Concealed-weapon owner shoots hatchet-wielding attacker in Wash. 7-Eleven

[wcjeep]

that's an unfortunate stereotype.

I did say my information was unofficial. The bad guy was actually early 40's. All other information was correct. The fact you went for the "unfortunate stereotype" is unfortunate. The dead guy was an Indian(feather not dot) with a hatchet. Supposedly Blackfoot indian. I'm unable to verify the tribal affiliation.

Local news link

The bad guy

 

[Planetölogy]

Kudos to the gun-toting customer who took control of a bad situation. Locally the incident didn't seem to get the coverage it deserved, IMO. Maybe I was busy and missed it.

I don't carry but would guess that there are more situations in which a permittee would refrain from using the weapon for fear of collateral damage, e.g. in a crowd.

I attended a memorial service recently and noticed a guy carrying in his backside waistband. The gun was visible through the vent on the back of his suit jacket. Would it have been appropriate for me to let him know?

 

[grapemilk]

The attack on the clerk was possibly less than lethal? Perhaps not requiring deadly force? I don't mind defending yourself when you feel threatened, but when people who don't have training in "rules of engagement" start shooting I get nervous.

Granted, if someone is coming at me with a hatchet, I'd want someone to stop them.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

The attack on the clerk was possibly less than lethal? Perhaps not requiring deadly force? I don't mind defending yourself when you feel threatened, but when people who don't have training in "rules of engagement" start shooting I get nervous.

Granted, if someone is coming at me with a hatchet, I'd want someone to stop them.

The sad part is that a lot of laws make "wounding/disabling" an attacker a no-go because it's less "messy" to kill the attacker than it is to wound them.

 

[wnelax04sr5]

Kudos to the gun-toting customer who took control of a bad situation. Locally the incident didn't seem to get the coverage it deserved, IMO. Maybe I was busy and missed it.

I don't carry but would guess that there are more situations in which a permittee would refrain from using the weapon for fear of collateral damage, e.g. in a crowd.

I attended a memorial service recently and noticed a guy carrying in his backside waistband. The gun was visible through the vent on the back of his suit jacket. Would it have been appropriate for me to let him know?

as someone who CC's id say that if you can talk to him in a very discreet and private setting or way then yes. 99% of people carrying don't want anyone to know that they are, if they're smart

 

[ret42]

The sad part is that a lot of laws make "wounding/disabling" an attacker a no-go because it's less "messy" to kill the attacker than it is to wound them.

I agree and disagree. I would hate to take someone's life, but the gravity of the situation that necessitates shooting someone should imply that yours or other's lives are in danger. Firearms are a tool for killing, whether that's for food or for self defense.

On the subject of "less messy," I've also heard stories where a defender of a home shot a thief in the leg, prematurely ending his robbing spree. The thief proceeded to press charges on the home owner for shooting him. I can't speak to the authenticity of this tale, or what the outcome of the case was if it is true, but it's a story I've heard several times from the "shoot to kill" crowd.

 

[Dalko43]

Legally I don't see how it makes a difference if you shoot to kill or shoot to wound a would-be attacker.

If you're life is being threatened and you have no means of escape (obviously this varies from state to state depending on their recognition of the castle doctrine and stand-your-ground principle) you have a right to defend yourself.

Shooting someone in the leg vs putting one between the running lights shouldn't make a difference in civil or criminal court if the shooter had a reason for employing his/her weapon. If the right to self-defense existed, then that is all that matters...and quite honestly, a prosecutor would have a tremendously difficult time to prove that person intentionally shot to wound an attacker vs killing him.

In an adrenaline-filled, high stress situation, even experienced shooters struggle to put accurate rounds into a target.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

I agree and disagree. I would hate to take someone's life, but the gravity of the situation that necessitates shooting someone should imply that yours or other's lives are in danger. Firearms are a tool for killing, whether that's for food or for self defense.

On the subject of "less messy," I've also heard stories where a defender of a home shot a thief in the leg, prematurely ending his robbing spree. The thief proceeded to press charges on the home owner for shooting him. I can't speak to the authenticity of this tale, or what the outcome of the case was if it is true, but it's a story I've heard several times from the "shoot to kill" crowd.

