Man Who Tackled Loughner Interviewed - Guess What?

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Private citizens with guns are a thousand times more restrained in their use than the police.

Like loughner was?

wow...

reply to post by mnemeth1


They made no gun zones at schools to prevent school shootings.

There has never been a single school shooting since.

See it worked perfectly!

It only follows that if we ban guns everywhere, gun crime will stop everywhere!

Knew you'd get a kick outta that.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It's a means of placating both sides without giving in to either one.

You can carry, not near a school. Both sides view it as a win and the smart folks, such as yourself, see the stupidity in a law that says you can do something, so long as it's not near a building and that means you can't carry it anywhere other than in your home.

Thats absulutely correct many people who develope some abnormal condition cannot be detected easily before the fact.
This is true for the road rage incidents the fights or altercations the whle gamut of interaction of society.
No you cannot always predict future behavior.
That does not mean we have to remove the rights of every citizen to guard against the one...
this is true for guns, cars , booze, and almost anything you can think of that has victims....
We even do ourselves in by skiing out of bounds, speeding, horsing around with chainsaws for petes sake...
There is impressive statistics for the responsible and safe acts of CCW permit holders from many states...
Floridas law in its first year, saw more crimes stopped by citizens than by police.
All studies point to the fact that the more armed people out there, the safer everyone is...
From every angle CCWs are a safer way of handling the situation.period.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Actually that's not what CCW holders are taught.

They are taught that if a person's life is in danger, they should shoot to kill center mass with a rapid succession of shots.

You mistook what I was saying, so I apologize...I was referring to the restraint shown by the CCW holder, the guy who tackled him... you are taught that you better not pull your gun unless you are TRULY in danger enough to justify it, and while he had all the justification in the world, he showed enormous restraint and quick thinking in a way that didn't result in another life lost, even if it was the shooter's.

Otherwise, yes, they are taught to take someone down quickly.

~Namaste

"he shouldnt be in a situation where hes so alone, and this is his only solution.."

Quote of the Decade!

So true, its a shame..

Even in the Abovetopsecret.com thread on Erad3.. some mentioned how it was good he didnt find a connection here, and I believe the post came from a MOD.. to me that such a shame.. we of all people, accept the wierdest of the oddest and we should extend our hands to people who have issues, and when Erad3 had "odd" posts, we should have helped..

I know.. its easy to say in hindsight.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Sorry.....did you watch the same interview I did? Perhaps it would be useful to obtain a written transcript, for more dispassionate analysis??

Admit, only the first watch....but your title here: "Man Who Tackled Loughner...." seems a bit of an exaggeration. As I recall, he said that when he exited the Walgreens's he saw the "alleged" perp already down, having been tackled by at least two others previously.

I was a bit puzzled by Mr. Zaprudio's mention of seeing a hand/arm with a gun in it, and others yelling "no"? In any case, he disarmed the person holding that gun? (Why didn't the other two??)

Finally....his comments RE: if he had been outside the Walgreen's sooner, and "witness" to the shooter....he said something about "...seeing someone with a gun, I'm taking him out..." or words to that effect (why we need a transcript).

Do you not see how somewhat irresponsible that is? Because, what if the person he sees with a gun is ANOTHER "good Samaritan" citizen just like him, ALSO with a CCW??

And....he shoots the wrong person? After all, it IS Arizona....and a LOT of CCWs are walking about, yes??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and am wondering why you have such a bug up your butt about Ed Schultz?? I have watched his program several times, and find him a good antidote to the insane rantings of the likes of Hannity or Beck.....

....he comes from a good place of reasonableness, and calls out the utter depravity of so many on the political "right" in the U.S. discourse.....

The lad in the interview is a stand-up model citizen with his head scewed on the right way round. He came through as decent, honest, sharp-minded and with high moral standards (in-built, not programmed).

