a very vague claim. I like to be very specific as to why I carry my pistol. There's only one reason. I carry to cover my retreat. If and when anything bad ever happens, my wife and I know the plan. Withdraw covering your butt. Get in the truck. There's a rifle there if trouble is in pursuit close, but more than likely, there will be skid marks on the ground in the pattern of Nitto Grapplers.

Then we're even. I don't understand how someone can go charging into a situation that they don't have full knowledge of and completely disregard the consequences not only to themselves but to their family as well.

Who cares. Paul will be ashes long before he could ever be the nominee. If he runs on a third party ticket he will be just as responsible as Obama for driving this country further into the ground.

I will protect me and mine. I don't carry a badge and I didn't sign on to be 'Protector of the Universe.' Now, if the victim were a small child (taking the risk that I've misinterpreted and the 'victim' is actually a midget gang-banger), my response would be different but with an adult - female or male - I figure that person has the same option of arming themselves as I have and a 100 lb. female can pull a trigger as well as a 300 lb. bouncer. That is why firearms are the 'great equalizer'. If they choose not to excercise that option then it isn't my responsibility to take up the slack for them. I will not willingly interject myself into a situation that could end in legal trouble or even jail time for me on behalf of an unknown thrd party. If that makes me a 'coward' or less of 'a man' or whatever then I can live with that. As I often say, I ain't got nobody to impress. I will also not willingly interject myself into a situation that could end with me getting killed. For all I know, the assailant might be out of his mind on PCP and shooting him might just have the effect of pissing him off and having him turn that knife on me. I just couldn't live with myself if I were dead.

Back when the nation was being built, you didn't have the constant threat of litigation hanging over your head if you found yourself in a bad situation. People were much more forgiving then. Not so much anymore. I am responsible for me and my family. I won't risk their financial security by rushing in to "save the day" and I'll sleep just fine at night knowing that I am meeting my obligation as a husband and father.

I like Hannity. I dont watch him every night, but he'a good guy. Seeing Zimmerman on his show last night confirms my opinion of him and the unfortunate incident with Trayvon. I hope Zimmerman wallks,

Well let's Monday morning quarterback this for a second... it's what we do and there isn't anything wrong with using these examples at what to do or not do in a situation by determining what was probably right and what was probably wrong, so long as we give the respect of context to the individual that did the shooting. After all, we don't know what was going through his mind, and if I was sitting on a jury the prosecution would have a hard time convincing me beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime, unless there is some sort of extenuating evidence or aggravating factor... such as the shooter was drunk, or had recently bragged about wanting to shoot some punks. With that said, let's look at what was probably the best choice in his situation. I've said many times that I ain't gonna get in a gunfight over other people's money. However, I don't have a moral objection over someone defending their property with deadly force. After all, what's mine is mine. If someone wants to take that from me I have the right to say "no", and if they decide to imply deadly force as an alternative to my response then I should have the right to respond in kind. The only thing that would get me to pull my weapon in that scenario is if it was very clear that they were intending to shoot someone, or have already shot someone. In that event I would feel morally obligated to do my best to stop it. Once again, I wasn't there and I wasn't the old man. Perhaps that is how he perceived it and felt that these guys were acting violently enough that they intended to shoot someone. There are plenty of robberies where the thug will just shoot people for no reason even after they've achieved their goals of theft or rape. Another reason that I would not pull my weapon is the number of people inside. I would be more concerned that a bystander would be hit by my rounds or the criminal's rounds during the exchange than if the criminals just got their money and left. By pulling my weapon I have entered a known quantity. At that point I know that there is going to be shooting. However, to let the criminals do their thing is an unknown quantity. Will they shoot someone or not? I don't know. Whether or not one believes that the criminals would shoot someone unprovoked is a matter of perception. Of course, sitting behind my keyboard looking at the video, I can clearly see that one of them has a firearm and is threatening people with it, so I don't think it is some kind of great leap in logic to figure they intend on using it. I certainly would feel the same if I was sitting on the jury hearing that argument from the defense. In regard to him following the criminals and continually engaging them: By this point this old man was probably acting on pure fear and adrenaline. This guy probably has never been in a scenario in his life such as this. Although his actions may look blatently aggressive, this is a natural response to fear; fight, flight or submit. He chose fight. When you choose fight it is biologically wired to take the offensive. He took the offensive, and the fear prevented him from backing down. In fact, based on how he manuevers himself within the establishment, it appears that he is continually positioning himself to avoid having bystanders in his line of fire. So I think that it could be interpreted either way. The only shot that is damning, IMO, is the final one through the doorway. At this point it should be pretty clear that the criminals are trying to just get away. However, keep in mind that the shooter is still acting on extreme fear, so if that criminal is still armed he may feel as if he will return fire. I guess what I'm saying is that I know what I would do if I had the ability to think it out as I'm sitting behind a keyboard. I realize, though, that this all occurred in a matter of seconds, and the defender here was not expecting this to happen. He was just playing poker on a computer when two armed men came and threatened his life and the lives of the people around them. If anyone here thinks that in those few seconds you will make all the "right" decisions then you are kidding yourself. You can plan all you want in your head to consider all the ways you would react in various circumstances, but let me leave you with one of the most true statements I have ever heard, and have seen it play out in real life more times than I can count: "No plan survives first contact."

