1911.COM : General Concealed Carry Discussion : General Concealed Carry Discussion : CCW Holder Shoots Two Gang members

General Concealed Carry Discussion : General Concealed Carry Discussion

CCW Holder Shoots Two Gang members

Post

User

Tac56

Posted: Sep 6th 2010, 10:06 PM

While I don't necessarily condone the situation that he put himself in, I am glad to hear the good guy prevailed and the PD recognized this was in fact a self-defense stituation....

http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/09/05/20100905chandler-shooting-two-dead.html

-Tac

p.s. Fox... we need a "use of force" section for articles/info like this... just a thought.

Joined:
Location:

Jul 21st 09
AZ US

foxtrot

Posted: Sep 6th 2010, 11:21 PM

I hear ya tac! Working on a solution.

Interesting story by the way. Wonder if the CCW was drinking? Not that it truthfully matters on this one. Between the "gang" members and the defensive gun it's a blessing that nobody else was injured - had to be a lot of bystanders around in every direction.

Joined:
Location:

Sep 3rd 07
CO US

7jinxed7

Posted: Sep 7th 2010, 07:43 PM

Glad to hear they took his side.

Joined:
Location:

Jul 15th 09
TN US

InstructorPyro

Posted: Sep 8th 2010, 12:09 AM

In California if you are drinking and carrying your CCW you are automatically wrong. It doesn't matter. The rules state that if you are going to drink you better leave your peace at home. But since this didn't happen in California, it went down the way it should. But I did notice the article left a lot of blank spots.

1. Where did the 7 arrest come from?

2. If one guy pulled a gun on him, why did he shoot them both?

3. Did the other guy grab the gun after he shot the first guy? The reason I ask this is because in most cases when there is an armed man and an unarmed man, and you shoot the armed man, the unarmed man doesn't usually put up a fight after that.

I'm just curious. What are your thoughts Tac? I did happen in your neck of the woods anyway.

Joined:
Location:

May 22nd 08
CA US

Room 055

Posted: Sep 8th 2010, 01:36 AM

Sounds like a justified shoot.

The thing I find funny, if you can find something funny with something like this, is that the two men didn't feel they got their "$2" worth??? They must have been drinking like pansies.

Even before VA passed the right to conceal in an establishment that served alcohol, I always did anyways. I don't drink much in the first place, but I still go out with friends. I'm going to defend my life and those around me with appropriate force, even if some liberal law says I should die instead of shoot some asshole that pulls a gun on me. There is no reason a responsible civilian shouldn't be able to have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner and still be able to defend themselves.

Joined:
Location:

Jan 8th 09
VA US

Trilarian

Posted: Sep 8th 2010, 12:43 PM

All in all, I say completely justified and would probably be the same if it were me. If I was hosting, I wouldn't be sloppy drunk, and would want to carry in case just such an incident arises. Always better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

Louisiana law is a little weird in this arena... You are not allowed to have your piece with you in an establishment that serves alcohol. However, if you drink some, leave, and defend yourself in public on the way home... you are OK as long as you are under the 0.05% BAC. That comes to roughly two beers, or one glass of wine per hour (though it overlaps, so consecutive hours push you higher). If you are home and someone breaks in you can be drunk off your ass as long as the intruder is forcibly entering and not someone you don't recognize by being drunk or someone you invited. All rights are waived if an illegal substance is found in your blood/urine. So this case would have conflicting laws, your home doesn't have a limit on consumption, but you invited guest by having a party and then served alcohol which would make it a gun-free zone. The home law usually takes precedence, but I could see a lawyer pushing that if the person shot survives and wants to sue for medical.

I still carry when I go out knowing I'll end up at a bar or two. The need for protection doesn't disappear because I ducked in a bar for an hour. I also haven't been shit faced drunk in many years, and if I did plan to be that wasted I do so at home. Public drinking always stops at slightly buzzed latest as I want to be coherent enough to asses my situation at all times.

