What do you mean “good clean DGU”? He was standing his ground in a state with no duty to retreat. You can’t demonize Florida’s laws and call this incident good at the same time.
I don't get ya, TS. People should be required to retreat. And when necessary, they should be allowed to defend themselves in this way. No conflict that I can see.
Of course there is a conflict. He made no attempt to run away- he was standing his ground from 16ft. You could even call him a “vigilante” for intervening to help others.
The only difference between this case, and one you call a problem is that no one was shot. That was the decision of the knife wielding maniac because he chose to put the knife down and sit on the ground. Had he charged and ended up with a bullet in him, you’d be screaming about how bad Stand Your Ground laws are, and how this is one of those “so-called DGUs”.
You may have a point, TS. The outcome does affect how we judge a situation. Of course, we don't know if this guy would have shot even if the bad guy refused to put the knife down.
More importantly, I don't think the retreat idea applies when the danger persists. In other words the concealed carry guy can't run away and let the criminal kill other people. The retreat is more about a one-on-one confrontation, let's say an argument that's escalating to a dangerous point. In that case the armed guy must back down if possible.
But not in Florida and many other of your favorite places.
Here we have the impossible: A good citizen with a carry license who uses his gun in a crowded marketplace to stop a dangerous man without anyone getting hurt. Don't let Dog Gone see this, or her brain will go through a hard reboot.
This incident does indicate a "flaw" if you will with the "duty to retreat" doctrine. Had the armed citizen simply retreated -- and even if the couple managed to successfully retreat with their infant -- the criminal would have simply sought another victim. If that victim were not able to flee successfully, they would have been severely injured. But because the armed citizen did intervene, the criminal didn't hurt anyone.
There is a slippery slope in these situations. At one extreme, you have overzealous vigilante types causing problems. At the other extreme, violent criminals injure/kill people by the droves during the several minutes it takes law enforcement to arrive on seen.
I believe this is one of those instances where there isn't a perfect answer in the real world. Sometimes overzealous vigilantes will act in a criminal manner. And other times criminals will injure citizens because a potential good Samaritan could have but failed to intervene.
In my mind it is best for society to err on the side of being more willing to intervene rather than less willing to intervene.
This case also shows that the police didn't seem to have any trouble sorting out the situation when they arrived. Nothing in this story indicates that the police almost shot the armed citizen.
This is important. It is hard to describe in a few words but I think the police are pretty capable of deciding almost instantly who the "good guys" are and who the "bad guys" are when they arrive on scene.
That said, I figure it is a good idea to make the decision for the police arriving on scene as easy as possible. When I carry in public, I dress nicely and look "clean cut". While it is entirely possible that a criminal would look just as nice as I do, most of the time they don't. And that is an edge that I can and do exploit.
What do you mean “good clean DGU”? He was standing his ground in a state with no duty to retreat. You can’t demonize Florida’s laws and call this incident good at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI don't get ya, TS. People should be required to retreat. And when necessary, they should be allowed to defend themselves in this way. No conflict that I can see.
DeleteOf course there is a conflict. He made no attempt to run away- he was standing his ground from 16ft. You could even call him a “vigilante” for intervening to help others.
DeleteThe only difference between this case, and one you call a problem is that no one was shot. That was the decision of the knife wielding maniac because he chose to put the knife down and sit on the ground. Had he charged and ended up with a bullet in him, you’d be screaming about how bad Stand Your Ground laws are, and how this is one of those “so-called DGUs”.
You may have a point, TS. The outcome does affect how we judge a situation. Of course, we don't know if this guy would have shot even if the bad guy refused to put the knife down.
DeleteMore importantly, I don't think the retreat idea applies when the danger persists. In other words the concealed carry guy can't run away and let the criminal kill other people. The retreat is more about a one-on-one confrontation, let's say an argument that's escalating to a dangerous point. In that case the armed guy must back down if possible.
But not in Florida and many other of your favorite places.
Now that is an interesting perspective MikeB ... an obligation to deescalate one-on-one confrontations which grow out of a simple argument.
DeleteI'll have to think about the ramifications of that.
Just one more example of a gun doing more good than harm.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Well, it is ONE example.
DeleteMikeb, as I've said before, how often do you see the headline, "Plane Lands Safely?" It is not news, but it happens everyday.
Deleteorlin sellers
Here we have the impossible: A good citizen with a carry license who uses his gun in a crowded marketplace to stop a dangerous man without anyone getting hurt. Don't let Dog Gone see this, or her brain will go through a hard reboot.
ReplyDeleteThis incident does indicate a "flaw" if you will with the "duty to retreat" doctrine. Had the armed citizen simply retreated -- and even if the couple managed to successfully retreat with their infant -- the criminal would have simply sought another victim. If that victim were not able to flee successfully, they would have been severely injured. But because the armed citizen did intervene, the criminal didn't hurt anyone.
ReplyDeleteThere is a slippery slope in these situations. At one extreme, you have overzealous vigilante types causing problems. At the other extreme, violent criminals injure/kill people by the droves during the several minutes it takes law enforcement to arrive on seen.
I believe this is one of those instances where there isn't a perfect answer in the real world. Sometimes overzealous vigilantes will act in a criminal manner. And other times criminals will injure citizens because a potential good Samaritan could have but failed to intervene.
In my mind it is best for society to err on the side of being more willing to intervene rather than less willing to intervene.
This case also shows that the police didn't seem to have any trouble sorting out the situation when they arrived. Nothing in this story indicates that the police almost shot the armed citizen.
ReplyDeleteThis is important. It is hard to describe in a few words but I think the police are pretty capable of deciding almost instantly who the "good guys" are and who the "bad guys" are when they arrive on scene.
That said, I figure it is a good idea to make the decision for the police arriving on scene as easy as possible. When I carry in public, I dress nicely and look "clean cut". While it is entirely possible that a criminal would look just as nice as I do, most of the time they don't. And that is an edge that I can and do exploit.
No dead bodies helped to police sort it out, don't you think?
Delete"Just ONE example of a gun doing more good than harm."
ReplyDeleteTFTFY.