Texas CCW holder intervenes

That Sucks. But if the guy was trying to leave, I would let him go and try to help the person he shot. And I would not have had to run to my car to get my gun if I had decided it was time to stop him.
 
The BG was leaving the scene, the CCW holder should have rendered first aid to the shot woman. Lessons to be learned here. This isnt Brazil.

- - - Updated - - -

I love all the unrelated stories at the bottom...[rolleyes]

A lesbian Elsa, a eaglenapped kangaroo. How are those unrelated?[crying]
 
What the CCW holder did was courageous, and I can see why he might want to pursue a fleeing felon who had just discharged a firearm into another human being. However, I've rethought my strategy on all this stuff. My number one mission is the care and defense of my immediate family; my wife and my daughter. Part of that mission is to come home, as I am the sole financial support for the family, and I am important to the life of my wife and my daughter. I will not intervene in a situation where that mission could be compromised. I have training, and EDC an IFAK and trauma supplies that I would use on them first, then myself, then any injured bystanders, or myself first, if I was bleeding out and need to survive to render aid to them.

Being responsible for every round I send down range, I would be very unlikely to discharge my weapon to stop a crime that was being committed against someone other than myself or my family. People should be responsible for their own defense - not rely on others to bail them out when the get in trouble. In Massachusetts, the risk is huge. If you hit a civilian, even while attempting to stop a mass shooting, you are very likely going to prison for a very long time. Not worth it.
 
What the CCW holder did was courageous, and I can see why he might want to pursue a fleeing felon who had just discharged a firearm into another human being. However, I've rethought my strategy on all this stuff. My number one mission is the care and defense of my immediate family; my wife and my daughter. Part of that mission is to come home, as I am the sole financial support for the family, and I am important to the life of my wife and my daughter. I will not intervene in a situation where that mission could be compromised. I have training, and EDC an IFAK and trauma supplies that I would use on them first, then myself, then any injured bystanders, or myself first, if I was bleeding out and need to survive to render aid to them.

Being responsible for every round I send down range, I would be very unlikely to discharge my weapon to stop a crime that was being committed against someone other than myself or my family. People should be responsible for their own defense - not rely on others to bail them out when the get in trouble. In Massachusetts, the risk is huge. If you hit a civilian, even while attempting to stop a mass shooting, you are very likely going to prison for a very long time. Not worth it.

I have to disagree with your statement about him being courageous. There are so many variables involved, what he did was stupid and irresponsible. He paid the ultimate price.
 
I have to disagree with your statement about him being courageous. There are so many variables involved, what he did was stupid and irresponsible. He paid the ultimate price.

It's funny because if you look at stuff like this on non-New England gun forums, they generally are in favor of a person with a permit intervening.

Personally, #1 I'd be carrying on myself, so I wouldn't have to go back to the vehicle. A gun in the hand is worth more than all the guns in the world that are far away. #2, domestics are not things to wade into and usually have a high rate of 3rd parties being injured or killed. #3, a person carrying is supposed to act in self defense. Is this an act of self defense or offense? Don't know because I wasn't there.
 
I have to disagree with your statement about him being courageous. There are so many variables involved, what he did was stupid and irresponsible. He paid the ultimate price.

It may not have been smart, but it takes courage to step into a fight that you don't have to engage in. The article says the man served in the Marines. His training probably had something to do with it. I agree that pursuit was the wrong thing in this case, but he had just witnessed the suspect shoot a woman in cold blood. It is understandable why he intervened, presumably to stop the man from shooting other people. The end-result shows why his calculation was wrong - now his own wife and children will be missing their husband and father, for the rest of their lives.
 
The curious thing is that people are going to cite this guy as "stupid" whereas and off-duty cop who did the same thing, with the same outcome, would be "heroic". Plus, if it was a cop, there would be no responses about how an off duty cop should stay out of it and be a good witness.

I'd be more concerned with making sure I was ready if he came back to deal with witnesses, and with maintaining a low profile in case he had a tailgunner (armed individual posing as a customer in case there is any armed intervention).
 