$700K of taxpayer $ I think we need to go get our moneys worth. That should be worth at least a 5 year unlimited pass.

People can still be a threat even if they are on the ground. As long as they have a weapon in their hand some could still consider them a "threat." As far as most are concerned he did what was right and no one was killed.

Ok boys and girls, with Corker wavering on the UN. small arms treaty and all the other times he's voted with Obama we need to give this man a chance. Lets get back to the constitution. Give Zach a 7 minute hearing:

Well, I get all warm and fuzzy to see the report's title prefaced with "GUN CONTROL".

It depends on how this Zimmerman thing ends up. That trial is going to mean a lot on the future of concealed carry.

The first should have been called "The Unwatchables".

Your reasons for carrying are your own. My reasons are mine. You are not qualified to judge my motives nor those of anyone else.

It's the the most popular argument there is when apathy, motivation, conviction and responsibility are argued over. I don't accept it's validity in argument either. It wasn't another Jew turning their heads and walking away. It was the lousy german citizens standing there not caring or even cheering it on. The Jewish people had no means of defense. Sticks and stones? I have a means of defense. So does everyone else here. If you choose not to utilize it, why is that my problem?

Right. I think all sorts of things too. I happen to think the exact opposite you do. I also entertain the idea that I might be wrong, although I don't think I am. The folks that are going to get to the bottom of it will be the jury.

I go straight to Lethal Weapon any time I need life advice.... WWMRD? But seriously, I'm glad that someone has stepped in to make me feel better about using my M1817 flintlock pistol as my EDC and point out that you "high cap" folks are just a danger to those around you. Who needs more than one round anyway? Whew! Edit: That was supposed to be a joke, by the way.............................................................................................................. Tough crowd ...............................vvv

There is a witness who saw Trayvon sitting on top of Zimmerman whoopin' the piss out of him. I would expect that if Zimmerman had started it there would have been no whoopin', just a shooting. I don't think Zimmerman would have tried to start #### with Martin without his hand on his gun, considering Martin was so much bigger.

Some folks are just slow to the party. However, I fear some are so "principled" they will cut their nose off to spite their face. "Give me liberty or give me death!" They just don't realize a slow agonizing death is NOT better than a slow gradual healing. Peaceful revolutions are slow and tediuos, but lasting. With the one exception of ours, every other violent revolution has ended in the misery and suffering of the people and their country. France, England, Russia, Italy, Afganastan, India, all of Africa, China, all of South America, Cuba, Mexico, ...... The fact that ours was the only one that resulted in a positive, reinforces the idea that it is the principles that cause stable change not the revolution for revolution sake. Violent revolution is a last option by a principled people and the first by the mindless.

Give me a little credit. I'm not that stupid. BUT, I ain't doing their job unless it involves my wife. I don't care about anyone else's safety. Not even my own. If I were out alone, I MIGHT be more inclined to help, but then again, probably not. Wether she wants to admit it or not, she needs me. Work, move the couch, stomp a spider, open a jar, keep her safe. My wife needs me and putting myself in harms way jeopardizes HER livelihood. The world can piss off.

