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.
Facts not in evidence? Physical environment including noise, distance, skill level, caliber, potential for (reasonably) safe discharge (at perp Vs warning) and more cold affect or limit options. Was there time to communicate a caution regarding an ambush? Was it even possible given likely tunnel vision & intense focus of PO? … Never say never. Warning shot(s) MAY have been the best option (if that is what they were).
In the same light, while I consider displaying or “brandishing” a bad idea in general, I would not say it should automatically be discounted. Remember, recommendations & laws change. (FL?) And who among us would rather deal with the emotional & psychological effects of causing even a known killers death (in addition to the potential criminal & civil legal issues). Plus the potential that you got it wrong or had a flier or malfunction that injured or killed an innocent?
(Disclosure: time & my cell phone prevented me from reading the articles … I am just adding to the confusion with the ever present “If … then …”
Lyles law of certitude applies:
“The more certain you are of something, the more likely you are to be wrong.”
Or as some have observed, one’s bias may be evident to others)
Facts not in evidence? Physical environment including noise, distance, skill level, caliber, potential for (reasonably) safe discharge (at perp Vs warning) and more cold affect or limit options. Was there time to communicate a caution regarding an ambush? Was it even possible given likely tunnel vision & intense focus of PO? … Never say never. Warning shot(s) MAY have been the best option (if that is what they were).
In the same light, while I consider displaying or “brandishing” a bad idea in general, I would not say it should automatically be discounted. Remember, recommendations & laws change. (FL?) And who among us would rather deal with the emotional & psychological effects of causing even a known killers death (in addition to the potential criminal & civil legal issues). Plus the potential that you got it wrong or had a flier or malfunction that injured or killed an innocent?
(Disclosure: time & my cell phone prevented me from reading the articles … I am just adding to the confusion with the ever present “If … then …”
Lyles law of certitude applies:
“The more certain you are of something, the more likely you are to be wrong.”
Or as some have observed, one’s bias may be evident to others)
The way I look at it, firing a couple of warning shots would probably have been more likely to distract the officer than warn him of trouble. He already *had* trouble; shots from a different direction just gave him *more* trouble.
[quote]“That idiot is lucky the police officer didn’t turn around and shoot him. I mean, the officer was in hot pursuit of an armed robbery suspect and suddenly someone is firing at him.”[/quote]
Abso-freaking-lutely.
Even if the citizen was right and managed to defuse an ambush, it there are too many ways for the situation to have gone from “bad” to “worse” for me to figure.
I still think some “attaboys” are in order for the responding officer; I’m not sure I could have evaluated the situation and made a “no-shoot” decision before reacting to a what might have been a tailgunner.
This kind of thing is a perfect example of why my default planned response to almost any situation is “do nothing or withdraw.” When they give me a badge and a paycheck I’ll play sheepdog; otherwise, we have a trained and armed policeman doing his job; his personal safety is his own problem, not mine.
The way I look at it, firing a couple of warning shots would probably have been more likely to distract the officer than warn him of trouble. He already *had* trouble; shots from a different direction just gave him *more* trouble.
[quote]“That idiot is lucky the police officer didn’t turn around and shoot him. I mean, the officer was in hot pursuit of an armed robbery suspect and suddenly someone is firing at him.”[/quote]
Abso-freaking-lutely.
Even if the citizen was right and managed to defuse an ambush, it there are too many ways for the situation to have gone from “bad” to “worse” for me to figure.
I still think some “attaboys” are in order for the responding officer; I’m not sure I could have evaluated the situation and made a “no-shoot” decision before reacting to a what might have been a tailgunner.
This kind of thing is a perfect example of why my default planned response to almost any situation is “do nothing or withdraw.” When they give me a badge and a paycheck I’ll play sheepdog; otherwise, we have a trained and armed policeman doing his job; his personal safety is his own problem, not mine.
TRX, while I agree with much of what you say, your last paragraph gives me pause.
