A friend and graduate from Chicago passes along this story: http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/kadner/28958006-452/kadner-concealed-carry-shooting-incident-raises-questions.html#.U92YF_n6N7s .
An as yet unidentified law-abiding citizen in his fifties (erroneously said to be 86 in early reports) fires two warning shots at a fleeing armed robber. A police officer chasing the same robber breaks off the pursuit and takes cover, thinking he’s the one coming under fire. The suspect is captured anyway, and no one’s blood is shed.
In the story linked above, a retired detective calls the armed citizen an idiot for doing what he did, pointing out that among other things the officer could have shot him. But the investigating officers, and their department, and the prosecutor’s office take the armed citizen’s side and determine no charges will be brought.
And now comes a third side of the story, that the citizen saw the robber run out of the store, saw the officer come around the other side of the building, and believed the robber was about to ambush and murder the cop. The citizen is said to have fired to break the ambush and save the officer.
Moral of the story: wait for all sides’ viewpoints to come in before forming an opinion on what happened. And there may be more information yet to come regarding this particular incident.
Discussion invited.
@Novicelsh:
In general, warning shots are not recommended for the reasons you mentioned and more.
“….assailant/intruder if you intend to kill them.”
You don’t “shoot to kill”. You shoot to stop the aggressive actions that put you or other innocents in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
@Novicelsh:
In general, warning shots are not recommended for the reasons you mentioned and more.
“….assailant/intruder if you intend to kill them.”
You don’t “shoot to kill”. You shoot to stop the aggressive actions that put you or other innocents in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
Just a guess; the bystander new that he could not legally shoot the suspect, but thought that maybe a couple of warning shots would stop him. The story of warning the officer of an ambush, I believe, was concocted afterward.
Just a guess; the bystander new that he could not legally shoot the suspect, but thought that maybe a couple of warning shots would stop him. The story of warning the officer of an ambush, I believe, was concocted afterward.
If he really believed the officer’s life was in danger, he should have put the robber down.
If he really believed the officer’s life was in danger, he should have put the robber down.
If he really believed the officer’s life was in danger, he should have put the robber down.
I read this, and comments with great interest. My 20-ish years in municipal service causes me to comment on some preconceptions – which I expected Massad to have jumped-on early:
“SHOUT” at the officer. Sorry folks, but conversation goes out of your head in Condition Red. I’ve dozens of examples where warnings or directions, radioed or shouted, were unheeded, as the S had HTF.
“BADGE in your other hand”. There’s been dozens of incidents where the Color of the Day, the badge in hand, or on a neck chain, mattered not. Headlines read: Uniformed officers gun down plainclothes/off-duty/undercover officer.
IF I’m not “known to” the responding officer (in a positive light) then I’m at equal risk with the perpetrator, of being shot. 40 years ago in the revolver era? Maybe not. Today, with the clear leather, empty magazine, combat reload, keep firing mentality?
(Main Street USA treated as Fallujah Iraq)
I’m not taking chances. Not a lot of retirees would, as we’re not recognized as part of the solution. Not any more.
I read this, and comments with great interest. My 20-ish years in municipal service causes me to comment on some preconceptions – which I expected Massad to have jumped-on early:
“SHOUT” at the officer. Sorry folks, but conversation goes out of your head in Condition Red. I’ve dozens of examples where warnings or directions, radioed or shouted, were unheeded, as the S had HTF.
“BADGE in your other hand”. There’s been dozens of incidents where the Color of the Day, the badge in hand, or on a neck chain, mattered not. Headlines read: Uniformed officers gun down plainclothes/off-duty/undercover officer.
IF I’m not “known to” the responding officer (in a positive light) then I’m at equal risk with the perpetrator, of being shot. 40 years ago in the revolver era? Maybe not. Today, with the clear leather, empty magazine, combat reload, keep firing mentality?
(Main Street USA treated as Fallujah Iraq)
I’m not taking chances. Not a lot of retirees would, as we’re not recognized as part of the solution. Not any more.
Comments are closed.