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.
IF the robber was really going to ambush the cop he’s good to go. If he just shot at a fleeing robber who wasn’t shooting at him he’s in the wrong. This is the first I’ve heard of the ambush perspective. Is it true or a “reason”?
IF the robber was really going to ambush the cop he’s good to go. If he just shot at a fleeing robber who wasn’t shooting at him he’s in the wrong. This is the first I’ve heard of the ambush perspective. Is it true or a “reason”?
You never know what someone else sees or knows or how they interpet it.
So many people bring their own prejudices and attitudes to every single thing in the news and reshape reality in their minds to fit their beliefs. Those who oppose the right of citizens to be armed and to defend themselves and others will see any action by an armed citizen as suspect, criminal or reckless. Some who support the Second Ammendment and the right to self defense will hail anyone who fires a shot at a criminal as a hero regardless of the circumstances.
People need to apply some objectivity and logic instead of constantly riding the same hobby horse.
You never know what someone else sees or knows or how they interpet it.
So many people bring their own prejudices and attitudes to every single thing in the news and reshape reality in their minds to fit their beliefs. Those who oppose the right of citizens to be armed and to defend themselves and others will see any action by an armed citizen as suspect, criminal or reckless. Some who support the Second Ammendment and the right to self defense will hail anyone who fires a shot at a criminal as a hero regardless of the circumstances.
People need to apply some objectivity and logic instead of constantly riding the same hobby horse.
Given the citizen articulated ambush prevention of an armed felon against a cop, I am OK with the shoot given his concern for the officer in the moment.
If he hadnt articulated that situation and was just firing at the fleeing felon who was not showing a threat to the CHL holder via a pointed gun back at him and the fleeing felon was just running away, then no.
Actually, that’s quite a heads up tactical response from the CHL holder.
Given the citizen articulated ambush prevention of an armed felon against a cop, I am OK with the shoot given his concern for the officer in the moment.
If he hadnt articulated that situation and was just firing at the fleeing felon who was not showing a threat to the CHL holder via a pointed gun back at him and the fleeing felon was just running away, then no.
Actually, that’s quite a heads up tactical response from the CHL holder.
Marc, I’m told that first appeared in commentary on another IL paper’s article on the matter.
Marc, I’m told that first appeared in commentary on another IL paper’s article on the matter.
The first thing you can learn (or re-learn, or have confirmed) is that the media ALWAYS gets it wrong. Especially if there is a firearm of some sort involved, and more especially if it’s a handgun or a dreaded, “Deadly Assault Rifle.”
And they can get it wrong by leaving things out, making things up and assuming other things. The rush to be the first to get something, ANYTHING on the air first leads to all sorts of confusion. Look at all the blather that went on the air in the moments immediately following the 9/11 attacks.
A couple of previous posters read more into the report than was there. My interpretation is that the shooter claimed he was firing warning shots, not shooting at the fleeing robber. Although that goes to the shooter’s frame of mind, which may have undergone modification between the time he shot and when he had to explain himself to the cops, after he had a bit of time to think things over. He could have been making excuses for poor marksmanship (understandable, given the stress of the situation) by claiming to be firing warning shots. Or he could have been trying to tone down the circumstances by claiming to be just firing warning shots. Given the statement from the detective, he was no doubt vigorously and thoroughly interviewed by the cops following the incident.
The first thing that came to my mind was, why would you fire a “warning shot” at someone running away? If you have convinced an armed robber to flee, isn’t that mission accomplished? Or are you so pissed off at having someone attempt to rob you that you decide to give them further encouragement to flee faster and not come back for a second try (honestly, I can see that happening, might even do it myself given what I know about me)? Wouldn’t you simply yell at the approaching officer? You can defiantly get someone’s attention by firing a gun, especially in a high stress situation where an officer is responding to a report of a robbery in progress. But it may not be the sort of attention you want. I can imagine a scenario where you find yourself receiving return fire from BOTH the criminal and the officer, who both think they are defending themselves from a shooter.
Stranger things have happened.
The first thing you can learn (or re-learn, or have confirmed) is that the media ALWAYS gets it wrong. Especially if there is a firearm of some sort involved, and more especially if it’s a handgun or a dreaded, “Deadly Assault Rifle.”
And they can get it wrong by leaving things out, making things up and assuming other things. The rush to be the first to get something, ANYTHING on the air first leads to all sorts of confusion. Look at all the blather that went on the air in the moments immediately following the 9/11 attacks.