I've heard the same style of story thrown around as well, much of it is the black and white idea that you either kill an attacker with a gun or you don't use one. The gravity of the situation for me to use a weapon implies that my life or the life of my loved ones is in danger; but that shouldn't always equate to an individual being judge, jury, and executioner. But from a legal standpoint a lot of times you're expected to either kill the attacker or run away or hope law enforcement gets to you in time?

I mean incapacitating someone or defending yourself is a bit easier with a gun than it is with say a bow and arrow or machete, but defending yourself doesn't always mean the other person has to die in my opinion. I mean I'd be more inclined to outright put someone down; but I also do remember being a teenager and making mistakes (albeit nothing like breaking into someone's house...)

 

[nevada]

this is the type of news I like reading about. its been happening(or being reported) more and more lately. I think its great.





in a self defense situation, there is no "shoot to wound, or "shoot to kill" there should ever only be shoot to end the threat. if you shoot them, and they are no longer a threat, and then you shoot them again and kill them, depending on the situation, that could go very badly for you.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

this is the type of news I like reading about. its been happening(or being reported) more and more lately. I think its great.





in a self defense situation, there is no "shoot to wound, or "shoot to kill" there should ever only be shoot to end the threat. if you shoot them, and they are no longer a threat, and then you shoot them again and kill them, depending on the situation, that could go very badly for you.

I whole heartily agree, said it better than I was trying to. The aim is to end the threat, that doesn't always need to mean death, but usually does.

 

[BoomSticks]

That's kind of messed up. Does that mean that the state will no longer be able to charge a suspect with carrying an unlicensed weapon?

Generally, there's a clause in the law that makes the carrying illegal if it's done during the commission of a crime.

It works well in practice, because those that shouldn't be carrying because of past criminality will get caught doing what they do, and from then on none of it matters because they're then felon in possession.

Put another way, it's as it should be: The mere possession of an object should never be illegal, tangible acts and behaviors are what should be illegal.

 

[BoomSticks]

...much of it is the black and white idea that you either kill an attacker with a gun or you don't use one. The gravity of the situation for me to use a weapon implies that my life or the life of my loved ones is in danger; but that shouldn't always equate to an individual being judge, jury, and executioner. But from a legal standpoint a lot of times you're expected to either kill the attacker or run away or hope law enforcement gets to you in time?

The ONLY acceptable goal of using deadly force is to STOP THE THREAT.

There is no kill. There is no wound. Anything else is coming from either a hollywood educated shooter, or an armchair commando. Anyone with experience knows you're going to be lucky to have time to make decent hits on center mass, never mind smaller targets or other fancy incapacitating shots.

It's unfortunate that if you're causing enough cardiovascular or neuro trauma to make them stop, they'll likely die, but that's the reality they forced you into.

The good news is that in a lot of cases, you don't even need to shoot. Just brandishing the gun and making them think you've got the will to use it is enough to end the encounter.

 

[Bigshankhank]

Generally, there's a clause in the law that makes the carrying illegal if it's done during the commission of a crime.

It works well in practice, because those that shouldn't be carrying because of past criminality will get caught doing what they do, and from then on none of it matters because they're then felon in possession.

Put another way, it's as it should be: The mere possession of an object should never be illegal, tangible acts and behaviors are what should be illegal.

I guess in re-reading the original post I quoted, I did not mean to imply that the weapon should be licensed, but rather the weapon owner. That is where I was concerned with the comment to allow a person to conceal-carry without a permit. That's messed up.

 

[grapemilk]

this is the type of news I like reading about. its been happening(or being reported) more and more lately. I think its great.

in a self defense situation, there is no "shoot to wound, or "shoot to kill" there should ever only be shoot to end the threat. if you shoot them, and they are no longer a threat, and then you shoot them again and kill them, depending on the situation, that could go very badly for you.

