Man Who Tackled Loughner Interviewed - Guess What?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Can't say that I like Ed Schultz.

But he's completely correct about mentally ill in America. I live in Portland, and on any given day you can go on public transit here, and see insane people, usually homeless that are just completely out of their minds.. People that could easily turn extremely violent with the right trigger.

It's a problem that shouldn't be ignored but very much is.

It is important to consider one thing:

If a civilian ccw holder shoots someone in self-defense, he knows as soon as he pulls the trigger that he has to be able to convince a jury that his actions were justified.

If a cop shoots someone, we all know that police are not held to the same standard in their use of force as civilians.

That interview just shows people who want to "rip up" the second amendment that doing so would not only make guns available to criminals and criminals only, but it would not even solve the problem. That man is a hero in my books!

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)

The first thing we are taught in the CCW is only pull you gun when you are going to use it.
second thing is holster or clear the weapon and drop it after you have used it.(keep the ammo mag with the ammo)

"almost shot" an UNARMED innocent civilian"

Don't ever pick up a gun at a shooting scene if you have to secure a weapon put you foot on it. kick it under a car desk or some other place that its safe. If you have to pick it up do it by the barrel. (you don't want your fingerprints on the grip. and you don't want to appear to be ready to shoot it.)
Idiots pick up guns and wave them around at a shooting scene.
And responding cops shoot idiots.

This should be taught in schools and everyone should know it.(gun safety)

Everyone will view you as a shooter or accomplice.

people with a CCW know not to wave a weapon at a shooting scene.

Originally posted by DeadpoolPete
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Thank you man. Gotta love it when someone over the pond knows whats up! Four thumbs up for you Pete!

And to the OP:

You know what is really disturbing? That most people in the USA wish the kid was shot dead on the spot, so will see this restraint of force as weakness rather than temperance.

We don't have innocent until proven guilty anymore, not in the media or public's mind! They are 100% dead set on guilty, even though none of them were there, and there is no video evidence for us to review that proves it.

We are all assuming it was him because thats what is being said. We don't even know. We have no evidence.
But everyone will vote GUILTY instantly.

Sorry but I need evidence before I am gonna vote guilty. At least a straight up admission without being pressured into it would be good enough.

If they put me on that jury I would vote Not Guilty until they PROVE this kid really did this.

People forgot what America is about. They forgot what Innocent before Guilty means. They forgot what a FAIR trial is.

I didn't.

i applaud the poop out of you. people so easily forget innocent until PROVEN guilty, not guilty until proven otherwise. sad living in america where not only do we have tragedies, but people try to escalate the tragedy, over stupidity.

reply to post by maybereal11

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.?

First off an inanimate object without a brain or nervous system is incapable of killing anyone. Sorry, but there must be an action that causes the object to perform an action.

Accidental Discharge is the same as a negligent discharge. It means that the person was handling the firearm improperly and the gun went off. The number for 2007 according to the CDC is 613. Of course 2,248 people were killed by medical mistakes. In the same year 29,846 people died from accidental poisoining. That is over 40 times more people killed by accidental poisoining in a single year. You are more likely to be killed by your doctor or poisoned than accidentally shot and killed because someone was negligent with a fire arm.

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

Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton Cramer, David Kopel,
Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994

It states that studies have found about 2% of civilian shootings kill an innocent person. For police the number is 11%. So when it comes down to actually making sure it is the right person, the civilian usually gets it right. Actually they get it right 5.5 times more often.

reply to post by peck420

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.

The thing is that gun and knife crime went up after the banning of guns. Then the government further restricted use of force hile protecting yourself. The criminals were made more bold by the easy targets. When they realized that they also had more subdued prey things got nasty.

The banning made the criminals bolder. The increased restriction of defense cemented the tyrany.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Sir,
Police have to appear before a grand jury and either true billed or no billed for murder the same as any civilian when they engage in a shooting. Probably the only upper hand police have on these versus a civilian is the fact the police union usually pays for their lawyer.

Comm

Originally posted by commdogg
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Sir,
Police have to appear before a grand jury and either true billed or no billed for murder the same as any civilian when they engage in a shooting. Probably the only upper hand police have on these versus a civilian is the fact the police union usually pays for their lawyer.