*EDIT TO ADD - disagree with most of weedwhacker's sentiment and direction in the post above, but agree we need to know whether he would have shot on sight of a gun in hand. I doubt he would - it seemed more like he would have shot immediately on seeing a gun being used or held in a way that suggested it was about to be used. As I say, he has his head screwed on right, as evidenced by the handling and content of the interview which highlighted the genuine nature of his character (that cannot be faked convincingly in a two minute interview). See the fake character of the anchor for a comparison to get the drift of my argument if you disagree.

Conversely, that anchor / 'opinionated puppet to the machine' seems like the phony that many are calling him out as - being from the UK I don't follow your News networks except for what I see on here, but the tone of presentation is generally terrible. In addition, the level of responsibility (for interpretation of news events) granted to these popularity fiends staggers me at times. It seems to be a case of 'form an opinion, then try to twist the interviewees to your point of view/ make them look wrong/stupid'.

Best case scenario = base your opinion on what the public thinks.
Worst case scenario = base your opinion on what the paymasters tell you to make the public think.

Sadly it's a growing trend over here too, on SKY News, ITV News and Channel 4 to think of the main culprits. The BBC have to be a bit more cautious; it's always funny to watch them have to report on some big story involving their own shady practices! Most recent was a discrimination case; often it's about high salaries, offensive programming and wasted resources.

In summary, I'd agree that if politicians were more like the kid being interviewed, then the world would be a much better place. The deep-rooted love he has for his community; the way he described the emotional distress of the people involved was compelling (his sympathy and empathy shone through - unlike the phony 'evaluations' of the hack). Even on detailing the emotionless state of the gunman, and his musings regarding how alone the perpetrator must have felt; sheerly inspirational to see - gives me some hope for humanity and the next generation.

did anyone else catch that...
"it didnt even seem like the emotions came from him"
gave me hardcore chills..

WOW! Hero.
no medals!!!!

Reply to post by weedwhacker

Do you not see how somewhat irresponsible that is? Because, what if the person he sees with a gun is ANOTHER "good Samaritan" citizen just like him, ALSO with a CCW??

Despite what the buffoonery of cops may lead you to believe threat detection is not difficult.

If it were in all the decades we've been carrying and in all the situations in which those carriers had to draw their weapons there would be a recorded instance of this occurring.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


If you followed what he said closely, you'd hear him comment on determining who the shooter was before he took action.

CCW holders just don't blindly walk into a situation and start shooting people. They are obviously going to determine who is doing the shooting first, just like any off duty cop would.

When you live in a CCW state, you are going to anticipate that armed citizens or off duty cops may be present.

fair enough for a person of public to fire upon an assailant in defence of life, but just wondering by what was said if this person had used his firearm in the spur of the moment, would have then shot an innocent holding the weapon at the time, and not the actual shooter involved in that incident. a hero never the less for his contribution in pinning down the assailant.

"you're damn right, this is my country,this is my town.Its not right to walk around hurting people,killing innocent girls,it's not right"

i first laughed at that cause it sounded a little bit "`merican" but seriously,mental illness treatment is needed.More.
Also,educating people and creating a conduct that will make people less likely to Loughnerize the town.
The change is in the community,not in gun laws.People need to change,not laws.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I thought an older woman or man took the shooter down. Have I not been paying attention ? Sorry, my bad

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Joe Zamudio had a gun himself and was prepared to defend himself and others if necessary, but decided to help take out Loughner with his bare hands.

The video I've seen of this eyewitness suggests he didn't have any idea who had done the shooting, he went after a guy who had a gun in his hand then made comments to the effect that other people told him he had the wrong guy.

reply to post by piercebitchone


Yesterday I saw an older gentlemen explain how he was in line and just missed getting shot to then turn around and help someone else, I believe a woman, take the man down. It appears that this man was the third guy on the scene? Details are getting a bit muddled here.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

See people, there ARE responsible citizens!

...?

reply to post by PlautusSatire


Yeah I caught that too, this whole thing is very confusing to say the least I don't think we will be getting much from Loughner himself unfortunately.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Yeah, he was third from what it sounds like.