US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Gallstones]

Two people wounded in a gun fight. No other witnesses mentioned. There is every reason to doubt BOTH versions, till better evidence shows up. If the two have different versions, there is no reason to favour one over the other.
That's why I wrote, don't believe everything you read.

Feel free to investigate further and get back to us. Until then, or until the story is corrected, I'll go with the existing reportage.

Why? There is no mention of independent witnesses. And it's FOX doing the reporting. I see no reason to believe or disbelieve any of it.
I suppose it's written, so you believe it, like any good christian.

I find it interesting that you don't seem to have any problem accepting the news reports on things you favor, but you're skeptical of ones that disfavor your opinions.

I don't believe either version when two people have shot each other. I EXPECT people to lie in those circumstances.
Who is lying and who's telling the truth you sort out by evidence, not by website reporting.
Presumably the reporter wasn't there at the scene, yet he gives no account of how he knows what happened.

Dismissing information out of hand just because you don't like the source is not logical.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This thread is full of

[borealis]

Guns don't kill people, mid-terms kill people.

Guns certainly don't seem to have killed anyone in this case.

Yep, and that's the most important thing. But if the attacker had been the only one armed, there victim would probably be laid out on a slab by now.

Or then neither of them would have been shot. When someone is pointing a gun at you, wants money and you are unarmed, usually normal person would just give the money and nobody gets hurt. Usually there is no point for attacker kill the cooperative victim, unless he/she tries something stupid (like trying to reach a gun or start a fight, run away etc). According to studies, people who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, even when confounding factors are taken in account.

[Seth]

I did. Story is in essence... people with guns shoot each other.

Wrong. Story in essence: Innocent victim successfully defends himself and removes murderous robber from streets.

Successfully defends himself? Fuck right off. You had it right in your last post, he should have pulled his gun out prior to it escalating, he didn't, he got shot, in no way is that a successful defence. My statement stands.

He's alive, the perp is wounded and in custody. Certainly it could have gone better, in particular he should have had better tactical positioning and cover when being approached by a suspicious party, but since I don't know the precise layout, it's difficult to determine what, if anything he could have, or had time to do.

In response to the comments about when to pull a gun, it's generally correct that you can't "felony menace" someone by drawing too soon, but all that is required is that you reasonably believe you are in danger. Remember, drawing a weapon and holding it at your side and NOT pointed at the suspect, or even just having your hand on the gun in its holster may thwart the intentions of the assailant and decrease your reaction time.

In this situation, without knowing what preceded the first shot, how much time was involved, what the precise locations of the assailants were, how close they were, what they said and did prior to drawing a gun, it is of course very difficult to tactically analyze his response. Still, he survived, though not through any deterrent effect of his handgun, but he did manage to return fire and take out the shooter so that he didn't escape justice, which is a marginal success even if the victim dies in the end.

So, it's a relative success at least, although not an unqualified one.

[Seth]

In TN, where I took the class and the tests and got a carry permit, it's illegal to pull your weapon before the threat materializes. If you pull your weapon too soon, you can go to jail. If the guy's standing there yelling at you, but not attacking you, you have no legal basis to show your weapon as a threat against escalation. You gotta wait until the other guy makes it a physical threat. In this case, the attacker made it a threat by pulling his weapon and firing first. Not just showing it, but shooting. Not many options to choose from there. Lie down and passively accept getting shot or pulling your own weapon and returning fire. I'd go with Option B, too. It gives one's DNA a little more chance at replicating itself for a while longer.

Really? So if you had a gun in that situation where they were being clearly being threatening you would have waited until you had been shot first or would you have taken the risk that you might end up in jail? Personally I'd have went for the former. I'm not anti-gun, I just don't think this guy did anything heroic or worth laudation.

I would have waited until the aggressor posed a demonstrable physical threat. The way I understand it, the aggressor demanded money, the victim refused, the aggressor pulled a gun and shot the victim, the victim returned fire. Maybe the aggressor waved the gun around a while first, maybe not. I wasn't there. But if guy A pulls a gun and guy B pulls a gun in response, guy A is already in the advantageous position to get the first shot off. Guy B doesn't have to wait to get shot before pulling his gun, but if he pulls it last, it's the more likely outcome. Either way, he's not culpable. Instead, he was wise to be in legal possession of an adequate defensive strategy, and he won't be prosecuted, because he didn't pull his weapon too early. Yes, I would wait until I saw an undeniable threat to my wellbeing that could only be defended against with a firearm. If dude attacks me with his fists, I would just fight. But if he pulls a knife or a gun, I'm not going to try to defend myself empty-handed. Would you?