A couple of previous posters read more into the report than was there. My interpretation is that the shooter claimed he was firing warning shots, not shooting at the fleeing robber. Although that goes to the shooter’s frame of mind, which may have undergone modification between the time he shot and when he had to explain himself to the cops, after he had a bit of time to think things over. He could have been making excuses for poor marksmanship (understandable, given the stress of the situation) by claiming to be firing warning shots. Or he could have been trying to tone down the circumstances by claiming to be just firing warning shots. Given the statement from the detective, he was no doubt vigorously and thoroughly interviewed by the cops following the incident.
The first thing that came to my mind was, why would you fire a “warning shot” at someone running away? If you have convinced an armed robber to flee, isn’t that mission accomplished? Or are you so pissed off at having someone attempt to rob you that you decide to give them further encouragement to flee faster and not come back for a second try (honestly, I can see that happening, might even do it myself given what I know about me)? Wouldn’t you simply yell at the approaching officer? You can defiantly get someone’s attention by firing a gun, especially in a high stress situation where an officer is responding to a report of a robbery in progress. But it may not be the sort of attention you want. I can imagine a scenario where you find yourself receiving return fire from BOTH the criminal and the officer, who both think they are defending themselves from a shooter.
Stranger things have happened.
The first thing you can learn (or re-learn, or have confirmed) is that the media ALWAYS gets it wrong. Especially if there is a firearm of some sort involved, and more especially if it’s a handgun or a dreaded, “Deadly Assault Rifle.”
And they can get it wrong by leaving things out, making things up and assuming other things. The rush to be the first to get something, ANYTHING on the air first leads to all sorts of confusion. Look at all the blather that went on the air in the moments immediately following the 9/11 attacks.
A couple of previous posters read more into the report than was there. My interpretation is that the shooter claimed he was firing warning shots, not shooting at the fleeing robber. Although that goes to the shooter’s frame of mind, which may have undergone modification between the time he shot and when he had to explain himself to the cops, after he had a bit of time to think things over. He could have been making excuses for poor marksmanship (understandable, given the stress of the situation) by claiming to be firing warning shots. Or he could have been trying to tone down the circumstances by claiming to be just firing warning shots. Given the statement from the detective, he was no doubt vigorously and thoroughly interviewed by the cops following the incident.
The first thing that came to my mind was, why would you fire a “warning shot” at someone running away? If you have convinced an armed robber to flee, isn’t that mission accomplished? Or are you so pissed off at having someone attempt to rob you that you decide to give them further encouragement to flee faster and not come back for a second try (honestly, I can see that happening, might even do it myself given what I know about me)? Wouldn’t you simply yell at the approaching officer? You can defiantly get someone’s attention by firing a gun, especially in a high stress situation where an officer is responding to a report of a robbery in progress. But it may not be the sort of attention you want. I can imagine a scenario where you find yourself receiving return fire from BOTH the criminal and the officer, who both think they are defending themselves from a shooter.
Stranger things have happened.
I agree with RonS, objectivity sometimes loses out to personal biases.
I think this armed citizen lucked out on this incident because his actions appear to be subject to the judgement of a department that takes into consideration both the final outcome and the intent of the armed good guy.
Had the lead investigators on this incident had the biases of the retired Chicago detective, the armed good guy would be in the beginning stages of having his life destroyed ” to teach him a lesson”, good intentions and good outcome be damned.
Having said that, not being there as it went down, I need more information before critiquing this citizens actions, but as a general rule never fire warning shots (especially in an populated area) and only to stop a deadly attack upon yourself or another. If the robber had turned to confront the pursuing officer, shoot the SOB. If the robber had ducked behind cover and was waiting to ambush, shoot the SOB. If he pointed the weapon at you or any innocent bystander, shoot the SOB. Other than this don’t interject yourself except to observe and act if the scenario changes.
I agree with RonS, objectivity sometimes loses out to personal biases.
I think this armed citizen lucked out on this incident because his actions appear to be subject to the judgement of a department that takes into consideration both the final outcome and the intent of the armed good guy.
Had the lead investigators on this incident had the biases of the retired Chicago detective, the armed good guy would be in the beginning stages of having his life destroyed ” to teach him a lesson”, good intentions and good outcome be damned.