But this wasn't a case of self defense. This was a bystander/good samaritan. That's were the situation gets less clear for me.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

We recently had this happen:

1 dead after Colorado home invasion; homeowner had Craigslist ad | Fox News

In other reports it was noted that the Jefferson County DA and Sheriff were investigating whether to press charges against the homeowner or not.

I personally wrote letters to both stating I did not want my taxpayer dollars wasted on something so obviously self protection. I also noted that if I was on jury hearing this ridiculous case the homeowner is walking scot-free. I'll hang the jury if I have to. I know many others probably wrote them the same thing.

See, technically (yes, I have a Colorado CHP and know the Castle Doctrine Law inside and out) you cannot shoot somebody if any of the following are true:

1) They are not physically with the walls of your house
2) They are attempting to flee
3) You do not feel you or your occupants are in imminent danger of bodily harm or death

The homeowner had no idea if these two clowns were going to come back in and finish him off.

When he got free and grabbed his gun, criminal #1 saw him and bolted out the door, homeowner unloading on him.

Criminal #1 died in the front yard almost immediately. I believe I heard there were three body mass shots, one of which went straight through his heart.

Boo-Yah and good riddance to a POS thief.

The Jefferson County DA and Sheriff did their investigation and decided NOT to press charges on the homeowner. Law abiding Citizens 1, Criminals 0.

There have been several of these cases in Colorado over the years and the only one I know of where the homeowner was prosecuted was a case where they had pretty good proof a homeowner lured a neighborhood kid to his townhouse (which was next door to the trouble maker teenager) by doing something like setting a new big screen tv on his patio right next to the patio door and then he sat there in the dark until the kid took the bait.

You cannot lure somebody into your house and then kill them. Thats called murder. But if they are in your house uninvited... well, they are living on the dangerous side of life.

And as far as the shoot to kill vs shoot to disable - just about any CHP/CCW class here in Colorado the instructors will tell you this:

1) Do not take the action of shooting somebody lightly. It's not and it's something you will have to live with the rest of your life.
2) Make sure you are 100% certain you know exactly who/what you are shooting at. The guy who shot his intoxicated 19 year old here about 15 years ago could probably explain that one.
3) If you determine you do have to shoot, you unload the gun and don't stop until you hear a dry fire.

Here in Colorado you have to take a certified CHP class, pass a CBI background check (any felony, assault or DV conviction is an instant NO and I think a I recall DUI is also an instant NO) and in fact before the background check you have to fill out an application that asks you if you have any of those and if you lie you can actually be arrested and do time for lying about it and trying to sneak in under the radar.

And then, after all that, the Sheriff of the county you are applying in can refuse you for any and all reasons they feel make you a danger. In other words, you have to be pretty squeaky-clean to get a CHP here, and it does take a while for the process to complete.

 

[BoomSticks]

But this wasn't a case of self defense. This was a bystander/good samaritan. That's were the situation gets less clear for me.

Same rules apply. Are you defending against death, great bodily harm, or forcible sexual penetration?

I guess in re-reading the original post I quoted, I did not mean to imply that the weapon should be licensed, but rather the weapon owner. That is where I was concerned with the comment to allow a person to conceal-carry without a permit. That's messed up.

The answer is still the same. Tangible acts should be judged, not whether the person carrying obtained a permission slip from the government.

And that's the real point of unlicensed carry. When a license is required to exercise a right, it becomes a privilege. Then what you've created is a system where only those that can afford $100+ for the license, plus ammo, plus a day off, in addition to $300+ for the gun, are able to exercise that right.

Are rights only for the affluent?

But don't worry, the sky won't fall. In every state with unlicensed carry, it's a big fat non-issue. Criminals continue to criminal and get caught, and the law abiding continue to abide by the law.

 

[wallytoo]

But this wasn't a case of self defense. This was a bystander/good samaritan. That's were the situation gets less clear for me.

it's not so clear as that. in the photo caption in the linked story, it reads that a masked attacker swung a hatchet at the customer, and then at the clerk. that would make it much more a self-defense action than merely a good-samaritan action.




additionally, as noted by others, using lethal force is all about ending the threat, not about wounding, killing, or brandishing. when the threat is gone, the use of lethal force is wrong.

wally

 

[Bigshankhank]

The answer is still the same. Tangible acts should be judged, not whether the person carrying obtained a permission slip from the government.