Depends on how he "demanded money" and what the precise physical circumstances were. There were MULTIPLE assailants in this scenario as I understand it, which raises the threat level substantially.

If the gang says "Gimme a dollar" that's one thing. I'm going to back off while preparing to draw and telling them forcefully to get away. If the perp says "Give me your all your money motherfucker" I'm going to conclude a robbery is in progress and I'm damned sure going to produce my handgun forthwith while (hopefully) moving to cover. Whether I "brandish" the gun, take aim or fire depends entirely on what the perps do in the following instants. If they turn and run, I'm not going to shoot. If anyone reaches for their waistband or moves towards me, after I've displayed the handgun and given a warning (if there's time) I'm going to shoot.

But there's no way I'm going to stand there wondering what's going on if a gang of three or more street thugs moves aggressively on me and demands my money. That's robbery and I'm certainly entitled to use non-lethal force, by way of pulling my gun, to thwart that crime, and it should be relatively easy to persuade a jury that I was in fear of imminent death OR serious bodily harm given the neighborhood, appearance of the assailants, their aggressive actions and the time of day, etc..

Remember, drawing your gun and displaying it is always the use of a LESSER degree of physical force than actually firing it at someone. And freeing your weapon for use when you have a strong, rational fear that a robbery is about to take place is defensible, although I grant you that in Philadelphia, like many other big cities, prosecutors and police tend to ignore the Constitution and your civil rights and subject you to trial (at least) for having the temerity to lawfully defend yourself. You see, big-city cops hate it when you do their job for them, it makes them look bad and threatens their pensions.

[Seth]

Guns don't kill people, mid-terms kill people.

Guns certainly don't seem to have killed anyone in this case.

Yep, and that's the most important thing. But if the attacker had been the only one armed, there victim would probably be laid out on a slab by now.

Or then neither of them would have been shot. When someone is pointing a gun at you, wants money and you are unarmed, usually normal person would just give the money and nobody gets hurt. Usually there is no point for attacker kill the cooperative victim, unless he/she tries something stupid (like trying to reach a gun or start a fight, run away etc). According to studies, people who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, even when confounding factors are taken in account.

No, according to A single study which could easily be intentionally biased, as most Public Health anti-gun studies are in one way or another, given that they have a well-known institutional bias against private gun ownership. I'm not prepared to pay 35 bucks just to read it at this point, but it doesn't really matter anyway because this is not a statistical argument.

The "you're more likely to be shot/shoot a family member" argument is a red herring argument because it fails to take into consideration the most important aspect of carrying a firearm for self defense: each individual person has the absolute right to decide for themselves to what extent they will carry defensive weapons, and no one can ethically use a statistical argument as a basis for infringing on that right because to do so is to turn each individual potential victim into a statistic, thereby ignoring and disparaging their individual, particularized right to life and right to defend that life, or try to.

Whether any individual is successful at using their firearm for lawful self defense is irrelevant to whether any other individual has a right to choose whether or not to do so. If 99 people unsuccessfully carry and use their firearms for lawful self defense, this is not an argument that the 100th person, or anyone else, ought to be denied the right to do so.

[Seth]

Guns don't kill people, mid-terms kill people.

Guns certainly don't seem to have killed anyone in this case.

Yep, and that's the most important thing. But if the attacker had been the only one armed, there victim would probably be laid out on a slab by now.

Or then neither of them would have been shot. When someone is pointing a gun at you, wants money and you are unarmed, usually normal person would just give the money and nobody gets hurt.

Yeah? What's your evidence for this claim?

Usually there is no point for attacker kill the cooperative victim, unless he/she tries something stupid (like trying to reach a gun or start a fight, run away etc).

Unless, of course, they are psychopathic thugs like this one and his cohorts were who probably would have shot their victim after the fact just to eliminate a witness. I'm not about to put my trust in the goodwill of a mugger. I'm going to kill him if he threatens me with a weapon, and I'm going to do it as quickly as I can and without a ounce of remorse.

You're right, you see, in believing that most robbers aren't really prepared to kill (unlike this one), they want the money. That gives me the advantage, you see, because I already know exactly what I'm going to do if someone produces a weapon and threatens me with it. I'm going to draw and fire three rounds, two to the chest and one to the head, in less than 1.75 seconds. I'm not going to wait, I'm not going to ask questions, I'm not going to speak at all. All I need to see is a firearm (at any distance) or a knife within 15 feet and my "reasonable belief" requirement is met that my life is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and I'm going to respond with deadly physical force without a second thought.