Having said that, not being there as it went down, I need more information before critiquing this citizens actions, but as a general rule never fire warning shots (especially in an populated area) and only to stop a deadly attack upon yourself or another. If the robber had turned to confront the pursuing officer, shoot the SOB. If the robber had ducked behind cover and was waiting to ambush, shoot the SOB. If he pointed the weapon at you or any innocent bystander, shoot the SOB. Other than this don’t interject yourself except to observe and act if the scenario changes.
I agree with RonS, objectivity sometimes loses out to personal biases.
I think this armed citizen lucked out on this incident because his actions appear to be subject to the judgement of a department that takes into consideration both the final outcome and the intent of the armed good guy.
Had the lead investigators on this incident had the biases of the retired Chicago detective, the armed good guy would be in the beginning stages of having his life destroyed ” to teach him a lesson”, good intentions and good outcome be damned.
Having said that, not being there as it went down, I need more information before critiquing this citizens actions, but as a general rule never fire warning shots (especially in an populated area) and only to stop a deadly attack upon yourself or another. If the robber had turned to confront the pursuing officer, shoot the SOB. If the robber had ducked behind cover and was waiting to ambush, shoot the SOB. If he pointed the weapon at you or any innocent bystander, shoot the SOB. Other than this don’t interject yourself except to observe and act if the scenario changes.
What ever happened to “an armed fleeing felon, who is a danger to the shooter, and other unknown persons he may encouter along his line of flight”, as a justifcation for firing at the felon?
Paul
What ever happened to “an armed fleeing felon, who is a danger to the shooter, and other unknown persons he may encouter along his line of flight”, as a justifcation for firing at the felon?
Paul
What ever happened to “an armed fleeing felon, who is a danger to the shooter, and other unknown persons he may encouter along his line of flight”, as a justifcation for firing at the felon?
Paul
First, the ambush prevention scenario sounds to me to be the concoction of a slick attorney for the armed civilian.
Secondly, in my opinion, sometimes armed civilians get involved in situations where they are lacking the full picture or enough information to act responsibly. How did he know the running armed man wasn’t a plainclothes detective or the owner of the store just robbed.
Finally, since we all know firing warning shots can be a danger to all persons in the vicinity, would it not be more prudent to have loudly vocalized the possible ambush to the pursuing officer?
His intentions may have been good, he is, however, lucky that he doesn’t have a court date to contend with, and he certainly doesn’t help the civilian carry movement.
First, the ambush prevention scenario sounds to me to be the concoction of a slick attorney for the armed civilian.
Secondly, in my opinion, sometimes armed civilians get involved in situations where they are lacking the full picture or enough information to act responsibly. How did he know the running armed man wasn’t a plainclothes detective or the owner of the store just robbed.
Finally, since we all know firing warning shots can be a danger to all persons in the vicinity, would it not be more prudent to have loudly vocalized the possible ambush to the pursuing officer?
His intentions may have been good, he is, however, lucky that he doesn’t have a court date to contend with, and he certainly doesn’t help the civilian carry movement.
First, the ambush prevention scenario sounds to me to be the concoction of a slick attorney for the armed civilian.
Secondly, in my opinion, sometimes armed civilians get involved in situations where they are lacking the full picture or enough information to act responsibly. How did he know the running armed man wasn’t a plainclothes detective or the owner of the store just robbed.
Finally, since we all know firing warning shots can be a danger to all persons in the vicinity, would it not be more prudent to have loudly vocalized the possible ambush to the pursuing officer?
His intentions may have been good, he is, however, lucky that he doesn’t have a court date to contend with, and he certainly doesn’t help the civilian carry movement.
Just going by what I’ve read so far, I would say the civilian had not updated his training. In the past, it was taught that warning shots were OK. The civilian is 54-years-old, so he probably remembers those days. Today, we are taught not to fire warning shots. If he was concerned for the LEO, why not shout, “Watch out for the bad guy!”?
It would be nice to see a video re-enactment of the incident.
Just going by what I’ve read so far, I would say the civilian had not updated his training. In the past, it was taught that warning shots were OK. The civilian is 54-years-old, so he probably remembers those days. Today, we are taught not to fire warning shots. If he was concerned for the LEO, why not shout, “Watch out for the bad guy!”?
It would be nice to see a video re-enactment of the incident.
