Man Who Tackled Loughner Interviewed - Guess What?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If there is an outstanding case of statistical bias, here it is.

The chances of a crazed person becoming a crazed gunman strongly correlate with the facility of obtaining a firearm by said person, plain and simple. What you are saying is equivalent to this: in a crowd where 100% people have herpes, the chances of herpes transmission are zero.

LOL

I suppose you believe that drug laws actually prevent people from obtaining drugs as well.

Your analysis assumes gun laws prevent murdering psychopaths from obtaining guns.

My analysis assumes mass murdering psychos can obtain guns regardless of what laws are in place.

Which assumption is more logically accurate?

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.

Whoa...just watched the video.

Let's be thankful this guy DIDN'T pull his gun. He says the first thing he did was run over and grab the person that had actually gotten the gun away from Loughlin becuase he had mistakenly "Assumed he was the shooter" and somebody yelled no! No! it's that guy on the ground. Wow. Thank God one more inoocent person wasn't shot.

OMG Serioussly..

At the 5 minute mark he says..."I almost shot the man holding the gun"!!!!

The man who had wrestled the gun away!

Your great example admitting that he "almost shot" an UNARMED innocent civilian who had wrestled the gun away from Loughlin. Geez....Really???

Edit: Good guy...but also an example how armed citizenry sometimes shoot the wrong people. He was a breath away from doing just that...by his own admission.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You could also just end the drug war, that would remove street gangs as well.

Shame that governments don't like simple solutions.

Shame I can't get rid of my government too, but they provide some very neccessary functions for my country.

Originally posted by maybereal11
OMG Serioussly..

At the 5 minute mark he says..."I almost shot the man holding the gun"!!!!

The man who had wrestled the gun away!

Your great example admitting that he "almost shot" an UNARMED innocent civilian who had wrestled the gun away from Loughlin. Geez....Really???

Edit: Good guy...but also an example how armed citizenry sometimes shoot the wrong people. He was a breath away from doing just that...by his own admission.

edit on 13-1-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

He said

"I would have shot the man holding the gun"

You are not interpreting him correctly

He's saying that if he saw a man shooting, he would have shot the man holding the gun.

He is not saying he "almost shot the man holding the gun" as in the innocent bystander, he is making a direct reference to Loughner - not the bystander.

reply to post by peck420

If the problem is the culture of violence, than how do we stem that culture?

I really do not know. The crime rate is falling all around us. What is out there seems to be concentrated in high population areas and economically repressed areas of urban areas. I say we have to address the cycle of poverty. We need to bring back a strong middle class, and (I hate to say it because it has been abused) look at ways to address a return to traditional family models. That does not mean that I am against gay mariage.

I honestly believe that a home with two parents works better than a house with one parent. I also believe that having both parents work 40 or more hours is a bad thing. It limits the time a parent has to raise their child and shifts the burden to institutions that weren't designed for that purpose.

I also belive that tearing down the cultures of "me" and entitlement would do a lot to help things. Learning that you are the center of the world and that everything you do is special is dangerous. People with overly inflated views of their self and their place in the world are dangerous. Narcissism is a mental disorder for many reasons. I believe that we train children to be low level narcissist from the time they are small. We claim to trying to help them avoid disapointment, or to improve self esteem. The truth is we teach them that what they do has no consequence because everything will turn out fine.

I believe a large societal shift is necessary to stem the tide of violence.

This an issue with very muddy waters, but blanket statements like "gun control makes things worse" are blatant lies told to further personal agendas (not posted by you btw).

The problem is that getting rid of guns doesn't help. What it does is leave the guns in the hands of people with no regard for the law. It also leaves people defensless against such people. The guns are allready here. So, if you take them all you do is create a tyrany by the dishonest and the criminal. Prohibition leads to black markets, corruption, and violence. It doesn't protect any one.

In England one of the fastest growing industries is private security. Neighborhoods are pooling cash to pay for security because of laws that strip them of not just guns but the right to self defense. The government didn't address this by over turning laws or pushing the police to do a better job. They start calling the security forces thugs and vigilantes.

All the while a paper in England reported, aproximately 1 in 3 criminals in the jails admit that they had access to a semi-auto weapon, on the outside. At the same time commanding officers in England's army were having to turn in their personal firearms.

It just doesn't add up to sanity in my opinion.

Thank you for the video.
He says #1 problem MENTAL ILLNESS

Guess that is why the U.S. Department of Justice wants to take overGA state mental hospitals and is closing a huge one down here in my city. It's going to put a lot of very ill people on the streets and ruin the city's economy.

I hate to say it, but I am so glad that guy was packing.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by maybereal11
OMG Serioussly..

