Remember the Former Marine Who Opened Fire After an Arizona Couple Pulled a Gun on a Sears Employee?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


So your saying that he was doing the right thing, for the right reason but should be sitting right next to the robbers because he is not a sniper with a pistol?

The only "punishment" i could be for in this case and cases like this is suspend right to carry until x amount of required continuation gun training is complete.
I am ok with these situations being reviewed and reccomendations/training being conducted.
Not ok with criminal charges against somones reactions to a criminal. Definetly not ok with criminal charges to be expected for taking action in response to a crime.

swimmer15
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

So your saying that he was doing the right thing, for the right reason but should be sitting right next to the robbers because he is not a sniper with a pistol?

The only "punishment" i could be for in this case and cases like this is suspend right to carry until x amount of required continuation gun training is complete.
I am ok with these situations being reviewed and reccomendations/training being conducted.
Not ok with criminal charges against somones reactions to a criminal. Definetly not ok with criminal charges to be expected for taking action in response to a crime.

edit on 10-1-2014 by swimmer15 because: (no reason given)

Can we back off the sensationalism just a bit?

Is he sitting next to robbers now? NO!
Has the DA decided to prosecute? NO!
Do we know he didn't have gun training? NO!
Is gun training an acceptable remedy to this? NO!

Who's knows if the shooter didn't make some sort of incriminating remark? Again, the DA will decide if there is a case here or not. My assumption is that it will be based on what a reasonable person would have done within the confines of Arizona law.

If I were to take a guess, I think public sentiment will help sway the DA to drop charges.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Your right, when seconds matter stop, watch and call 911.

I do not know the entire story but my assumption is they are charging him because of the risk he may have put on other people? I applaud him for taking action but it must be controlled. We can't go out there like Danson & Highsmith and put other people's lives in danger, lol.

reply to post by swimmer15


Is that what I implied? Hardly.

But, if you draw your weapon, prepare for the possibility of having criminal charges filed against you.

Lighten up Francis.

reply to post by Freenrgy2



Lol i hear that alot..i like hearing your side, dont take me wrong. its hard for me, i admit it, and im biased, I am a search and rescue swimmer. I am trained to be a first responder... And i look at situations like this from that perspective.

I live in Phoenix, and i saw the story on the news, with video surveillance footage of the shooting. IMO-The Marine is being charged because he fired on the 2 suspects AFTER they had started to flee the scene. If he had fired on them while they were accosting the Sears clerk, then his self defense/defense of others claim would be viable. In Arizona, if the suspects are fleeing, then they are not considered a threat to your person, or any other persons. Shoot at them at your own risk. which is what the Marine apparently did.

My friend sat on a jury for a murder trial where that exact scenario played out. Guilty, with death penalty because the person shot someone in the back as they where fleeing, after assaulting them. he died, they were convicted. The explanation given to jurors was, that a person has time to second guess, or realize they are not at risk if the perp is fleeing. if you decide to fire, then you decided to murder. no self defense applicable....

Again, this is just my opinion. I am not an attorney, nor did i stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....

Only thing I see is a man shooting another who couldnt fire it 1st anyway becasue it wasnt real. I would have put my gun on them and have fired BACK if they
had shot at me. Which they didnt, and couldnt have.

So no fault of the citizen because he didnt know that, Still. He couldve showed his weapon, have them drop theirs which they of course would have...because it wasnt real and they knew that.

He a right to defend himself and the store person. People get killed everyday because of fake weapons.

As a fiream carrying citizen myself, knowing everything happens in a split second, the decision to fire or not has to be made in a nano-second.

Im not sure how I wouldve handled that. Order them to drop their weapon or Ill shoot....or?
Tough call. And I hope the courts side with his attempt to stop the robbery.

reply to post by swimmer15


Real humans should know when they don't have a shot in an urban engagement ,the way SOME laws read,you ,legally are better off killing them. Sorry but in this cynical time that is better.

Zona
I live in Phoenix, and i saw the story on the news, with video surveillance footage of the shooting. IMO-The Marine is being charged because he fired on the 2 suspects AFTER they had started to flee the scene. If he had fired on them while they were accosting the Sears clerk, then his self defense/defense of others claim would be viable. In Arizona, if the suspects are fleeing, then they are not considered a threat to your person, or any other persons. Shoot at them at your own risk. which is what the Marine apparently did.