Maybe that’s because that on more than one occasion I had bystanders come to my assistance when trying to subdue a suspect, sometimes helping physically, sometimes by using my radio to make fellow officers aware of the situation
After making a traffic stop one day in an area of the city known as “Little Mexico”, as I was returning to my motorcycle, the dispatcher came on the radio advising of an “assist officer” at my location. On my department “assist officer” doesn’t mean the officer needs help spelling a word on a report, it means that he needs help right now because of a life threatening situation.The response is immediate. Every officer hearing this broadcast responds as fast as possible to the location. I scanned the area around me, saw nothing of concern, asked the dispatcher for more information and advised responding officers to reduce to code-1 and continue to my location. The dispatcher advised me that the call had come from a concerned citizen who, while driving by my location, had observed two Hispanic teenagers across the four-lane street from me, aiming handguns at my back while I was engaging the traffic violator. The dispatcher called the concerned citizen back and we were able to meet up later. This citizen, who was African- American, (I am white) related what he had witnessed and that he had slowed and stopped and started backing up to warn me while calling 911.This was enough to send the two gang-bangers running. After they ran off, the good citizen continued on his way. His actions quite possibly saved my life that day.
I place a high value on the lives and well being of everyone; family, friends, strangers, and yes even well trained police officers with a badge. I even place a high value on the life of the bad guy I might be forced to confront, but not to the point I will let him carry out evil with impunity.
TRX, while I agree with much of what you say, your last paragraph gives me pause.
Maybe that’s because that on more than one occasion I had bystanders come to my assistance when trying to subdue a suspect, sometimes helping physically, sometimes by using my radio to make fellow officers aware of the situation
After making a traffic stop one day in an area of the city known as “Little Mexico”, as I was returning to my motorcycle, the dispatcher came on the radio advising of an “assist officer” at my location. On my department “assist officer” doesn’t mean the officer needs help spelling a word on a report, it means that he needs help right now because of a life threatening situation.The response is immediate. Every officer hearing this broadcast responds as fast as possible to the location. I scanned the area around me, saw nothing of concern, asked the dispatcher for more information and advised responding officers to reduce to code-1 and continue to my location. The dispatcher advised me that the call had come from a concerned citizen who, while driving by my location, had observed two Hispanic teenagers across the four-lane street from me, aiming handguns at my back while I was engaging the traffic violator. The dispatcher called the concerned citizen back and we were able to meet up later. This citizen, who was African- American, (I am white) related what he had witnessed and that he had slowed and stopped and started backing up to warn me while calling 911.This was enough to send the two gang-bangers running. After they ran off, the good citizen continued on his way. His actions quite possibly saved my life that day.
I place a high value on the lives and well being of everyone; family, friends, strangers, and yes even well trained police officers with a badge. I even place a high value on the life of the bad guy I might be forced to confront, but not to the point I will let him carry out evil with impunity.
Travon Martin comes to mind.
Travon Martin comes to mind.
P.S.
The location of this incident was a busy main artery. Probably well over one hundred people drove by seeing this unfold. Only one person took the time from their lives to try and intervene. Evil thrives when good people stand by and do nothing.
P.S.
The location of this incident was a busy main artery. Probably well over one hundred people drove by seeing this unfold. Only one person took the time from their lives to try and intervene. Evil thrives when good people stand by and do nothing.
In today’s climate, I would not expect the police of DA to ever admit that the Armed Citizan may have stopped the mabush and saved the cop. If it actually went down the way the shooter described, no charges will be filed and NO follow up story will ever be published.
The whole thing does not fit into the modern newroom naritive.
In today’s climate, I would not expect the police of DA to ever admit that the Armed Citizan may have stopped the mabush and saved the cop. If it actually went down the way the shooter described, no charges will be filed and NO follow up story will ever be published.
The whole thing does not fit into the modern newroom naritive.
Always keep in mind that, unless you are wearing a uniform or holding up a badge in your free hand, as soon as you draw your gun you could be mistaken for a bad guy, by a LEO or by another good guy.
Always keep in mind that, unless you are wearing a uniform or holding up a badge in your free hand, as soon as you draw your gun you could be mistaken for a bad guy, by a LEO or by another good guy.
What is the source for this “third side” of the story that the citizen fired to prevent an ambush from being perpetrated against the officer? I can’t find this version anywhere. That said, the idea you write of that he fired to save the officer would certainly explain why the citizen is not being prosecuted and is in fact being admired by what is normally one of the most anti-gun-rights DA offices in the country.
Very smart of the extremely misleading, anti-gun biased reporter Phil Kadner to choose not to allow comments on his hack piece. It’d sure be nice to be able to publish the truth at the bottom of his smells-like-last-week’s-fish-dinner prose, wouldn’t it?