Just going by what I’ve read so far, I would say the civilian had not updated his training. In the past, it was taught that warning shots were OK. The civilian is 54-years-old, so he probably remembers those days. Today, we are taught not to fire warning shots. If he was concerned for the LEO, why not shout, “Watch out for the bad guy!”?
It would be nice to see a video re-enactment of the incident.
Porchodo was ok until he revealed his prejudices. His was a knee-jerk reaction – before he had all the facts. Until proven otherwise, we must assume the shooter is truthful – which does make him a good guy – don’t know if he’s a hero. Mas – you have talked about this before – some leo’s (rightfully so sometimes) cannot accept “civilians” with firearms. No one said this was gonna be easy folks!
Porchodo was ok until he revealed his prejudices. His was a knee-jerk reaction – before he had all the facts. Until proven otherwise, we must assume the shooter is truthful – which does make him a good guy – don’t know if he’s a hero. Mas – you have talked about this before – some leo’s (rightfully so sometimes) cannot accept “civilians” with firearms. No one said this was gonna be easy folks!
Porchodo was ok until he revealed his prejudices. His was a knee-jerk reaction – before he had all the facts. Until proven otherwise, we must assume the shooter is truthful – which does make him a good guy – don’t know if he’s a hero. Mas – you have talked about this before – some leo’s (rightfully so sometimes) cannot accept “civilians” with firearms. No one said this was gonna be easy folks!
I think the citizen acted properly as the robbery was going down. How many “average” people would have noticed what was going down and kept others out of the store? And being a good witness following the perp out the back to watch where he went is commendable. Then things get a little murky. He showed great situational awareness. I hope he wasn’t just blasting at the perp’s back.
I think the citizen acted properly as the robbery was going down. How many “average” people would have noticed what was going down and kept others out of the store? And being a good witness following the perp out the back to watch where he went is commendable. Then things get a little murky. He showed great situational awareness. I hope he wasn’t just blasting at the perp’s back.
I think the citizen acted properly as the robbery was going down. How many “average” people would have noticed what was going down and kept others out of the store? And being a good witness following the perp out the back to watch where he went is commendable. Then things get a little murky. He showed great situational awareness. I hope he wasn’t just blasting at the perp’s back.
I think ‘warning shots’ remain a very bad idea… the ‘your bullet, your lawsuit’ view point if the bullet(s) go astray. And the chance of prosecution by zealous ADA’s et al. We weren’t there and first reports are usually at least partially incorrect, but if he thought the LEO was in danger of ambush why fire warning shots? If the man had a shot at the armed felon setting the ambush, why not fire to stop and try to protect the LEO? Again, we weren’t there and there may actually be additional facts that will change our opinions, but for now, I remain against the use of warning shots. And then again, if you fire how does the LEO know who you are? A good guy or a bad guy?
I think ‘warning shots’ remain a very bad idea… the ‘your bullet, your lawsuit’ view point if the bullet(s) go astray. And the chance of prosecution by zealous ADA’s et al. We weren’t there and first reports are usually at least partially incorrect, but if he thought the LEO was in danger of ambush why fire warning shots? If the man had a shot at the armed felon setting the ambush, why not fire to stop and try to protect the LEO? Again, we weren’t there and there may actually be additional facts that will change our opinions, but for now, I remain against the use of warning shots. And then again, if you fire how does the LEO know who you are? A good guy or a bad guy?
Really tough to address without knowing the total situation. However, as a civilian it would take a lot for me to get involved in a shooting way in this general type situation.
I can envision the officer firing on me. At that point I can envision the bad guy shooting the officer from behind, as officer fires at me.
I doubt if yelling “AMBUSH, OFFICER LOOK TO YOUR RIGHT (wherever)” would cause the officer to fire on me. However, I would still like solid cover to get behind after I yelled.
Really tough to address without knowing the total situation. However, as a civilian it would take a lot for me to get involved in a shooting way in this general type situation.
I can envision the officer firing on me. At that point I can envision the bad guy shooting the officer from behind, as officer fires at me.
I doubt if yelling “AMBUSH, OFFICER LOOK TO YOUR RIGHT (wherever)” would cause the officer to fire on me. However, I would still like solid cover to get behind after I yelled.