The mugger, on the other hand, has to perceive my movement to draw and fire, which takes at least 0.75 seconds, then process the information, identify the threat and decide what to do about it, which takes at least another 0.75 seconds best case, and as much as a second or two if he's thinking about anything but shooting or is talking. This means that I can draw and fire three rounds on target from 7 yards or less, while moving laterally, in one-quarter of a second longer than it takes for him to physically respond to my actions under the best of circumstances.

I'll take that chance.

The only problem in this case was that it appears that the thugs didn't have a visible weapon that would have justified an immediate action. And that's why it's reasonable to DRAW your weapon, and hold it down at your side, if you're aggressively approached by a gang of thugs making an attempt to rob you.

According to studies, people who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, even when confounding factors are taken in account.

I seriously doubt it, because I suspect that the study does not factor in the distinction between some street thug carrying a gun and getting shot by some other street thug and a law-abiding citizen who lawfully carries a concealed handgun as it pertains to the likelihood that they will be involved in a shooting situation in the first place. One of the things that lawfully carrying a gun does for you is make you much more situationally aware, and therefore less likely to be victimized in the first place. That may not have worked well in this case, but as a general rule, that's my observation.

[Gallstones]

Guns don't kill people, mid-terms kill people.

Guns certainly don't seem to have killed anyone in this case.

Yep, and that's the most important thing. But if the attacker had been the only one armed, there victim would probably be laid out on a slab by now.

Or then neither of them would have been shot. When someone is pointing a gun at you, wants money and you are unarmed, usually normal person would just give the money and nobody gets hurt. Usually there is no point for attacker kill the cooperative victim, unless he/she tries something stupid (like trying to reach a gun or start a fight, run away etc). According to studies, people who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, even when confounding factors are taken in account.

I think the assumption that all a person need do is be polite and cooperative to avoid being hurt or killed is delusional and dangerously naive. An adult has the right to risk that and not be pro-active in his/her defense, but no one has the right to expect any other adult to assume that same risk.

Most people who own guns and carry guns will never be shot and never shoot anyone else.

Most people who get stabbed own knives.
So, owning knives increases the risk of being stabbed?

[Svartalf]

definitely. Only knife owners get stabbed by knives they own, be it accidentally or due to an attacker taking a tool of opportunity.

[FBM]

People with kids are at a much higher risk of patricide than those without.

[Gallstones]

People with wives are at a higher risk for matricide------wait.

[MrJonno]

I think the assumption that all a person need do is be polite and cooperative to avoid being hurt or killed is delusional and dangerously naive. An adult has the right to risk that and not be pro-active in his/her defense, but no one has the right to expect any other adult to assume that same risk.

The idea that the individual is the one who has the most influence on their personal safety is so absurd its a joke, society via the government is who will determine how likely you are going to be a victim of crime not you.

The usual shit about people being he master of their own destiny, rugged individual, independent not reliant on others blah blah blah

Feeble human that relies on government and society to survive and proud of it

[JimC]

I am not going to argue that the student did the wrong thing in the context of the society he lives in, or that the would-be robber wasn't a dangerous little arsehole...

All I will say is that I am very glad to live in a society with a very low overall incidence of gun ownership and gun crime...

[Clinton Huxley]

I am not going to argue that the student did the wrong thing in the context of the society he lives in, or that the would-be robber wasn't a dangerous little arsehole...

All I will say is that I am very glad to live in a society with a very low overall incidence of gun ownership and gun crime...

This.

If you are allowing concealed firearms and so on, your society has already gone off the rails and needs rebooting.

[FBM]

I am not going to argue that the student did the wrong thing in the context of the society he lives in, or that the would-be robber wasn't a dangerous little arsehole...

All I will say is that I am very glad to live in a society with a very low overall incidence of gun ownership and gun crime...

This.

If you are allowing concealed firearms and so on, your society has already gone off the rails and needs rebooting.

US society could definitely need some re-booting, no doubt. However, unfettered firearm ownership, concealed or otherwise, has been the norm for most of American history. It's only in the past handful of decades that gun control legislation has proliferated.

Edit:

Ah. Maybe you meant that if society has devolved to the point that citizens feel it necessary/wise to carry concealed weapons? Yeah, I'd agree with that.