What is the source for this “third side” of the story that the citizen fired to prevent an ambush from being perpetrated against the officer? I can’t find this version anywhere. That said, the idea you write of that he fired to save the officer would certainly explain why the citizen is not being prosecuted and is in fact being admired by what is normally one of the most anti-gun-rights DA offices in the country.
Very smart of the extremely misleading, anti-gun biased reporter Phil Kadner to choose not to allow comments on his hack piece. It’d sure be nice to be able to publish the truth at the bottom of his smells-like-last-week’s-fish-dinner prose, wouldn’t it?
What pisses me off is how the Chicago media completely ignored the Chicago vet with a CCW permit who successfully defended himself and his friends from an armed attacker. A clear demonstration of the value and validity of legal CCW:
http://news.yahoo.com/veteran-concealed-carry-permit-shoots-back-chicago-gunman-031804649.html
What pisses me off is how the Chicago media completely ignored the Chicago vet with a CCW permit who successfully defended himself and his friends from an armed attacker. A clear demonstration of the value and validity of legal CCW:
http://news.yahoo.com/veteran-concealed-carry-permit-shoots-back-chicago-gunman-031804649.html
Old Fezziwg wrote: “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!”?”
IL just started issuing its first concealed carry licenses (CCL) in early March, so there is no “updating our training” for us, as the first of us just went through our CCL classes (16 hours in IL!) last fall.
Old Fezziwg wrote: “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!”?”
IL just started issuing its first concealed carry licenses (CCL) in early March, so there is no “updating our training” for us, as the first of us just went through our CCL classes (16 hours in IL!) last fall.
> TRX, while I agree with much of what you say, your
> last paragraph gives me pause.
To be fair, I did say “default response,” not “never intervene. Never say never, you know. But the situation would have to be crystal clear before I’d horn in on an armed robbery, and given what I’ve read of the event, I wouldn’t have on that one.
> TRX, while I agree with much of what you say, your
> last paragraph gives me pause.
To be fair, I did say “default response,” not “never intervene. Never say never, you know. But the situation would have to be crystal clear before I’d horn in on an armed robbery, and given what I’ve read of the event, I wouldn’t have on that one.
Marie,
When I wrote, “…the civilian had not updated his training.” I meant that all of us who carry guns should be responsible for our own training. In other words, we should all read books about self-defense and concealed carry and the Law. We may not be able to get to training classes, but we can read books and articles on the Internet. Do not rely on the government for your education. Try not to rely on the government for anything, except as a last resort.
Marie,
When I wrote, “…the civilian had not updated his training.” I meant that all of us who carry guns should be responsible for our own training. In other words, we should all read books about self-defense and concealed carry and the Law. We may not be able to get to training classes, but we can read books and articles on the Internet. Do not rely on the government for your education. Try not to rely on the government for anything, except as a last resort.
First off, I like that picture of the woman that will cheat with (for) men over 40–nice touch.
While I have fired shots from a high powered rifle into the air. Ok!OK! I was lost in the north woods during deer season.
It is probably not a good idea in a city type environment. Most people have never been close to a gun being fired and could cause a panic that will just make things worse. As for the bullets raining down and killing innocent people; here we have a problem with semantics. To me, firing into the air means holding the barrel as vertical as possible. I think to some people it means holding the gun at about a 45 degree angle and firing. In Illinois, fireworks are forbidden, so some people get their trusty .38 and go out and make some noise and usually somebody gets shot.
A book that every gun aficionado should have on their bookshelf, along with Mr. Ayoob’s, “IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME” is “Hatchers Notebook”. That is Major General Julian S. Hatcher. He was head of the Army Ordnance Dept. and when retiring became an editor for the “American Rifleman” magazine. He has since past away but his book lives on. It may be still available from the NRA bookstore. It has loads of info on ballistics, firearm accidents etc. Chapter 20 is titled Bullets From The Sky. Through experiments and calculations they determined that a 150 grain 30 caliber bullet when fired straight up will fall to the ground with a velocity of 300 FPS and 30 ft/lbs of energy, average. The actual speed would depend on the bullet in relationship with the ground. If the bullet was horizontal the speed would be less because of the air resistance, If the bullet was base down, the speed would be a little greater, and the greatest speed would be if the bullet had turned over and was nose down and more aerodynamically stable. In any case the Army did not consider that this would be a disabling wound. Sure it may draw some blood and would sure scare a person, but lethal, I am not so sure. page 514
Depending on the size of a hail stone I expect that being out in a hail storm would be comparable.