That Sucks. But if the guy was trying to leave, I would let him go and try to help the person he shot. And I would not have had to run to my car to get my gun if I had decided it was time to stop him.

doesnt sound like where the gun was woud've helped you much either way. agree on letting him go however, you just never know
 
Are these people carrying terminally stupid? I feel bad for the guy, but seriously? If you're gonna introduce the gun throwing the initiative away by yelling commands at a guy who has already demonstrated that he is more than willing to use his gun, is mind numbing.

Antell, a father of three and CrossFit gym owner, retreated to his vehicle, grabbed his own gun, and approached the shooter, Arlington police said.


Instead of abiding by Antell’s commands to stop, police said the shooter climbed out of his truck and fired his gun again.

What did he think, the guy was going to get out of the truck and start singing kumbaya?

This reminds me of the numbskull who approached a mall shooter in the pacific northwest somewhere many years ago, who drew his gun on the guy and then tried to talk the guy into stopping his rampage, and got shot as a reward for his negotiation efforts...

-Mike
 
My wife is my number 1 priority, no way would I leave her side while there was live fire.

Guy did the noble thing, but chasing after him was wrong IMO.
 
Guy did the noble thing, but chasing after him was wrong IMO.

"The right thing" would have been ****ing him up with bullets as soon as he got a clean shot. Or not intervening at all depending on circumstances.

-Mike
 
"The right thing" would have been ****ing him up with bullets as soon as he got a clean shot. Or not intervening at all depending on circumstances.

-Mike

Yeah, that seems right to me. I do not have formal training but I live by the rule of doing everything possible to avoid having to draw a gun but if it comes to having to draw, don't hesitate, take the first shot that presents itself. As Tuco said, "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk".

Condolences to the victim's family. He had good intentions, sad that he lost his life.
 
Once the subject exhibits willingness to harm or kill others you need to either shelter in place and call 911, or go for the best shot possible. I assume going into the vehicle, picking up a gun and walking towards the subject with a gun was not a smart thing to do. You should never expose your intentions.
 
The entire point of the article is to bolster the fallacious argument that citizens who are armed will either be killed or kill civilians. Everything else in the article is window dressing.

The arm chair quarterbacking by people on this and other forums merely serves to further that narrative.
 
The entire point of the article is to bolster the fallacious argument that citizens who are armed will either be killed or kill civilians. Everything else in the article is window dressing.

The arm chair quarterbacking by people on this and other forums merely serves to further that narrative.

It's not a fallacy if they are killed. Are you going to go down to this guy's funeral and yell "FALLACY!" ?

That being said, yes the media and police and Dems like to always say that armed citizens will get killed or will shoot the wrong person. This is only the second time I've heard of an armed citizen getting killed and the other time was the guy in Nevada who was killed at a Wal Mart McDonald's by that Neo-Nazi couple that went on a rampage.

Examining the evidence and thinking "what would I do" is being a smart person. It's looking at facts and drawing logical conclusions from facts like a person with critical thinking skills would do.
 
You missed the point. The WaPo is an enemy of the Second Amendment. They NEVER write a story where the armed civilian is the good guy. It's always a story like this. Towards the end of the article, there are more instances where the armed citizen was hurt, ineffective, or hurt someone else.

This guy was killed which is a shame. At least to us. To the WaPo, it's a starting point to attack the Second Amendment and gun owners.



It's not a fallacy if they are killed. Are you going to go down to this guy's funeral and yell "FALLACY!" ?

That being said, yes the media and police and Dems like to always say that armed citizens will get killed or will shoot the wrong person. This is only the second time I've heard of an armed citizen getting killed and the other time was the guy in Nevada who was killed at a Wal Mart McDonald's by that Neo-Nazi couple that went on a rampage.

Examining the evidence and thinking "what would I do" is being a smart person. It's looking at facts and drawing logical conclusions from facts like a person with critical thinking skills would do.
 
You missed the point. The WaPo is an enemy of the Second Amendment. They NEVER write a story where the armed civilian is the good guy. It's always a story like this. Towards the end of the article, there are more instances where the armed citizen was hurt, ineffective, or hurt someone else.

This guy was killed which is a shame. At least to us. To the WaPo, it's a starting point to attack the Second Amendment and gun owners.

Who doesn't know that on here? I'm surprised people link to them considering their history. I never view their articles if I google something and have a choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom