7 dead in drive-by shooting near UC Santa Barbara

[Jason]

On the topic of CCW and AnS's citizens should be armed comment...

 

Let's say there's guy we'll call "Patriot" around the corner minding his own business with a hand gun on his side. He hears shots being fired, runs over there and sees this kid doing what he's doing to innocent people. If "Patriot" pulls out his gun and enacts "justice" on the kid killing him with his own gun, would he get off scott free? would he get thrown in jail? if people find out that he was carrying a weapon and didn't do anything to the kid because he was too scared would he get criticized by the public if they found out.

 

Those are the questions I would have with people carrying a concealed weapon.

Of course he'd be detained while police investigate the incident. As for intervening during an active shooter, preservation of human life should supersede everything else. Not acting is something a person with a CCW needs to ask themselves if pulling the trigger is something they can do. I think we all could if we are in that situation with our spouses and children next to us.

[TobiasFunke]

As for intervening during an active shooter, preservation of human life should supersede everything else.

So you're okay with Mr Patriot being judge, jury, and executioner and okay with taking the law into his own hands?

[Jason]

So you're okay with Mr Patriot being judge, jury, and executioner and okay with taking the law into his own hands?

If there is someone actively shooting people and killing them, yes. I'm not to worried about his due process rights at that time.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Angels N Skins

[LBHalos17]

So you're okay with Mr Patriot being judge, jury, and executioner and okay with taking the law into his own hands?

Is this a serious comment?

 

First off (in Calif.) Mr. Patriot would definitely be covered under your scenario of an active shooter/attempted murderer.  He is defending lives, and stopping a threat.  He is not, however, bound by the same rules of a "First-Responder" (Police, Paramedic, EMT) to stop and render aid.  He could stay in place until the threat comes to him or leave where "First-Responders" have a duty to act.

 

So, you're ok with us ("First-Responders" and folks like Mr. Patriot) standing-by while a suspect plays judge, jury, and executioner?

[Blarg]

Don't troll a post that had a reasonable and thought out response.

 

So you're okay with Mr Patriot being judge, jury, and executioner and okay with taking the law into his own hands?

[TobiasFunke]

Is this a serious comment?

First off (in Calif.) Mr. Patriot would definitely be covered under your scenario of an active shooter/attempted murderer. He is defending lives, and stopping a threat. He is not, however, bound by the same rules of a "First-Responder" (Police, Paramedic, EMT) to stop and render aid. He could stay in place until the threat comes to him or leave where "First-Responders" have a duty to act.

So, you're ok with us ("First-Responders" and folks like Mr. Patriot) standing-by while a suspect plays judge, jury, and executioner?

It's absolutely a serious comment. With people taking the law into their own hand you can get into pretty serious scenarios. Thank you for your first paragraph, I'd be interested to see where in the laws does Mr Patriot get covered.

As for your second paragraph that's ridiculous. I never said anything about first responders not acting and just standing by.They have "supposedly" proper training on matters like that. Where mr patriot does not.

[Jason]

It's absolutely a serious comment. With people taking the law into their own hand you can get into pretty serious scenarios. Thank you for your first paragraph, I'd be interested to see where in the laws does Mr Patriot get covered.

 

 

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/197.html

 I think this is the code that covers it. Even still I'd do anything to protect my family.

[HaloMagic]

What if Mr Patriot thought he was shooting at a terrible murderer but actually fired at another Mr Patriot also trying to save the day? Is he still protected then?

[TobiasFunke]

What if Mr Patriot thought he was shooting at a terrible murderer but actually fired at another Mr Patriot also trying to save the day? Is he still protected then?

Bingo. Etc. Etc. Etc.

There are so many countless scenarios like this that people who wish we lived in the Wild West haven't thought about.

[TobiasFunke]

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/197.html

I think this is the code that covers it. Even still I'd do anything to protect my family.

Thanks for the link. I have no doubt in my mind you'd do anything to protect your family. But would you do anything to protect random citizens if you were carrying a concealed weapon. Because that's what we're talking about here.

[Jason]

Thanks for the link. I have no doubt in my mind you'd do anything to protect your family. But would you do anything to protect random citizens if you were carrying a concealed weapon. Because that's what we're talking about here.

I would if it was necessary to save people's lives. If someone is not willing to act in defense like that then shouldn't obtain a CCW.

[Jason]

What if Mr Patriot thought he was shooting at a terrible murderer but actually fired at another Mr Patriot also trying to save the day? Is he still protected then?

Obviously there are scenarios where things could go wrong, especially in a chaotic situation like that. Hell, the good guy could be at risk when the cops show up and he's standing there with a gun. These are the responsibilities that come with carrying a gun. I just believe that it is a good thing if an armed citizen can intervene enough to save one person in an active shooter incident. If someone shot the wrong person in an event like that I'm sure they would be protected if they can prove they acted in good faith.

[HaloMagic]

I would if it was necessary to save people's lives. If someone is not willing to act in defense like that then shouldn't obtain a CCW.

So CCWs should only be obtained if you want to be an unpaid cop and not if you want to defend yourself in the event no cops are present?

[HaloMagic]

If someone shot the wrong person in an event like that I'm sure they would be protected if they can prove they acted in good faith.

So you are comfortable with a scenario where an innocent man is gunned down while holding his phone simply because Mr. Patriot, a man not trained in threat assessment or violent event response, believed he was a danger to the public? And he should be protected from criminal charges?

You could at least hold him to the same standards that we hold cops to and give Mr. Patriot some paid time off, as well.