First off, I like that picture of the woman that will cheat with (for) men over 40–nice touch.
While I have fired shots from a high powered rifle into the air. Ok!OK! I was lost in the north woods during deer season.
It is probably not a good idea in a city type environment. Most people have never been close to a gun being fired and could cause a panic that will just make things worse. As for the bullets raining down and killing innocent people; here we have a problem with semantics. To me, firing into the air means holding the barrel as vertical as possible. I think to some people it means holding the gun at about a 45 degree angle and firing. In Illinois, fireworks are forbidden, so some people get their trusty .38 and go out and make some noise and usually somebody gets shot.
A book that every gun aficionado should have on their bookshelf, along with Mr. Ayoob’s, “IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME” is “Hatchers Notebook”. That is Major General Julian S. Hatcher. He was head of the Army Ordnance Dept. and when retiring became an editor for the “American Rifleman” magazine. He has since past away but his book lives on. It may be still available from the NRA bookstore. It has loads of info on ballistics, firearm accidents etc. Chapter 20 is titled Bullets From The Sky. Through experiments and calculations they determined that a 150 grain 30 caliber bullet when fired straight up will fall to the ground with a velocity of 300 FPS and 30 ft/lbs of energy, average. The actual speed would depend on the bullet in relationship with the ground. If the bullet was horizontal the speed would be less because of the air resistance, If the bullet was base down, the speed would be a little greater, and the greatest speed would be if the bullet had turned over and was nose down and more aerodynamically stable. In any case the Army did not consider that this would be a disabling wound. Sure it may draw some blood and would sure scare a person, but lethal, I am not so sure. page 514
Depending on the size of a hail stone I expect that being out in a hail storm would be comparable.
I also am curious as to the origin of the ‘feared ambush’ angle. Much as I am inclined to back the CCW permit holder, it sounds like there was not the element of ‘imminent danger of death or great bodily harm’ that would be necessary where I live to justify taking the shot. Of course, I wasn’t there, but I tend to think I probably would not have fired. I know I would never fire my weapon ‘to warn’. EVER. As an armed security officer, I would lose my license on the spot if I did.
I also am curious as to the origin of the ‘feared ambush’ angle. Much as I am inclined to back the CCW permit holder, it sounds like there was not the element of ‘imminent danger of death or great bodily harm’ that would be necessary where I live to justify taking the shot. Of course, I wasn’t there, but I tend to think I probably would not have fired. I know I would never fire my weapon ‘to warn’. EVER. As an armed security officer, I would lose my license on the spot if I did.
Well, yep, definitely wait until all the facts are in before forming a judgement. Or at least get all sides of the story.
As for warning shots, okay speaking as an armchair gunslinger, albeit one who has carried weapons in the past, if warning shots are fired with the intention of stopping someone from doing lethal harm to yourself or some other innocent person; then yes they are justified.
Agreed, be sure of your backstop and be sure that a warning shot is a valid option.
However in the incident Mas mentions warning shots have, seemingly, turned out to be a case of “shooting to stop.”
Well, yep, definitely wait until all the facts are in before forming a judgement. Or at least get all sides of the story.
As for warning shots, okay speaking as an armchair gunslinger, albeit one who has carried weapons in the past, if warning shots are fired with the intention of stopping someone from doing lethal harm to yourself or some other innocent person; then yes they are justified.
Agreed, be sure of your backstop and be sure that a warning shot is a valid option.
However in the incident Mas mentions warning shots have, seemingly, turned out to be a case of “shooting to stop.”
TRX,
Thanks for the clarification. Now I don’t “take pause” with anything you said. It’s a good thing when folks can discuss differences in perceptions and opinions without anger or rancor.
TRX,
Thanks for the clarification. Now I don’t “take pause” with anything you said. It’s a good thing when folks can discuss differences in perceptions and opinions without anger or rancor.