My friend sat on a jury for a murder trial where that exact scenario played out. Guilty, with death penalty because the person shot someone in the back as they where fleeing, after assaulting them. he died, they were convicted. The explanation given to jurors was, that a person has time to second guess, or realize they are not at risk if the perp is fleeing. if you decide to fire, then you decided to murder. no self defense applicable....

Again, this is just my opinion. I am not an attorney, nor did i stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....

Well now, this does change things a bit. If they were not a threat, then legally you can't and SHOULDN'T pursue, much less shoot at them.

reply to post by swimmer15


Yes he should face charges. He was the only danger in the situation. I would have said a fine or more extensive classes for his weapon, but now after getting a little more info I think he deserves jail time.

He pursued the suspects after they had left and fired shots wildly at them. Good thing he missed or he would be up for attempted murder or murder.

The threat was gone.. at that point he became the only danger.

It's my humble opinion that if the Marine missed with all 4 shots, he meant to. Marines are trained very well and are very good shots.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Its easy to say that after the fact, not as easy when the idiots painted the gun to look real and started waving it around.

As to the missing.from last poster...i kindof agree. From the article and surveillance it seems that he was a 65 yo marine, trying to hit a moving target, with pistol
I dont think he wanted to kill them, just scare them away... 65 yo or not, marines know tactical movement.. If he wanted them dead, he would have assured a clear shot. But thats based on little... I argue the criminal side of it, i dont agree with locking people up like dogs, unless they are violent criminals, with criminal intent.

Xcalibur254
reply to post by Mamatus

 

As you state in the OP every single one of his shots missed. What if one of this bullets had hit innocent bystander? Would you agree with charges being leveled then? What if he had killed a bystander? At what point do we consider his actions to be reckless?

This is the reason for the "gun free zones" that are so oft derided by the extreme right. Simply put, if you had a dozen "heroes" who do not have the tactical training (and constant proficiency evals) of LEO in say, a theater in Colorado for example, all wildly shooting at a gunman in a crowded room, all missing, the casualty count from friendly fire would likely surmount the casualty toll from the crazed gunman.

I am not against guns, far from it, but there is a point where public safety concerns come into play concerning untrained people plinking at an aggressor (and possibly mistaking other "heroes" as bad guys), in crowds, likely doing more damage than good.

Guns are great for self defense, at home or out and about where there are not crowds of potential friendly fire victims.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


At least you aren't the kind of person to stereotype an entire profession. Good on ya!

reply to post by RyanFromCan


Good thing the bad guys adhere to the "gun free zone" policy.

fenson76
reply to post by RyanFromCan

 

Good thing the bad guys adhere to the "gun free zone" policy.

You obviously missed the point of the post. But hey, I guess as long as some "hero" gets to canoe the shooters (and any other hero he mistakes for the shooter) head, it really does not matter how many innocent victims over and above the target(s) of the active shooter get taken out in friendly fire right?

How about this, if you take 4 pot shots at a shooter say, in a theater, and ballistics show you missed the shooter but hit civilians because you are not trained to react in a high stress tactical situation with the proficiency levels of LEO, you plead guilty to careless use of a firearm, possibly negligent homicide?

It is clear from your post, that body count does not matter, as long as you get to kill the active shooter (and possibly other "heroes" you mistake for the active shooter).

It's actually pretty simple, in a gun free zone, the person in the crowd with the gun shooting is the bad guy. not a possible "hero" taking pot shots in a high stress tactical situation they have no training in potentially creating a much higher body count than the active shooter alone could while trying to get the active shooter.

It seems like what he did was a bit reckless at most, with good intentions behind the action, he does appear to be some distance from the the couple, and must have shot towards the store area. Lots of ifs and no one did get hit but its not really the point, anyone could have been in their car, and got a bullet through the window, someone coming out the store etc, though there's no indication of what direction he seems to have shot at so hard to say.
I doubt that he did not intend to hit, if you shoot a gun, you should be shooting with the only intention to hit the targets,, this just happens to be a public area with likely other people about, so the risks are quite significant if you choose to fire.
It would not be the first time someone is killed or injured by a stray bullet.

Doubt he'll be prosecuted, and shouldn't really. He does appear pretty old, not saying he is a unskilled shooter, but his eyesight may not be as good as well as dexterity, he might still train everyday, though again, we don't know. Just another factor, but which comes to whether his shooting was reckless or not, at most, his skills should be assessed, general competency, as I'm sure he is probably going over it in his mind and he did have good intentions, if they may have a been quite a risk.