Well yeah. There is a 9mm hole in one person and a cut up scalp on the other.... pretty hard to deny that. Beyond that there is evidence that an altercation took place on the ground. I don't know of any physical evidence that says for sure who or how it started though.

Without Hannity and some of the other "loudmouths" on Fox, the liberal point of view would be the only one presented, at least on television.

What he said. Print out the airline's policy and TSA's policy and have them with you. It's not uncommon to find employee's that don't know their employer's policies with such things. Plan a few extra minutes and don't get uptight about it. If you're relaxed, they will be too.

We don't know that he didn't try to. We only have one side of the story and the rest is speculation.

NO. Our pooled tax dollars PAYS these people to do this job. On top of paying them money to do the job, we afford them a great deal of indemnity when they have to DO their job. That's why when you shoot the stabber, you'll probably get three hots and a cot until a judge, jury or district attorney says you were justified. The cop that puts this guy down gets paid administrative leave while he gets a free chat with a psychiatrist to make sure he's fit for duty followed by a few pats on the back for kicking some bad guy aßß.

it says "near homes throughout Rutherford County." so apparently they drive around on your dime & put people in danger with their wicked evil heinous black high powered assault rifles that probably have exploding hollow points

I watched pieces of it and Zimmerman seems like an average guy or atleast hows he comes across. I think it will definately be determined by the make up (race and gender) of the jury.

I say if Poskevitch falls short on his run against Corker, he try again against Lamar. Lords knows we've got to start throwing these morons out!!

All I have to say is CCA created its rep with most of the local guys. I don't see how this thread is disrespecting anyone or their family. Speculating on rumors is what we do here, just because it happened locally and not in Florida, shouldn't matter. I understand it's your place of employment but you shouldn't take things personally.

Since it is our tax money, I hope we can also shoot there!

Since I do not know you and all I have to rank your character on is the ridiculous, stupid, and assanine statements you have made here, I would say you certainly like to stir the pot. From all I've read so far, this is yet another trash talk, speck talk, and in general chit talk thread. You have no facts and are speaking everything from second hand knowledge. And usually second hand knowledge is incorcorect knowledge. I take personal offense at your comments on the quality of employees there. Let's see "someone on this forum heard a RUMOR from a very reliable source that.....", come on guys, show a little respect for this guy and his family. Drop the rumors, speculation, and all the other mindless, thoughtless bull crap. Did it take 5 minutes for someone to get out on the range....doubt it. The incident was an unfortunate attempt to take one's own life. Grow up. I can't believe TGO David continues to allow this type of crap to continue. And trust me, for those of you who would "never step foot" in the place, makes things better for all of us. Now give me the boot...

an older actual JM made marlin 1894 or a Rossi there both great guns the Rossi is gonna be easier to find oh and also check out Skinner sights when you get one they do wonders for accuracy

By this logic, you could almost make a case to shoot any suspicious suspect. I know that is a slippery slope, but that is a poor argument, to shoot someone because they might have a gun. I will say my reason tends to align more with what you and TMF are saying, especially to say that you have to make those decisions under much different circumstances than just us hashing them out on our key boards. If I can try to put myself in that position mentally, I think I would not follow them to the door, but I probably would not stop shooting until they were out of the building BTW, Go State!

Note to self: never to drink coffee with Dolomite.

Then go and ask a qualified instructor. If you really want to learn, that is.

Look, if you want to shoot someone because they "might" shoot you as they're running out the door, then, by all means, be my guest. Me, I'm going to wait until I see the gun pointed in my direction. What the law says is not going to be my primary consideration in a real DGU, but anyone who doesn't at least acknowledge how it can ruin your life is a fool.

