Sounds like a movie script, doesn’t it?
As always, we have to wait for all the facts to be in. At this time, authorities are indicating there will be no charges.
Brings us to an interesting theory, though.
If you are present, without society’s designated protectors there, or likely to get there in time, that’s when you become the “first responder” to the emergency, and you might be the only one there who can determine whether the innocent victim survives or not.
That’s why we encourage every responsible person to know first aid, in case there are now emergency medical professionals there when it happens. To save life and ward off the death of the innocent, until the designated paramedics or emergency medical technicians have too long an ETA (estimated time of arrival) when the victim is going to die unless they’re treated NOW.
That’s why we encourage every citizen to have fire extinguishers, and know how and when to use them, when the conflagration is right here, right now, and the firefighters are ETA distant. So innocent victims are saved from things that will kill them or horribly maim them unless they are protected NOW.
And that’s why, when the monster is about to kill someone you love, you need an emergency rescue tool to stop that from happening, if the police aren’t there NOW to stop them for you and time has run out.
This is why I have, for decades now, taught that the defensive firearm is directly analogous to the fire extinguisher you’d find in any well prepared home in the civilized world.
There will be those who will say that the rescuers in this case “took the law into their own hands.” Well, when a person with a compound fracture of the leg lies in front of you and the medics aren’t there yet, is it not right and just to lay hands on the inured limb, apply traction, and take the injury “into your own hands”? If the fire is burning now and you can stop it with the extinguisher, are you wrong to pick up that device and smother the deadly fire “with your own hands”?
And if the law lies broken in front of you, should YOU not take it into your own hands to apply the equivalent of life-saving direct pressure or the agony-reducing traction with those very hands?
Discussion is invited…
MR. ARCENEAUX IS A HERO!! I WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING!!!!
There is no such thing as “taking the law into (ones) own hands”. Self-defense and defense of others is very much a construction OF, and entirely WITHIN, the law. We can not continue to let this meme propagate, that mere Citizens are not permitted to take action, that they must wait for government officials to tell them what to do. That is incredibly dangerous to the existence of freedom and liberty in a democratic republic.
In Southport, NC within the past couple days a cop murdered in cold blood a 90 lb kid in his on home while the kid was on the floor subdued by 2 other cops. When will society address the real monsters among us? The punk thug cops that are routinely murdering innocent Americans on a daily basis and walking away scot free.
Being trained, prepared and willing to help your fellow man is what is required here.
My favorite analogy is: I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.
As a society we can forgive a mistake of the head but not of the heart.
React in good faith as any reasonable person would do and you and loved ones or neighbors will live another day.
THE BIG LIE -YOU HAVE POLICE TO PROTECT YOU
When that is understood, your responsibility to protect the lives and liberty of those you love is clear.
The right to life and liberty is simply a recognition that the responsibility is of such importance to society, that government must do what it can to ensure that you can fulfill your responsibility.
I am just and old retired soldier, oldest brother was a retired police officer. We used to joke about who had more rules to follow. Thing is defending one’s self, family and friends is a moral duty. Just as it was my duty in the army to defend my fellow soldiers. Now in reaching old age and with failing health and condition that rather indicates using a weapon more than it did when I could disarm nearly anyone but a skilled long range sniper. This situation was pretty clear from what I have read. Some mor difficult to sort out. I am willing to defend those in need as I once was to defend the nation. My oath still binds me, as it should police and family members.
evaluate the situation, act, I rather with something I did than withwhat I neglected to do.
see 1st comment : I’d rather LIVE with something I did than something I neglected to do
Pissed Off, one thing I’ve learned over decades working in the criminal justice system is that it’s a good idea to wait until an incident has been investigated before tossing around terms like “murdered,” “punk,” and “thugs.” None of us can judge until we’ve had both sides of the story.
If you have read and understand our constitution. You have the duty to intervene in a criminal situation as an American citizen. Yes I would stop an armed robbery as I carry 24/7. My carry weapon is rarely ever outside of arms reach. And yes I have been involved with firearms since I was 2 years old and have had more training than most active military. I will be 50 in a few days and have NEVER shot anyone, BUT I have used my weapon in various altercations to DIFFUSE the aggression. Sometimes the mere sight of a firearm STOPS a crime.
first the police have no responsibility to protect you or your own. if they can get there and do so great, but that is a big if. if you get involved with using deadly force you can very well expect to go through the court system and it will cost you dearly + you should have a spare gun because the gun that you was used to protect your self or someone else will be confiscated. i personally could not stand by and watch someone being hurt rob or abused without interference. the police should not be doing that them selves and certainly should identity them selves. know if you are in that situation and decide to help do your best to resolve the situation. you will be held accountable for whatever happens. if the individual is unarmed you can not just shoot him. unless he is beating someone to death and does not respond to your commands. if he starts running away unarmed let him go. the table stakes change if he is armed whether his attention is on someone else or you. if he is robbing someone with a deadly force weapon and you have a clean back stop you have the right to end the problem. even a determined knife attacker with in a few feet excluding a brain shot will probably kill you before he dies of his injuries. same applies to any crime that is worse then robbery. if he has a weapon i would not start yelling demands just find a clean back stop and finish the job. if someone is running away and has not harmed anyone even if he has you prize tv let him go. that is not justifiable. one less armed criminal will not be missed by many. you are not responsible for people other then you and your own, but as a person in a society it helps the society as a whole to try and make better. when you start acting out with arms that changes the picture dramatically. it also opens the door to deadly force. i do try to be a logical person so anyone that sees a flaw in my response please point it out to me. anyone that is in the need of no learning should not be listened to, they do not know much. have a happy and safe new year. peace!!!