So, no one needs a gun

[Blackstuff]

I keep asking the same question... as in Cumbria... if ordinary citizens open up with guns, wouldn't there be the risk of someone opening up on the ordinary citizens...thinking they were the badies?

Surely it is entirely dependant on each situation?? You can't generalise for something with so many possible scenarios E.G. In this situation in an enclosed space with everyone well aware of what is happening if someone have of stood up and shouted "Armed citizen" or whatever and then things escalated to the point where they shot the attackers, i think it would be highly unlikely that another armed citizen would jump after the fact and shoot the original shooter.

Might be a different case if you were in the street and the second armed person arriving newly to the scene was not aware of the situation though. However if the first armed good guy was giving clear verbal challenges/commands it would greatly cut down on the chance of 'blue on blue'. The whole thing is pure supposition though.

Imo in this instance i don't think a bystander would have had bee justified to shoot the girls, the he/she being attacked may have though (imho). Given the level of threat i.e. unarmed girls doing the attack (ooo sexist! :roll: :lol: ) and their inability to connect blows, i think the highest level of force that could have been used by a bystander would be restraint techniques and if the attackers then turned their attention around then get into striking.

Personally i don't differentiate with the use of force between sexes, only on their ability to cause me/others harm, which may or may not relate to the sex of the individual(s).

[25Pdr]

Don't know what all the fuss was anyway..........Here we have a Transgender Prostitute being roughed up by a couple of young Girls....FFS Lots of people PAY for that privilege.

There was probably a line up of Transgenders waiting their turn. :lol:

[Steve]

Thats an appaling attack and for someone to film it without helping it equally as bad.I couldnt stand by and watch someone get a kicking.

[Porcupine]

It's an interesting (not to mention sickening) case. From the point of view of an onlooker, I don't believe shooting from the draw would have been appropriate or legal. Although there were multiple attackers, they were female (the courts do take this into account), unarmed, and not attacking you (i.e. you should have a more or less clear head in deciding how to respond). A court would ask why you couldn't have physically intervened without shooting, and also question whether the victim was really at risk of losing life or limb. This is the kind of case where I'd advocate OC and a baton rather than drawing a gun. Of course, if you then found yourself under attack (psychology comes into play for the court) or they produced weapons, you might be justified in moving from less-lethal to lethal force.

I keep asking the same question... as in Cumbria... if ordinary citizens open up with guns, wouldn't there be the risk of someone opening up on the ordinary citizens...thinking they were the badies?

I have never heard of such an incident occurring. On the other hand there have been many, many incidents of ordinary folks with concealed pistols preventing crimes, including spree killings, in the USA (and also Israel, plus all of the armed interventions by off-duty police and military across the world such as the one in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago).

[Chuck]

Barney, shooting is LAST RESORT, producing firearm and issuing clear warnings is the way it should be done, and in this case it is ALL on video. The nature /colour /sexuality etc of the victim is not the issue, the state of mind of the attackers IS. ..One wonders about the sick fcks who filmed this too.

You ARE in fact justified in shooting an umarmed attacker, for example, a small female and a large assailant e.g rapist, IF you are in fear of your life (that equation varies from place to place).

Porcupine, good points, shooting from draw is NOT on, warnings loud and CLEAR must be given, the problem is the attackers will NOT hear them in all probability.... an important point that law enforcement themselves miss quite a lot.

The VICTIM here would have been justified IMO due to overwhelming numbers and FEAR of his/her life.

As for the onlookers, words fail me (well they don't actually but they would be deleted)..

Point of this is that people on here were sickened by such ferocity yet it is an everyday occurrence thoughout the UK and NO ONE will come to your assistance...and we CANNOT use any force to defend ourselves as DEFENSIVE tools are BANNED, incorrectly.

As for another shooter opening up, that does not stack up or justify the refual of defensive weapons. The ones most likely to do that are the police, not a slag off but a fact. Most "mistakes" come from the law who arrive and are not aware of the situation and are understandably scared, they forget the state of mind of the defender at that time and issue commands and instructions that are NOT heard and the shooter, in all innocence will turn around to see if the cops HAVRE arrived. Thius is wehere training comes in, a CCW MUST rain not just for the event but the aftermath, which can and will be much more traumatic. .

For that reason when someone IS involved in a shoot they MUST as soon as safe and possible, either holster the weapon or place it on the ground and stand back, anyone shooting at that point would be in trouble, even the cops.

What you must not do is give aid to someone you shot, that paints a picture that can be misconstrued, especially if you continue to hold the weapon in your hand.

[barney57]

Barney, shooting is LAST RESORT, producing firearm and issuing clear warnings is the way it should be done, and in this case it is ALL on video. The nature /colour /sexuality etc of the victim is not the issue, the state of mind of the attackers IS. ..One wonders about the sick fcks who filmed this too.

