Girl saved, cops look for good samaritan for questioning

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Frohickey, Oct 23, 2003.

  1. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #1
    Cops seek shooter who saved girl, 16

    If I was the good samaritan, I would not say a single thing to anyone, and save my 13 minutes of fame for some other time.

    Though, I'm skeptical. A gun never saved anyone, thats what the media always says. ;)
     
  2. Inu macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #2
    I wouldnt tell it either.

    Whoever it was has probably broken several laws (killing and lynching being the ones seen) and prevented that someone might have been beaten to death.

    It really doesnt look that good when viewed like that.
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    Isn't Detroit one of those cities that has ultra-strict ordinances against any carrying of a handgun? If I'm correct, the shooter does indeed need to remain anonymous, regardless of what a court would find in his favor as to the shooting itself. Probably Michigan law is not on his side, either.

    I've not yet checked the several sites which show the various laws about carrying firearms. I think the correct URL for one of them is http://www.packing.org but I'm not sure.

    'Rat
     
  4. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #4
    Even though the violence is not really justified, good samaritan or not, it will only be worse for them if they don't come forward. Its too bad it had to be a fatal shooting. Getting him in the leg or giving him a 'flesh wound' might have done the trick.

    Its a tough call - I don't know if I'd want to turn myself in, but I'd also worry about being identified.

    D
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    I wonder if it was a legally acquired and carried handgun.... And if it's not, how do all you anti-gun-regulation folks feel about it?

    If it was legally bought and carried, he/she should come forward and receive his/her laurels. If not, they should be prosecuted and put in jail. We gotta enforce the gun laws on the books ya know. Vigorously. According to the NRA and it's backers, that is the only solution to preventing criminals from having guns.
     
  6. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #6
    Michigan is a shall-issue state...meaning, that if you apply for a CCW permit, and you are not otherwise prohibited, they have to issue you one.

    Hitting him in the leg, or a flesh wound? When you are being attacked, or you are trying to stop an attack, you don't shoot to injure, you shoot to stop the attack. There are 3 ways to do this. Stop the brain impulses from going to the muscles. Stop the muscles from getting oxygen and nutrients. Destroy the skeletal support of the muscles.
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    4. fire into the air to scare him away
     
  8. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #8
    Zim, do you offer any guarantees with that advice?

    :), 'Rat
     
  9. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #9
    heh....

    brought in for "questioning"



    "questioning" ay?

    I wonder what they have in mind.
     
  10. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #10
    It'll keep you out of jail.

    This is the problem I have with vigilante justice. Its far too easy to take it too far.

    What would a police officer have done in this situation? Likely he would have drawn his firearm, pointed it at the perpetrator and instructed him to put his hands behind his head and lay on the ground. Then, if the man wouldn't cease his attack, an attempt at a non-fatal shot would have been taken. Had the man turned to attack the policemen (with a weapon in hand), he would likely have been taken down with any means necessary.

    This is just a guess at what the police in Detroit are trained to do, but I think its a likely sequence of events.

    What did the vigilante do? Shot the man three times with no warning. The shots taken on the man were likely aimed at his upper torso or head. If a policeman would have acted in this way, it would likely have been a criminal act.

    I'm not saying that the man who shot this guy deserves jail time. I'm just saying that vigilante justic can be a very dangerous thing.

    Taft
     
  11. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #11
    only if it's me being shot at :)

    seriously, i have a hard time believing that the first course of action in just about any event is to shoot to kill.

    especially in the case of a civilian, such as this.
     
  12. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #12
    Cops, at least the ones I know, and some of the police instructors I know are not trained to shoot to wound. Guns are taken out when you are prepared to use lethal force. Usually to stop an attack, or preventing an attack from happening.

    Only in the movies do they shoot to wound. And when you read about cop shootings where the shot hit the bad guys leg or arm, its because the cops missed center mass

    Shoot in the air to scare him... can you guarantee me that doing so will stop the attack? I know, that there is no guarantee that shooting an attacker will stop the attack in the first shot, especially if I miss, or he moves, but at least the attacker will not be feeling so good to continue for long.
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    of course not, just like you can't guarantee that the only solution was to kill him. neither one of us was there.

    it's a sad commentary, imo, when a society advocates shoot-to-kill by civilians.
     
  14. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #14
    Its not shoot to kill...its shoot to stop the attack.