At the 5 minute mark he says..."I almost shot the man holding the gun"!!!!

The man who had wrestled the gun away!

Your great example admitting that he "almost shot" an UNARMED innocent civilian who had wrestled the gun away from Loughlin. Geez....Really???

Edit: Good guy...but also an example how armed citizenry sometimes shoot the wrong people. He was a breath away from doing just that...by his own admission.

edit on 13-1-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

He said

"I would have shot the man holding the gun"

You are not interpreting him correctly

He's saying that if he saw a man shooting, he would have shot the man holding the gun.

He is not saying he "almost shot the man holding the gun" as in the innocent bystander, he is making a direct reference to Loughner - not the bystander.

edit on 13-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

NOPE

he says If he was still moving I would have shot him... I almost shot the man holding the gun ...see the 5 minute mark...replay as many times as neccessary...clear as a bell.

Nice try though.

Edit to add: For those wondering what man "holding the gun" he explains earlier that he misidentified the shooter when he arrived and grabbed the man "holding the gun" who had actually been the man who had wrestled the gun away from Loughlin. It wasn't until someone yelled No No Its that guy...did he realize that man wasn't the shooter.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
In England one of the fastest growing industries is private security. Neighborhoods are pooling cash to pay for security because of laws that strip them of not just guns but the right to self defense. The government didn't address this by over turning laws or pushing the police to do a better job. They start calling the security forces thugs and vigilantes.

I would like to touch on the portion I bolded.

Could this have more to do with Englands crime problem than the removal of guns?

In my opinion, it is an entirely different matter to remove a persons right to defend themselves, than to remove guns. I see this as far more detrimental than the removal of guns. This is prone to breed victim mentality and give criminals an absolute psychological edge. That, I believe, is already more than half of the proverbial war.

I would be far less willing to defend myself (or others) if I knew that I would be prosecuted as a criminal just by the act of defence. Is this even legal under human rights?

reply to post by maybereal11


I have two ears and a brain - so does the rest of the forum.

If you chose to believe that, I suppose you are entitled to your hallucinations.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by maybereal11

 

I have two ears and a brain - so does the rest of the forum.

If you chose to believe that, I suppose you are entitled to your hallucinations.

Funny...I just checked around...AND THE TRANSCRIPTS MUST BE HALLUCINATING TOO

Joe: as i came out of the door the -- i saw several individuals wrestling with him. and i came running. i was already at a full sprint and you know, there's no time to think about anything. i saw another individual holding the firearm. i kind of assumed he was the shooter. so i grabbed his wrist and you know told him to drop it and force him to drop the gun on the ground. when he did that, everybody says, no, no, it's this guy. it's this guy and i proceeded to help that man down. you know he's trying to square him but not very long at least it didn't seem like he was trying very hard though. i'm a big guy, though, 220 and i was holding him the down so he wasn't going anywhere.

Ed: did you ever think in drawing your firearm or you made the determination you didn't have to?

Joe: sir, when i came through the door, i had my hand on the bud of my pistol and i clicked the safety off, i was ready to kill him. but i didn't have to do that and i was very blessed that i didn't have to go to that place. luckily, they'd already it's gun solution so all i had to do was help. they hadn't grabbed him and he'd still been moving i would have shot him. i almost shot the man holding the gun.

www.dailykos.com...(update)

Here is the link since it isn't going to the right page above

[www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/10/935249/-I-almost-shot-the-man-holding-the-gun.-(update)]

reply to post by maybereal11

The transcript you linked to and quoted is erroneous and in places actually makes no sense. I wrote out and posted a word-for-word transcript of that interview in this thread on page 4 here.

The relevant section says:

ES: Did you ever think of drawing your firearm, or you made the determination you didn't have to?

JZ: Sir, when I came through the door, I had my hand on the butt of my pistol and I'd clicked the safety off. I was ready to kill him. But I didn't have to do that and I was very blessed that I didn't have to go to that place. Luckily they'd already begun the... solution, so all I had to do was help...umm... If they hadn't grabbed him and he was still moving, I would've shot him.

ES: Joe --
JZ: -- I would've shot the man holding the gun.

ES: You would've used that firearm. (Transcriber's note: this was said as a statement and not a question, hence no question mark. Mike.)

JZ: You're damned right. This is my country, this is my c- this is my town; you don't get to walk around hurting people, killing innocents and little girls... That's not right, man.

He does not say that he "almost shot" anyone. He says what he would have done if the shooter had still been moving -- meaning if he had not already been grabbed and was in the process of being restrained.

You are welcome to do what I'm sure others here on ATS have done and play that interview while you read through the transcript I posted. I assure you that it's as accurate as I can make it. It's a darned sight more accurate than the one you've linked to, anyway.