Edited May 31, 2014 by HaloMagic

[Jason]

So you are comfortable with a scenario where an innocent man is gunned down while holding his phone simply because Mr. Patriot, a man not trained in threat assessment or violent event response, believed he was a danger to the public?

A phone? Not sure how that is a threat or could be mistaken as a threat. CCW permit holders are required to attend regular training and must qualify with their weapon

[Jason]

So CCWs should only be obtained if you want to be an unpaid cop and not if you want to defend yourself in the event no cops are present?

 

I'm not sure how you got this from my statement. They are only for defense of a threat that that can seriously injury or kill someone. Someone out playing cop (George Zimmerman) should not have a CCW.

[HaloMagic]

I'm not sure how you got this from my statement. They are only for defense of a threat that that can seriously injury or kill someone. Someone out playing cop (George Zimmerman) should not have a CCW.

TF: "But would you do anything to protect random citizens if you were carrying a concealed weapon."

ANS: "I would if it was necessary to save people's lives. If someone is not willing to act in defense like that then shouldn't obtain a CCW."

That is how I got that. You said someone should be willing to save lives other than people they know and care about if they have a CCW. Why should I be tasked with defending the public? The CCW is for my own defense.

[HaloMagic]

A phone? Not sure how that is a threat or could be mistaken as a threat. CCW permit holders are required to attend regular training and must qualify with their weapon

Phones have been confused for threats for decades. Phones, combs, shampoo bottles. Why would that stop?

What does that training consist of? Threat assessment? Was it designed with a focus on public safety during rapidly evolving situations? We employ police to protect us from threats but we train them so they are better at it. Are we willing to sacrifice the quality of our protection simply to get more firepower? How many casualties from Mr. Patriots would be acceptable?

Edited May 31, 2014 by HaloMagic

[arch stanton]

I'm not a fan of concealed carry. If I'm carrying I want everyone to know. Let the path of least resistance (real or assumed) flow elsewhere.

[Jason]

Phones have been confused for threats for decades. Phones, combs, shampoo bottles. Why would that stop?

What does that training consist of? Threat assessment? Was it designed with a focus on public safety during rapidly evolving situations? We employ police to protect us from threats but we train them so they are better at it. Are we willing to sacrifice the quality of our protection simply to get more firepower? How many casualties from Mr. Patriots would be acceptable?

CCW permits are designed for self protection. If the carrier decides to act on behalf of others then that is his responsibility on what occurs after. He/She will be held accountable for their actions good or bad. Any force that someone uses must match the level of threat. You do raise a good question on people's ability to make that judgment and that's why CCW permits aren't just given out to every average Joe.  As for the Police you are absolutely right but they can't be there every time. Our society seems to be getting more violent with these active shooter events becoming more frequent and any of us could be in their way when it pops off. As for training, I can't speak for every county but I know the Sheriff's department conducts the training here in San Bernardino County. They do receive training on liability and use of force. I believe the training is every 4 years when it is time to renew the permit. I also think they qualify more frequently than that. I'm not 100% as I don't have a permit. I bet the number of crimes and accidental killings committed by permit holders is pretty low.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Angels N Skins

[Jason]

I'm not a fan of concealed carry. If I'm carrying I want everyone to know. Let the path of least resistance (real or assumed) flow elsewhere.

I agree with this but in California a visible firearm is considered brandishing a weapon.

[Tank]

Statistically speaking, the more guns that are out there, the more accidental shootings will increase. While the pro-gun supporters will quickly jump on every CCW shooting that prevented a bigger tragedy, anti-gun folks will just as quickly jump on every accidental shooting or every vigilante action that goes south.

I worry about the hotheads on the fwys.

[LBHalos17]

Bingo. Etc. Etc. Etc.

There are so many countless scenarios like this that people who wish we lived in the Wild West haven't thought about.

Not 'bingo' at all...

If both of your "Mr. Patriots" assessed the threat at the same time, they're probably reasonable enough to discern the actual threat.  

 

What if the sky was falling during this incident?  Really?!  Some people train enough to reasonably respond to most scenarios.  They also "table-top" "what-ifs" to be better prepared.  Most people who legally-carry firearms are more responsible than you give credit for.  

You're sounding like a scared ostrich.

[HaloMagic]

Not 'bingo' at all...

If both of your "Mr. Patriots" assessed the threat at the same time, they're probably reasonable enough to discern the actual threat.

What if the sky was falling during this incident? Really?! Some people train enough to reasonably respond to most scenarios. They also "table-top" "what-ifs" to be better prepared. Most people who legally-carry firearms are more responsible than you give credit for.

You're sounding like a scared ostrich.

"If both of your 'Mr Patriots' assessed the threat at the same time... "

"Probably reasonable enough..."

"Some people train enough... "

"Most people who legally-carry..."

If, probably, some, most. Cool.

IF one of these Mr. Patriots is an untrained idiot he will PROBABLY accidentally kill SOME innocent people. I bet MOST people don't want to be murdered by some moron who completely misinterpreted a situation.

You say that people who legally-carry are mostly responsible. I agree. Currently. What happens when the number of CCWs increases significantly? Do you believe all of those people will have the same level of responsibility? I think most people who are against CCWs for the general public understand most of those who currently have licenses are responsible. They just worry what will happen when the flood gates open.

Edited June 1, 2014 by HaloMagic

[Blarg]

You should not consider obtaining a CCW, it is obviously too much responsibility for you to handle.