What did the citizen say he did? Did he fire warning shots “at” the suspect (possibly endangering others via poor aim, ricochet, etc…) or just fire them (one would presume in a safe direction). This tiny detail could make a huge difference in the situation. Given that the other officers exonerated him, I would suspect the latter. Also, it appears that the former statement was from the press which is by and large worthless anyway.
What did the citizen say he did? Did he fire warning shots “at” the suspect (possibly endangering others via poor aim, ricochet, etc…) or just fire them (one would presume in a safe direction). This tiny detail could make a huge difference in the situation. Given that the other officers exonerated him, I would suspect the latter. Also, it appears that the former statement was from the press which is by and large worthless anyway.
Why would you shoot “warning shots” against an armed robber, if you are armed, and have just been robbed? Was the so-called receiver of an ambush in a marked police car? How many yards away was the armed citizen from the crook and the cop?
If the crook was within range to make an easy shot, I would think the armed citizen would be aiming at the robber, and not worrying about warning him off.
The ambush story sounds concocted after the fact to me. In fact the whole story is shot full of holes.
Why would you shoot “warning shots” against an armed robber, if you are armed, and have just been robbed? Was the so-called receiver of an ambush in a marked police car? How many yards away was the armed citizen from the crook and the cop?
If the crook was within range to make an easy shot, I would think the armed citizen would be aiming at the robber, and not worrying about warning him off.
The ambush story sounds concocted after the fact to me. In fact the whole story is shot full of holes.
Only real concern should be where the armed citizen was pointing his weapon when he fired those warning shots. Where did those bullets go? Firing warning shots in not a good idea but in this case maybe it was justified but one needs to question the thought or lack of as to where those bullets wound up!
Hopefully not in some innocent by-stander several blocks away.
Only real concern should be where the armed citizen was pointing his weapon when he fired those warning shots. Where did those bullets go? Firing warning shots in not a good idea but in this case maybe it was justified but one needs to question the thought or lack of as to where those bullets wound up!
Hopefully not in some innocent by-stander several blocks away.
There are no warning shots. Only shoot to stop.
There are no warning shots. Only shoot to stop.
> Why would you shoot “warning shots”
> against an armed robber, if you are
> armed, and have just been robbed?
If they’re running *away* from you, it would be very difficult to make a good case for self-defense afterward.
> The ambush story sounds concocted after
> the fact to me.
Verily it stinketh. But it turns “nut with a gun” into “concerned citizen aiding an officer in distress.” That’s a brilliant defensive strategy. Some well done follow-up PR, and that’s the kind of case that could ruin a prosecutor’s career.
> Why would you shoot “warning shots”
> against an armed robber, if you are
> armed, and have just been robbed?
If they’re running *away* from you, it would be very difficult to make a good case for self-defense afterward.
> The ambush story sounds concocted after
> the fact to me.
Verily it stinketh. But it turns “nut with a gun” into “concerned citizen aiding an officer in distress.” That’s a brilliant defensive strategy. Some well done follow-up PR, and that’s the kind of case that could ruin a prosecutor’s career.
Interesting article/story. I note that in the upper left there is a “Related Stories” section. In it is another article, from the same paper, dated 2 days earlier (July 28th vs. July 30th).
In this other article, it says “A customer with a concealed-carry permit fired twice at the teenager after the teen fled the store, 4756 Cal Sag Road, because he was concerned for the safety of a Crestwood police officer who was chasing the teen, police said.”
So the author, in coming to his conclusion that the citizen “did not see the police officer in pursuit and fired what he intended to be “two warning shots,” did not research his own newspaper to see if there were any conflicting reports. Or maybe he did, and decided ignorance would allow his narrative more teeth.
Not very surprising to me.
I will defer to the experts to see where this goes, we may never get a full analysis if he is never charged.
Interesting article/story. I note that in the upper left there is a “Related Stories” section. In it is another article, from the same paper, dated 2 days earlier (July 28th vs. July 30th).
In this other article, it says “A customer with a concealed-carry permit fired twice at the teenager after the teen fled the store, 4756 Cal Sag Road, because he was concerned for the safety of a Crestwood police officer who was chasing the teen, police said.”
So the author, in coming to his conclusion that the citizen “did not see the police officer in pursuit and fired what he intended to be “two warning shots,” did not research his own newspaper to see if there were any conflicting reports. Or maybe he did, and decided ignorance would allow his narrative more teeth.
Not very surprising to me.