Joined:
Location:

Jan 7th 09
LA US

foxtrot

Posted: Sep 8th 2010, 03:41 PM

asses

The old adage applies.. better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

laws are created on the assumption that the average person does not have any logical process, nor reasoning, nor common sense; and that they will carry a legal book around them to be their ethical guide. They are also created on the flawed assumption that they will all be followed by the public at large. This is why the 5th Amendment truthfully exists. It was not written to protect the guilty, it was written to protect the morally innocent from flawed legislation or character.

Joined:
Location:

Sep 3rd 07
CO US

Tac56

Posted: Sep 8th 2010, 10:30 PM

IP, I don't know any more details about the shoot that the attached news article reports, but here in Az. there is not "standard" for alcohol/self defense. It all boils down to a "reasonableness standard"; if a "reasonable person" in the same or similar situation would reasonable react in the same manner, then you are good to go...

As far as shooting the second guy (only one was resported to be armed when the CCW shot them both), I don't know the curcumstance, but I can think of several situations where he would be justified... For instance, the first gang-banger was continuing the assault with knocked him down (uncouncious?) and he shot him to prevent "serious physical injury or death" as a result of the unarmed suspect's assault, and the second gang-banger produced a gun, and CCW then shoots and kills him too.... (Spit-balling here, so don't hold me to that as being the case in this situation)

As for the "7 arrests".... Az. has the "felony murder law" that says if, during the commission of a felony, ANYONE is killed (suspect or victim), any accomplices can be charged with Murder for the resulting death. Most "gang-bangers" don't travel alone in these parts, and if that is the case and the gang-bangers buddies were in on the original fight/assault that resulted in the shooting, they can be charged under the felony murder law, if their participation is found to have been significant enought to charge them with a portion of the original crime that set the events in motion.

In Az. an assault where more than two people engage in the assault of a single victim, it is considered "Aggravated assault" and an automatic felony... and you CAN shoot someone justifiably to stop an "Aggravated assault", under Az. law.

The two "beer-fueled bullet sponges" in this incident were already documented gang members before this incident began, so it's not a big stretch to figure that the guy with the clean background and CCW would be looked at favorably in this incident from the begining, but I am sure that there were a significant number of witnesses to the incident that stuck around to tell their story to the cops, who were also on the CCW's side of the fence....

-Tac

Joined:
Location:

Jul 21st 09
AZ US

John Doe

Posted: Apr 17th 2011, 08:46 PM

I do so love reading about the goings on in the free states. Good for the CCW carrier. AZ is the balls.

Joined:
Location:

Jan 1st 10
MA US

xdshooter

Posted: Apr 17th 2011, 11:33 PM

I'm with you Fox. Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6.

Which makes the question of why he shot both, when only one drew a gun, pretty easy to answer. Under the circumstances, you have to make split second judgement calls. It's so easy to analyze an event later, under calm conditions, with infinite time on your hands. But when it happens, you decide and you act in the blink of an eye. I could see where a person in that condition, once he's seen one gun come into play, could easily and reasonably assume that there could be others, and proceed accordingly.

Joined:
Location:

Dec 29th 10
MO US

John Doe

Posted: Apr 18th 2011, 11:57 AM

Here in the PCRM they call it "Acting in concert", meaning if one gang banger is doing it, all his companions are considered accomplices. Therefore, they are all committing armed assault.

Joined:
Location:

Jan 1st 10
MA US

Slow99TA

Posted: Jul 6th 2011, 04:41 PM

Even though this is kind of old, I had to say this. I live down the street from where that happened, and when I was on the way back from Firebird that night, the road was closed, and I told my buddy (from the looks of things that I could see), "it was probably a shooting". Well damn. Is there a follow up story on if the 3rd person got charged with the murder of his two friends?

Joined:
Location:

Jul 6th 11
AZ US

Back to General Concealed Carry Discussion

Navigation

Front Page

Forums

Search Forums

Users/Login