Comm

They do not have to appear if the prosecutor decides not to move forward.

Prosecutors almost never move forward unless the shooting is so blatantly outrageous that public outcry demands it.

Even then, juries are heavily biased in favor of the cop, because the people who the cops are typically shooting are not... shall we say... your typical upstanding citizens.

We all inherently know that cops get a bigger break when it comes to shootings than your average joe sixpack.

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.

Yes, you are right, and that is what the Police are taught also.

reply to post by mnemeth1


The prosecutor doesn't have a choice in the matter. To prevent an accusation of duplicity the police and DA's office always present these to the grand jury. The obvious accusations of good old boy network bumbling are troublesome for those particular organizations. So they do whatever the grand jury says after the facts of the case are presented. Grand Jury review is the formal process by which ALL felony level crimes are reviewed for merit, allowing a criminal indictment to be filed in the appropriate court.

Good shootings are good shootings and typically get no billed. Bad shootings get prosecuted. Simple as that.

I am a gun owner, going to test for my concealed permit after tax season (I'm also an accountant). I also practice Krav Maga and I would use my gun as a maximum level of force only in an absolute worst case scenario.
Knives are probably more dangerous than guns. Even people well trained in combat are susceptible to the element of surprise, so merely having a gun may not be enough to save your life. My 2 cents.

Originally posted by JDofENGLAND
What a top bloke he showed restrain this guy should be the sheriff!! He has my respect i wish we had guns in the uk id love to be packin ever where i when't but i am not shore i would of showed the same restraint this guy did.......

TRust you me,

if you are currently a law abiding citizen of the UK, with respect for people, compassion and an all around good person, legally owning a handgun will make you even more so.

i know as an american CCW holder, any potentially bad situation i feel i may get into, i avoid at all costs, if i can help it. not for fear of police reprisal or even the aggressions of a would be criminal, but because even though i carry, i know i do not want to be one that has to take a life. that's not to be confused as saying "even in the worst situation, i'd be a bullet sponge for a thug in training". but, in an escalating situation(not to be confused with an already ESCALATED situation) if you use common sense, verbal judo and DISTANCE, the worst you'll have to deal with may be a little bruised ego. but if you absolutely have to use your weapon, in defense of yourself or others, you better not miss. that's where training and stressed training come into play.

The interviewee(sp?), in my opinion, has done what any average citizen of the US would have done. and EVEN THOUGH he grabbed the arm of the wrong person initially, his intentions were to stop a threat, not blast into a crowd, half cocked and full of bravado. he seen a gun exposed in a confusing and bloody situation, grabbed for it, then was informed by others that the problem person was NOT the one he was holding. so he corrected himself and joined the others with restraining the problem starter.

:sidebar:

In response to nay sayers and anti gunners also, removing guns will not solve any problems. In places where guns aren't "available", edged weapons, clubs, bats, or any other weapon of opportunity are used. you know this to be true.

In America, the CONSTITUTION specified that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
In NATURE, you, as an animal, were given the right and ability to defend yourself.
And MAN, has created many ways to do so.

In this school of life, it's best to carry a pencil and a pen, because you never know when/how you'll be tested!
In weapons friendly countries, switch pen and pencil to knife and gun. tada!!

Joe Zamudio is a hero to all Americans whether they know it or not and he's one of the hero's to the victims. Unfortunately Loughner is a nut that fell through the cracks. The people that had contact with him and could have made difference didn't. I hate all of the blame going around. People blaming Palin, Obama, Limbaugh, guns it's just ridiculous. Schultz must have really been pissed that he didn't get what he wanted out of Zamudio, he sure exited the interview as quickly as he could have when he saw it wasn't going his way. "This is my home and my town, people don't get to kill innocent people and children"

reply to post by mnemeth1


30 rounds and don't know what to do with them? Don't use them.

Also, no crap guns are designed to kill people.

Also also, lol out of time. Of course.

reply to post by mnemeth1


He almost shot an innocent man. He said so himself. Had his false perceptions not been corrected in time (a matter of seconds) he would have shot the wrong man. If he had been unarmed the probability of making such a dire mistake would have been reduced to 0%.

Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

It is also worth noting the fact that he and others present were armed or even that there was a strong likelihood of armed persons being present did not serve as a deterrent to the killer.

Originally posted by Lilitu
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

He almost shot an innocent man. He said so himself. Had his false perceptions not been corrected in time (a matter of seconds) he would have shot the wrong man. If he had been unarmed the probability of making such a dire mistake would have been reduced to 0%.

Good thing he wasn't a cop.

Otherwise 'officer safety' would have likely resulted in the armed man having a barrage of bullets fly at him. Many more people could have been killed that day. It is a good thing that an armed citizen was present.

reply to post by maybereal11

Please forgive my delayed response to your post. It was 2 a.m. when I wrote my earlier reply that you then responded to and I headed off to bed after writing it.

Okay, down to details.

After listening to that section of the interview several times, I need to state that you are right: at around 5 mins, 7 seconds into the interview, Mr Joe Zamudio says, "I almost shot the man holding the gun."

I apologise to you and ATS members for my error in transcribing what he said; I can only say by way of mitigation that Ed Schultz was talking over Mr Zamudio (beginning to ask him a question) as he made this statement. I heard it as if he was basically repeating what he'd just said, but I was wrong.

I'd also like to say that had no intention to mislead anyone. ATS members were asking for a transcript, but the official transcripts on the Ed Show page here didn't include one for this show yet and it seems that they still don't. (The latest one at time of writing this post is for Jan 6th.) That's why I wrote up the one I posted.

The facts from the video are as you have them:
Mr Zamudio admits that he almost shot the man who was holding the gun, meaning the man who had possession of that weapon when Zamudio arrived on the scene. This means that he almost shot a man who was not the offender.

I know you've already said all this yourself but I want to state that since you have pointed out my error, the whole point you were making is now very clear. Thanks to you, I've also learned something from this: before rebutting another member's perspective of what's been said in a video, I need to go back and listen to the darned thing again, several times if need be, to be absolutely certain of the facts before I post a reply. (Even at 2 a.m.!)

Thank you, and please accept my apologies.

Mike

Originally posted by ANNED

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.

The first thing we are taught in the CCW is only pull you gun when you are going to use it.
second thing is holster or clear the weapon and drop it after you have used it.(keep the ammo mag with the ammo)

First off ...some great advice in your post for everyone to consider in case they find themselves in similiar circumstance. Witness to or victim of a crime involving guns.

Personally, when I was a young teenager I had several police level weapons at me in a fairly terrifying moment....they showed incredible restraint BTW. Myself and some buddies had foolishly decided to have a "BB gun war" in an abandoned building. I was carrying a mock .45 pistol/bb gun before they required the "red tip" on such guns. I was hiding in a room and when the police showed up, unbeknownest to me, and called in with the typical "drop the weapon and come out with your hands up"...I thought it was my friends messing around and actually shouted back obscenities, told them they would have to come get me etc.. It wasn't until my friend started screaming from the other room that it was really the cops that I came out...with my pistol still in hand...the floor was muddy and I didn't want to drop my new BB gun in the mud! I remember the shouting by those cops vividly...looking around a room with 5 cops and every gun leveled on me and finally...yes I dropped my new BB gun in the mud. I was lucky to survive that foolishness and I did in part due to the restraint that the police showed.

Second..."we are taught"?? No...YOU were taught. It is dishonest to imply that everyone that is issued a concealed carry permit is taught anything at all. Some yes....some not at all...as is the case with AZ where you DONT EVEN NEED a CCW to carry a concealed weapon.

Among U.S. states, only Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

en.wikipedia.org...

people with a CCW know not to wave a weapon at a shooting scene.

Wild and unsupported assumption. No doubt that you are responsible and informed in safe gun practices. No reason to believe everyone is like yourself and in AZ a CCW isn't even required.

reply to post by JustMike


Apology accepted and then some.

Everytime someone admits that they were in error amidst a heated debate it prompts me to reflect...am I always as honest with myself and those I debate?...I think so, but your honesty reminds me to keep asking myself the question.. thank you for being a great example of what I strive for.

Also sorry if I made my case with an unhealthy does of arrogance.