I will defer to the experts to see where this goes, we may never get a full analysis if he is never charged.
I thought that one should never fire warning shots? Ricochets, falling bullets, scaring the hell out of the neighbors resulting in your home being surrounded by quick-to-fire SWAT teams. I thought you only fired at your range targets when it’s safe or an assailant/intruder if you intend to kill them. No?
I thought that one should never fire warning shots? Ricochets, falling bullets, scaring the hell out of the neighbors resulting in your home being surrounded by quick-to-fire SWAT teams. I thought you only fired at your range targets when it’s safe or an assailant/intruder if you intend to kill them. No?
I thought that one should never fire warning shots? Ricochets, falling bullets, scaring the hell out of the neighbors resulting in your home being surrounded by quick-to-fire SWAT teams. I thought you only fired at your range targets when it’s safe or an assailant/intruder if you intend to kill them. No?
Seconding guessing someone’s intent is very hard because of the risk of bringing in your own prejudice and bias. Chicago, what else can be said that already hasn’t been expressed, Detective Mike Pochordo is the epitome of “our betters” tell us to leave it up to the professionals, and armed citizens in Chicago should be cognizant that they will encounter hostile prosecutors for some time to come. What we are witnessing is apprehension of the anti-gunner being proven wrong, that their control policies have been a failure all along. It goes deeper then just firearm ownership, as time goes more and more successful self defense stories will be reported, and the masses that blindly follow their politically progressive alderman(woman) will start to see the fallacy of “I know what’s best for thee” and begin to vote them out, effectively causing the lost of control over schools, city transportation, small businesses, and finally government. You can see youtube videos of neighborhood meetings turning loud at the dissatisfaction already underlying Chicago politics, add the success of armed self defense? It will be interesting to see.
As armed citizens we are taught what are suppose to be hard and fast rules, one of them is warning shots. But let me point out a doctrine held in military operations planning, always anticipate your plan to go to hell on first contact. During a planning session room is always built into the plan for the lower echelons to adjust to unforeseen circumstances.
In our training is it right to make “no warning shots” a hard and fast rule? I think not, I am more of a disciple of critical thinking and hesitant following a list of ten “you should never do this” rules, because one day we will be faced with that 2% chance situation that the rules you were taught never covered. Was this situation warranting a warning shot? again allow me to reiterate the dangers of bringing in bias to a situation that you yourself was not part of. Only that 54 year old armed citizen truly knows why he did what he did, right or wrong the outcome was an arrest of a burglary spree suspect, and everyone going home with the same holes they left the house with.
IMHO
Charles
Seconding guessing someone’s intent is very hard because of the risk of bringing in your own prejudice and bias. Chicago, what else can be said that already hasn’t been expressed, Detective Mike Pochordo is the epitome of “our betters” tell us to leave it up to the professionals, and armed citizens in Chicago should be cognizant that they will encounter hostile prosecutors for some time to come. What we are witnessing is apprehension of the anti-gunner being proven wrong, that their control policies have been a failure all along. It goes deeper then just firearm ownership, as time goes more and more successful self defense stories will be reported, and the masses that blindly follow their politically progressive alderman(woman) will start to see the fallacy of “I know what’s best for thee” and begin to vote them out, effectively causing the lost of control over schools, city transportation, small businesses, and finally government. You can see youtube videos of neighborhood meetings turning loud at the dissatisfaction already underlying Chicago politics, add the success of armed self defense? It will be interesting to see.
As armed citizens we are taught what are suppose to be hard and fast rules, one of them is warning shots. But let me point out a doctrine held in military operations planning, always anticipate your plan to go to hell on first contact. During a planning session room is always built into the plan for the lower echelons to adjust to unforeseen circumstances.
In our training is it right to make “no warning shots” a hard and fast rule? I think not, I am more of a disciple of critical thinking and hesitant following a list of ten “you should never do this” rules, because one day we will be faced with that 2% chance situation that the rules you were taught never covered. Was this situation warranting a warning shot? again allow me to reiterate the dangers of bringing in bias to a situation that you yourself was not part of. Only that 54 year old armed citizen truly knows why he did what he did, right or wrong the outcome was an arrest of a burglary spree suspect, and everyone going home with the same holes they left the house with.
IMHO
Charles
@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.
Comments are closed.