    Its a sad commentary, imo, when society advocates individuals to submit to the actions of evil people.
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    we both know i never advocated that. there're a lot of options between shoot to kill (which is what happened, regardless of what you call it) and allowing the beating.

    regardless of how good the intentions of the shooters were, it's a criminal act. what if they'd killed the girl, too? would you support them the same way? or do the ends justify the means?
     
  16. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #16
    Exactly. Police are trained to avoid collateral damage. They wouldn't take a shot that would endanger the girl's life.

    Also, considering that the driver ran over the attacker after they had shot them, I'm not sure how you could consider this guy a good samaritan.

    Shoot him first, ask questions later. Actually, skip the asking questions part. Just run over him a few times to make sure he's dead. Good samaritan, my butt. :rolleyes:

    Taft
     
  17. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    A relatively small percentage of police are really competent with a handgun. There is a lot of complaining by cops when it comes time to quailfy with their service pistols.

    Speaking only to legal killings: Police shootings of bystanders compared to non-cop shootings of bystanders is about a 10:1 ratio. The last year for which I saw numbers was 30:3. Bound to vary with any given year, of course, but the general ratio remains.

    Purely opinion, not having been at that scene, but a man with a pipe who gets a clear swing can very easily kill with one blow. Unless a shooter is extremely skilled, shooting to disable is at best problematic. I really doubt any experienced combat instructor would ever advocate such foolishness.

    You don't shoot to kill; you don't shoot to wound. You shoot to stop a hostile action involving gratuitous deadly force. If the noise of a miss stops the action, you quit shooting. If the first five shots don't stop the action, keep shooting. Sure, talking the bad action to a stop is much better, but that's not always possible. It's the ancient game of "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best."

    I'm a bit picky about the use of the word "vigilante". It's original meaning involved the actions of some local citizens in the absence of any duly-authorized law enforcement. They acted within the context of community protection. The meaning has drifted into today's idea that it's taking the law into one's hands, even with the availability of police.

    Trouble is, the police function mostly as janitors. How many headlines ever laud the police for stopping a robbery or burglary or whatever, as compared to those where the police are searching for a suspect?

    Nobody is actually responsible for your own safety except you, and your brain is the most important weapon you have.

    'Rat
     
  18. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #18
    Do you really want untrained people administering law and justice for the world all in one shot?

    Cool! I don't like my neighbour. I'm gonna go write him a traffic ticket next time I see him driving. If he refuses to pull over, I'll just have to shoot his tyres out. Hey -- he was speeding! I stopped a criminal!
     
  19. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #19
    The fact that he ran the guy over after shooting him negates the alleged good deed. That's cold-blooded murder, plain and simple.
     
  20. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #20
    "The fact that he ran the guy over after shooting him negates the alleged good deed."

    Which ties in exactly with what I said about "stop". It changes what might have been a "good shoot" (cop parlance) to wilful murder--particularly since the Bad Guy might not have been dead when he was run over.

    'Rat
     
  21. idkew macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #21
    it is perfectly legal to defend another person. if the person is in danger of death by another, it may be legal to shoot them, just not to shoot to kill.
     
  22. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #22
    Read your states deadly force, and assault laws.

    Usually deadly force, and assault with a deadly weapon (knives, bats, guns, etc), may be allowed to protect life.

    But attempting to wound, and avoiding -- center of body mass -- may put too many innocent people in danger. Especially when the shooter is a civillian.
     
  23. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #23
    Actually, the more I think about it, the more its better to shoot to stop the attack, which usually means not to shoot at extremities.

    Rationale is this. Center mass or the other incapacitating attacks are usually on areas of the body that are massive. Chest area is the largest part of the body, cranial ocular area has lots of bone. Shots to these areas of the body would tend to dissipate the energy of the bullet and tend to not exit and further harm innocents that might be behind.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    Only point a gun at someone or something you want dead. Very few situations where I would recommend shooting to wound. Very, very few. So few that it's really not worth considering. If there are other options, use them, running being option one, and a warning shot if you are feeling generous and the element of surprise isn't required is another. Who wants to deal with the hassle of explaining everything to the cops and possibly a judge/jury if you can be home with a frosty beer in your hands, even if you were in the right? If it's not possible to run, or do anything else and you resort to a gun, if you are going to point a gun at someone, be ready to kill them, not just scare them.

    Just my 2¢.
     
  25. idkew macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #25
    this is the exact reason cops shoot at the center of mass.

    also why cops use larger caliber bullets, with hollow points. they are less likely to exit the target due to size and expansion.
     

Share This Page