TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Flint, I don't argue your point, but I think you're misunderstanding mine (the part you highlighted).

TAM, I don't think I misunderstood your point, or I hope not. I recognize and appreciate your position (basically that a child's safety comes first and foremost). However, in the course your post...you pretty much suggest than anyone not adhering to the same (presumably under all circumstances) is NOT a worthy parent!

If you can't place the needs of your own children above everyone else's needs, then perhaps parenthood isn't for you.

I think that is unfair at best.

That's what I meant by "misunderstood." I was speaking in the context of the posted story, and it was posted absent followup knowledge about the steps he took to protect his kids. The initial reports, including the ones I saw myself on FoxNews, did not include those details, and my response was based on what I knew at the time. Can't we agree that the safety of one's children should come first? That's all I meant, and I did not say Sgt Peoples wasn't a worthy parent. I merely said, based on the information posted at the time, that I would have made a different choice.

Anyway, none of this is worth arguing about, so I'm not going to.

flintknapper wrote:

Pug wrote:

flintknapper wrote:Mr. Peoples (and all other Soldiers who are also parents would disagree), else they wouldn't be Soldiers (with the attendant risks).

Don't presume to speak for all of us . . . you're opinion is your own. Neither I nor my soldier-son would have acted so carelessly. .

That was not my intent Sir. I think either you misunderstood my point, or I failed to make it clear.

My post was in response to the clearly highlighted text :

If you can't place the needs of your own children above everyone else's needs, then perhaps parenthood isn't for you.

If you think about it, every soldier (subject to combat) puts the needs of others above his own (including his children) . By default...his/her very life is at stake when they go to battle or even when they "sign up" to do so. It could be argued that this constitutes an unnecessary risk as well, or it might be a calculated risk. In either case the decision is yours to make.

I am not promoting the soldier's action as being particularly wise , just defending his right to do so...and trying to separate what he did...from the actions a CHL might (or might not take). I think as members here...we tend to look at things from a single perspective.

Flint, I don't argue your point, but I think you're misunderstanding mine (the part you highlighted). From my perspective, it's not that Sgt Peoples chased the bad guy down, although that certainly would not have been my choice, it's that he might have put his own children at risk by doing so if things hadn't gone his way. His children were in that bank building. He blocked the BG from fleeing and caught him. What if he had blocked the bad guy from fleeing, and the bad guy instead ran back into the bank to grab himself some hostages.........where Sgt Peoples' children still were? That is my problem with it.

I think it is laudable that he wanted to do the right thing, when apparently nobody else felt empowered to do so. I think it is great that he caught the bad guy and stopped his depredations. I just think that it was a mistake to leave his kids unguarded in the bank and run out after the bad guy. If I were in his shoes, even if I were in his shoes and with his training and conditioning (which I'm not), I would have stayed by my kids and tried to get them out of the building, away from any possible danger. Peoples chose not to do that, and that is where I disagree with his choice. But I don't think he's a fool or an idiot, and I admire his pluck. I would have just chosen differently, for the reason I stated.

Does that make sense?

I do believe in the "sheepdog" concept. Very much so. I just think that sheepdogs need to also be aware of their other obligations—like to the sheep for whom they are directly responsible (think Sgt Peoples' kids)—when they consider whether or not to take action on behalf of those for whom they are only indirectly responsible, like the Bank of America specifically and the rest of society generally.

Like flintknapper said above,

Let's just simply leave it up to each individual as whether to "act" or not. All of this... based upon your level of confidence, your training and the totality of the circumstance at hand.

As long as his action would not present a high risk of injury/death to others (not in his charge), then its pretty much up to him to decide.

If you don't want to (can't/won't/disagree) fine...but we shouldn't dictate to others what the "best thing to do" would be.

Every circumstance would be different of course. I will assume the Soldier was confident he could handle the situation. If that was the case....then I applaud him and his actions.