I saw a video a few years ago of a pawn shop being robbed by three gun men. There were two clerks at the counter. One clerk pulled a gun and began firing. The robbers turned to flee. One of the robbers fired several shots as he was running out the door, hitting the other clerk in the neck. The robber wasn't even facing the direction he was shooting. As far as I'm concerned, if they are still armed they are still a threat. If police disagree then fine. I'll let a jury decide. If twelve people can all agree that I wasn't in fear for my life then I would be surprised. I'd be curious to see the burden of proof the state would have to get 12 people to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I wasn't in fear for my life... real curious. The police have video evidence and they aren't so much as charging him. I wouldn't be surprised if they give him some kind of honorary reward. Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over what one person's opinion of the law is versus another. It really doesn't matter. If I'm in fear for my life then I'm in fear for my life. It is really that simple. If my decision to shoot or not is contigent on whether I think I might be charged or sued afterwards, then I must not be in fear for my life, because if I was, the concern for what happens after the incident would be moot... because I'd likely be dead.

The part where you are defining imminent threat as being over when the bad guy is running away no matter what. You can't know for sure what his next move is going to be. If he gets outside and the "Good guy" follows him out the door and shoots him then yeah that's bad. If I am still inside the computer cafe and he can still shoot at me then no the threat isn't over. I am solely arguing this based on the evidence and video in this case; not ANY case. Again I am not arguing that running away cannot (and in most cases probably will) be perceived as a threat being ended; just not in this case.

#1 "But she was unarmed!!" She should have armed herself.

Why would he be facing charges if he shot the armed robbers? This is a clear cut case of a justified self defense shooting. You have two armed robbers both armed with deadly weapons... That is clearly a threat of serious bodily injury or death to this guy, and others in the room. You'd be hard pressed to fid a more clear cut case of self defense or defense of a third person on video.

I don’t have the protections I had as a cop, so I’m not getting involved in any situation that doesn’t involve an individual needing my immediate help. But when someone is being killed; I’m steeping in. I would very quickly let the guy know if he didn’t stop I was going to kill him. If he makes a move towards her or me with the knife again; I shoot him. Bother me? Absolutely not, I could shoot him and go eat lunch. There is no “moral dilemma†for me. I would think the moral dilemma would be if you stood by and watched someone stabbed to death and did nothing.

Good thing he didn't hurt or kill one of them or any innocent bystanders or he most likely would be facing charges.

I picked up a Rossi Model 92 recently, blued with a 16" barrel. Paid about $550 after tax. Had it to the range just once, but was hitting bullseyes at 100 yards without even messing with the sights. 38 special cycles a bit smoother than .357, but I'm guessing after I put a couple hundred rounds through it, should smooth out. Love it. BTW, some ballistics charts I've seen suggest that 16" is the optimum barrel length for .357.

If stuck in any major city I would attempt to hunker down for as long as possible. Since I am single and have no personal connections to speak of, I would be able to stretch my resources for quite some time. I would remain in the city for up to two weeks. After that,I would try and make my way to my family land here in East Tennessee from Atlanta. If gridlock occurred during SHTF I would take my bicycle for transportation. All of this is contingent on certain variables. Is there immediate danger to me in the city? Am I dealing with nuclear fallout, EMP, civil unrest, or similar situation? I will not even entertain the zombie possibility. I am SICK to death (no pun) of the phenomenon. It was cool when it was niche. Regardless I would travel alone, or possibly with one other if the situation dictated it, but I would prefer not. I can move faster, and if operating by myself, I am left to my own devices and code of ethics to govern my actions. As for weapons, if I am left with only ONE gun and ONE blade, I would pick: Ruger 10/22 take-down. It is stainless, and synthetic, hence weatherproof (mostly). I have many high capacity magazines available. The round and rifle are lightweight and can be tailored to many situations. Given that I would be traveling some distance I would want to stay out of the way of folks and mostly try to blend, this weapon is easily hidden due to its break down nature, but quickly pulled into action. It is more than capable of taking game or serving in a defensive role. ESEE Junglas. It is an extremely capable blade. If pressed into a survival role I can process food, wood, really whatever I need. Though it is a bit heavy, it can be pressed into a combat role with great efficiency, so It would serve well here. My Cold Steel Recon Scout would be a close second. So, I would wait out the chaos of whatever has gone down assuming it is reasonably safe for me to remain where I am for a period of two weeks or so until it starts to die down and then make my way 'home'. The Ruger 10/22 and ESEE Junglas would serve well with my strategy of lone, fast, light travel while still maintaining plenty of capabilities.