There is much to verify before a truly informed opinion can be posed. The CHL holder was golden when he prevented others from entering the store. After that, things get dicey. Firing warning shots is never a good idea unless you can be positive that the bullets cannot possibly harm anyone other than the perpetrator. If the shooter knew the cop was about to be ambushed he could have drawn fire from the cop as well as endanger bystanders. If he didn’t know about the cop, he was acting recklessly as there was no imminent deadly threat needing to be met with lethal force. Luckily, the bad guy was caught and nobody was harmed.
There is much to verify before a truly informed opinion can be posed. The CHL holder was golden when he prevented others from entering the store. After that, things get dicey. Firing warning shots is never a good idea unless you can be positive that the bullets cannot possibly harm anyone other than the perpetrator. If the shooter knew the cop was about to be ambushed he could have drawn fire from the cop as well as endanger bystanders. If he didn’t know about the cop, he was acting recklessly as there was no imminent deadly threat needing to be met with lethal force. Luckily, the bad guy was caught and nobody was harmed.
In some jurisdiction, to my surprise, “warning shots” are illegal! The ambush scenario is the only way this would be legal in North Carolina. In North Carolina, there are very few situations, outside the home, in which a CCW holder can legally fire their weapon.
A police officer told me of his chasing a felon across a snow-covered field. He fired two warning shots and the felon accelerated, driven by fear, making it impossible for him to catch the felon on foot.
In some jurisdiction, to my surprise, “warning shots” are illegal! The ambush scenario is the only way this would be legal in North Carolina. In North Carolina, there are very few situations, outside the home, in which a CCW holder can legally fire their weapon.
A police officer told me of his chasing a felon across a snow-covered field. He fired two warning shots and the felon accelerated, driven by fear, making it impossible for him to catch the felon on foot.
In some jurisdiction, to my surprise, “warning shots” are illegal! The ambush scenario is the only way this would be legal in North Carolina. In North Carolina, there are very few situations, outside the home, in which a CCW holder can legally fire their weapon.
A police officer told me of his chasing a felon across a snow-covered field. He fired two warning shots and the felon accelerated, driven by fear, making it impossible for him to catch the felon on foot.
Or, instead of warning shots, he could have simply shot AT the perp, not trusted God to bring his errant shots to safety.
Or, instead of warning shots, he could have simply shot AT the perp, not trusted God to bring his errant shots to safety.
Or, instead of warning shots, he could have simply shot AT the perp, not trusted God to bring his errant shots to safety.
the linked article says that the shooter “did not see the police officer in pursuit […] according to a Crestwood police detective”.
is it possible that the shooter’s initial statement to the police was that he did not see the PO in pursuit and his later [legally advised?] statement was that he did?
the retired detective does make valid points though, just in a condescending
tone.
the linked article says that the shooter “did not see the police officer in pursuit […] according to a Crestwood police detective”.
is it possible that the shooter’s initial statement to the police was that he did not see the PO in pursuit and his later [legally advised?] statement was that he did?
the retired detective does make valid points though, just in a condescending
tone.
the linked article says that the shooter “did not see the police officer in pursuit […] according to a Crestwood police detective”.
is it possible that the shooter’s initial statement to the police was that he did not see the PO in pursuit and his later [legally advised?] statement was that he did?
the retired detective does make valid points though, just in a condescending
tone.
My thoughts on this echo those of Tom V.
Only thing that bothers me is that the CHL holder said he fired what he called “warning shots”. All kinds of bad things can happen if warning shots go astray, so that is one reason why they are generally ill advised.
My thoughts on this echo those of Tom V.
Only thing that bothers me is that the CHL holder said he fired what he called “warning shots”. All kinds of bad things can happen if warning shots go astray, so that is one reason why they are generally ill advised.
Thank God no innocent bystanders were injured by the warning shots! I’ve always been taught that if you’re going to draw your weapon, you’d better be 100% sure of your target, and shoot to neutralize the attacker; no “warning” shots allowed!
Thank God no innocent bystanders were injured by the warning shots! I’ve always been taught that if you’re going to draw your weapon, you’d better be 100% sure of your target, and shoot to neutralize the attacker; no “warning” shots allowed!
I wasnt there so im not going to play armchair quarterback…the correct person is in jail and nobody got hurt. Fortunately the responding officer and the prosecutor believe that the shooters intent was pure.
I wasnt there so im not going to play armchair quarterback…the correct person is in jail and nobody got hurt. Fortunately the responding officer and the prosecutor believe that the shooters intent was pure.
Comments are closed.