I can't find any fault in that, with one exception, and that is the presence of one's own children. You/I/We owe our first priority to the protection of our children. First and foremost, and without question. If you can't place the needs of your own children above everyone else's needs, then perhaps parenthood isn't for you. It isn't so much that Peoples took the action that he did which is heroic in and of itself which I disagree with, it's that he took that heroic action when his own kids were there inside the bank building. If they were my kids, I would have stayed inside with them after the robber left the building. That's just me, and I don't judge anyone for disagreeing with my opinion. This is one of those things that, as flintknapper said, has to be left up to the individual as whether to "act" or not.

fulano wrote:What should an off-duty LEO do in a circumstance such as Sargent Peoples found himself in?

I suppose that depends on several factors, one being his agency's policy regarding off-duty actions, another other being whether or not his children are involved (it was the presence of Sgt Peoples' children that elicited my original response), and a third being what his conscience dictates. Most LEOs have more training in handling physical confrontations than most citizens do, and their jobs require them to keep that training current.

flintknapper wrote:

Pug wrote: Unfortunately.

The guys is a hero, IMHO, simply for his service. There wasno need to risk his life for a fool stealing other people's FDIC insured change...

But I must admit I respect his courage nonetheless.

As I read these type posts (this and the one above)...I am compelled to offer the following:

Let's just simply leave it up to each individual as whether to "act" or not. All of this... based upon your level of confidence, your training and the totality of the circumstance at hand.

As long as his action would not present a high risk of injury/death to others (not in his charge), then its pretty much up to him to decide.

If you don't want to (can't/won't/disagree) fine...but we shouldn't dictate to others what the "best thing to do" would be.

Every circumstance would be different of course. I will assume the Soldier was confident he could handle the situation. If that was the case....then I applaud him and his actions.

OK, I'll buy that. Perhaps for individuals who have been very well trained to react with overwhelming physical violence against physical threats, that might be a workable solution. I know that at least a couple of our members have recent service in various parts of the Special Forces community. People like that are suitably trained for these kinds of encounters. Perhaps I should amend what I said to read: "....but it was a singularly bad idea for anyone not properly trained in this type of thing—which would disqualify many but not all members of this board, myself included."

I posted a few months ago words to the effect that we have to be willing to stand in the gap to prevent further degradation of the culture and its attendant consequences. Therefore, although I would generally try to avoid "fighting words" and physical confrontations, I am sometimes compelled to speak out loud and draw attention to boorish behavior and not let people "get away" with it. Similarly, if I came upon a clear cut example of undeserved aggression against a helpless person, I might well involve myself on the helpless person's behalf, if I could do so with a reasonable expectation of going home at the end of the day.

But, there are a lot of "what ifs" in this story. What if the robber's gun had not been a toy? What if, once his car was boxed in, he decided to run back in the bank and take some hostages? (Sgt. Peoples' children were inside the bank.) What if the robber prevailed in the physical confrontation and killed Peoples? I admire his courage, and I am truly glad that he defeated the BG, but I have to ask myself, what would have happened if he had not pursued the BG? First of all, the bank video was of pretty good quality, and there is a fairly good chance that the BG might have been identified and apprehended fairly quickly anyway.

I agree that I shouldn't issue a blanket condemnation, and if I had paused and re-read my post one more time before clicking "Submit," I might have qualified my comments. But, we also have a lot of newbie members here for whom the whole idea of daily carry and the implications of one's duties to the community haven't been fully thought out yet—just as my own had not been when I first joined this forum while waiting for my plastic to arrive. I would not want something that I wrote here to encourage someone to take on a mission for which he may not be prepared, particularly if he has kids at home who would like to keep him around until he's old and fat (like me.)

So, my apologies to Sgt Peoples, and I certainly did not mean to offend anyone, but I do want to discourage ninja behavior in people who don't have the physical/training/mental tools to be ninjas. That's basically what I meant by my original post.

I saw this story too. I'm glad it worked out for him, but it was a singularly bad idea. The man was waving a gun around. There was a reasonably high probability of his children going home fatherless that day. His primary responsibility was to get his kids home safely, not to pursue and disarm an armed bank robber. As nobody knew until the BG was disarmed that the gun was a toy, he took the risk of getting himself shot point blank with a .45 (the bank video shows the gunman waving a 1911 pattern pistol around).