Mike

reply to post by JustMike


I am confused why you think that the transcript you authored is valid while the ACTUAL transcript which I posted is not?

Really some strange thinking ...I am going to start writing my own transcripts to folks in the news..claim things and then cite my transcript as proof! Neat!

Try again...here is the vid..play it again...not "I would have"...not even close. It's I ALMOST and it's at the 5 minute mark.

reply to post by maybereal11


After reviewing the tape several times it appears that both you and I are correct.

He makes both statements.

The "almost shot the man holding the gun" comment does appear to be directed at the bystander who must have picked up Loughner's weapon.

However, the fact remains that Zamudio had to make the same decision any other armed individual arriving on the scene would have had to make - including a police officer - and he made the right choice.

Given the statistical propensity of police to shoot first and ask questions later, it is a good thing Zamudio wasn't a cop, because a cop would have more than likely made the wrong decision.

As I pointed out in the OP, armed citizens statistically show far greater restraint than the police in the use of deadly force.

Well first off...thanks for admitting I was right...that is a long turn around from "Hallucinating".

Second...

Originally posted by mnemeth1

As I pointed out in the OP, armed citizens statistically show far greater restraint than the police in the use of deadly force.

edit on 13-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

I don't know let's take a look..

Well here I found that firearms killed about 28,000 people in the USA in 2002
It says 776 were a result of "Accidental Discharge"..not sure if that means the gun just "went off" or they shot the wrong person.?
www.the-eggman.com...

Either way..lets find some bad shooting numbers for cops.

This articel says about 600 people are kiled by police each year...and about 135 police are killed by people.

www.policeone.com...

Now since the police actually respond to crimes I have to imagine of those 600 shooting each year the vast majority are justified with a fraction being accidental or improper....even if the police always shot the wrong person...civilians would still have them beat on accidental shootings.

Please bring me some numbers to support your claim that civilians are more responsible with guns than police.

S+F

I don't watch mainstream news so I'm glad this thread was here. God bless that man for coming to help. Everyone that helped restrain and protect others definitely deserve recognition. Maybe if the media wasn't so busy trying to cluster# all over Palin and the right, even though the mentally derranged kid didn't ever even listen to them, they could take the time to honor those who put themselves at risk to try to save lives.

reply to post by maybereal11


But aren't there more citizens than police officers?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Im going to start off by saying I'm overall very liberal in my points of view. That out of the way I would also like to state that not all of us have a *get rid of all guns* attitude. Like Zamudio says, we can pass hundred of laws with the intent to control firearms but criminals will be criminals and will not follow the laws. I'm all for RESPONSIBLE gun owners expressing their 2nd amendment rights however I do believe in thorough background checks for ANYONE who buys a firearm, including prior criminal records and mental health checks. I have quite a few friends who own guns so I've got no problem with them owning them as long as they do it responsibly.

reply to post by maybereal11


That is not how you calculate who uses deadly force in self defense more.

You start by looking at how often guns are used for defensive purposes.

The vast majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or even wounding an attacker, with government surveys showing 108,000 (NCVS) to 23 million (raw NSPOF) DGUs per year, with ten private national surveys showing 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.[80][81]

Then you divide that by the number of justifiable homicides.

n 2008, there were 16,272 murders and 245 legally justified/self defense killings in the United States.

Assuming a median of 2 million defensive uses, civilians shoot and kill one out of every 8100 times they use their gun in a defensive manner (assuming all those justifiable homicides were gun related deaths, which may not be the case).

Contrast with police who managed to kill 1,095 people over a three year period (avg 365 a year)
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...

Further, 25% of people shot by the police are unarmed.

www.policeone.com...

Ideas for research projects can germinate from the least likely moments, as when a student asked Firearms Trainer Tom Aveni if he'd ever visited the ACLU's website. He hadn't ("Why would I even want to go there?"), but out of curiosity he did.

There in a section dedicated to "police abuse" he read a statistic he regarded as probably exaggerated: that 25 percent of all law enforcement shootings involve unarmed suspects. That launched him on a long and continuing quest for more details about officer-involved gunfights that has turned up a series of surprising - and disturbing - findings.

Not only did the ACLU statistic turn out to be not as far off as he imagined but Aveni has made other unexpected discoveries - pertaining especially to hit ratios, low-light shootings, multiple-officer confrontations, mistaken judgment calls and less-lethal technology - that have convinced him police firearms training needs a significant overhaul.

I used to have a specific report by Lott that gave the exact ratio of how often civilians used deadly force compared to police, but I have since lost the exact published comparison and can't seem to find it on the web. I am certain though that his numbers showed civilians used their guns faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar less than the cops.

I'll eventually find it. I know its out there somewhere.