You ARE in fact justified in shooting an umarmed attacker, for example, a small female and a large assailant e.g rapist, IF you are in fear of your life (that equation varies from place to place).

Porcupine, good points, shooting from draw is NOT on, warnings loud and CLEAR must be given, the problem is the attackers will NOT hear them in all probability.... an important point that law enforcement themselves miss quite a lot.

The VICTIM here would have been justified IMO due to overwhelming numbers and FEAR of his/her life.

As for the onlookers, words fail me (well they don't actually but they would be deleted)..

Point of this is that people on here were sickened by such ferocity yet it is an everyday occurrence thoughout the UK and NO ONE will come to your assistance...and we CANNOT use any force to defend ourselves as DEFENSIVE tools are BANNED, incorrectly.

As for another shooter opening up, that does not stack up or justify the refual of defensive weapons. The ones most likely to do that are the police, not a slag off but a fact. Most "mistakes" come from the law who arrive and are not aware of the situation and are understandably scared, they forget the state of mind of the defender at that time and issue commands and instructions that are NOT heard and the shooter, in all innocence will turn around to see if the cops HAVRE arrived. Thius is wehere training comes in, a CCW MUST rain not just for the event but the aftermath, which can and will be much more traumatic. .

For that reason when someone IS involved in a shoot they MUST as soon as safe and possible, either holster the weapon or place it on the ground and stand back, anyone shooting at that point would be in trouble, even the cops.

What you must not do is give aid to someone you shot, that paints a picture that can be misconstrued, especially if you continue to hold the weapon in your hand.

Chuck this is a two way argument,,,,,to quote you,,,,Barney, shooting is LAST RESORT, producing firearm and issuing clear warnings is the way it should be done, and in this case it is ALL on video. The nature /colour /sexuality etc of the victim is not the issue, the state of mind of the attackers IS. ..One wonders about the sick fcks who filmed this too.
unquote...

Fair points,,,BUT and theres always a but,,,this would as always, come down to the use of force,,,use of reasonable force,,,reasonable force that is also neccessary and lawful in the circumstances,,,,did the victim actually fear for his/her life? you dont know that,,,had he /she pulled out a gun whats to say that that would have not raised the anti somewhat? especialy if then one of the attackers who up until that point had not produced a gun,,,,now did so? now we are talking leathal force,,,different ball game again..

We must bear in mind, that yes if the Victim or a bystander produced a Gun it may well have calmed the situation,,,,but it may equaly have inflamed the situation aswell...and remember this is the US of A we are talking about here!!

Define The Use of Force,,,and define Reasonable Force...

[Chuck]

she pulled out a gun whats to say that that would have not raised the anti somewhat?

To where mate, already raised, that could easily have been a FATAL beating.

I doubt those cowards would argue with a drawn firearm, but if you have presented (not brandished) a weapon then you should be ready to USE it. Any one of the attackers producing a firearm would leave you clear to shoot, law varies from state to stae of course so no hard and fast rules.....

Weapon should only be drawn AFTER ALL other possibilities are exhausted, that may take half a second or half a minute..or the rest
of someones life.

[Porcupine]

Chuck, I'd disagree that shooting from the draw is never appropriate or that you always have to give a warning. In this case I'd say it was not since less lethal intervention, including unarmed, might have been practical without great risk (assuming you are a well-built male and/or have some hand-to-hand defensive training) and because you could probably afford to spare a couple of seconds to give a warning - unlikely that the next kick or punch would be a lethal one.

However clearly in some cases there are no practical less-lethal options, and no time to give a warning. If someone pulls a knife on you, you have no duty to try and go toe-to-toe with him using your fists or a can of pepper spray, nor any duty to give him a chance to run away (or close the distance and stab you). If an attacker has a weapon: that's justification for lethal force right there.

See here for a justified and legal defensive shoot from the draw. And some fine shooting it is too: Three rounds, all in the sack of you-know-what. Also demonstrates how people don't just fall over stone dead when you shoot them. Three rounds of .40 S&W which, despite being called the 'Small & Weak' by 10mm Auto lovers, is no slouch of a cartridge, and the guy still managed to run out the door and fire his own weapon before he went down.

[Robin128]

Porcupine

Good post!

[ovenpaa]

21 feet! That was quite an eye opener especially as you can see the officers reacting in real time and only just managing to get the second shot off. Downside is it means they are 21 feet away of they try and do a runner and to maintain such a distance in a crowded shopping centre or busy Saturday night high street is going to be all but impossible. It makes me wonder if the officer is better off trying to close and use self defence tactics.

How well versed in unarmed defence is the average UK officer, good enough to close on a knife wielding opponent?