And that's the real point of unlicensed carry. When a license is required to exercise a right, it becomes a privilege. Then what you've created is a system where only those that can afford $100+ for the license, plus ammo, plus a day off, in addition to $300+ for the gun, are able to exercise that right.

Are rights only for the affluent?

But by that reasoning, if the license was offered at no cost, I trust that you would have no reservations? I mean, you can't blame the class instructors for charging for their services as private businesses, so then how much of their fee goes to the State? I am asking that question honestly, I am actually curious.

But don't worry, the sky won't fall. In every state with unlicensed carry, it's a big fat non-issue. Criminals continue to criminal and get caught, and the law abiding continue to abide by the law.

Well, except that noone starts off as a criminal, everyone who earned that title began that day as a law abiding citizen. Maybe they even began that day as a permitted-to-carry law abiding citizen. So in that I agree with you, the criminal nature of the carrier is irrelevant.
So maybe its not a big deal, lord knows there are plenty of law abiding people who regularly carry illegally and it is never an issue, but I don't believe it is unreasonable to ask a person who is in possession of a potentially lethal instrument to have proven that they have both the training and discipline necessary to be trusted with its safe operation. Kind of like driving a car, though the training necessary for that license is woefully inadequate, as well.

 

[nevada]

I guess in re-reading the original post I quoted, I did not mean to imply that the weapon should be licensed, but rather the weapon owner. That is where I was concerned with the comment to allow a person to conceal-carry without a permit. That's messed up.

I think just the opposite. requiring us to have a permit is messed up.

But this wasn't a case of self defense. This was a bystander/good samaritan. That's were the situation gets less clear for me.

I don't see a distinction. the end result is the same. you shoot to stop the threat. the threat doesn't necessarily have to be towards yourself.

Same rules apply. Are you defending against death, great bodily harm, or forcible sexual penetration?



The answer is still the same. Tangible acts should be judged, not whether the person carrying obtained a permission slip from the government.

And that's the real point of unlicensed carry. When a license is required to exercise a right, it becomes a privilege. Then what you've created is a system where only those that can afford $100+ for the license, plus ammo, plus a day off, in addition to $300+ for the gun, are able to exercise that right.

Are rights only for the affluent?

But don't worry, the sky won't fall. In every state with unlicensed carry, it's a big fat non-issue. Criminals continue to criminal and get caught, and the law abiding continue to abide by the law.

exactly. there are many places that have constitutional carry. no matter how much they scream about it, blood does not run in the streets...

But by that reasoning, if the license was offered at no cost, I trust that you would have no reservations? I mean, you can't blame the class instructors for charging for their services as private businesses, so then how much of their fee goes to the State? I am asking that question honestly, I am actually curious.



Well, except that noone starts off as a criminal, everyone who earned that title began that day as a law abiding citizen. Maybe they even began that day as a permitted-to-carry law abiding citizen. So in that I agree with you, the criminal nature of the carrier is irrelevant.
So maybe its not a big deal, lord knows there are plenty of law abiding people who regularly carry illegally and it is never an issue, but I don't believe it is unreasonable to ask a person who is in possession of a potentially lethal instrument to have proven that they have both the training and discipline necessary to be trusted with its safe operation. Kind of like driving a car, though the training necessary for that license is woefully inadequate, as well.

sure, the instructors need to be paid. the issue is requiring someone to even take that class.

you are confusing a right, with a privilege.


of our RIGHTS, what others are we required to have training, or purchase a permission slip to exercise?

 

[wallytoo]

of our RIGHTS, what others are we required to have training, or purchase a permission slip to exercise?

i've written it before (and i'm sure others have), the 1st amendment is the most important amendment we have. the 2nd amendment helps protect the 1st; without the 2nd, the 1st will be corrupted.