TexasCHLforum.com

Glock 23 wrote:

Xander wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: Before reading this story my first thought would be to stop the carnage. Seeing a non uniformed person standing alone in a parking lot firing at a fleeing car would have caused me to react in a pretty lethal way. Since I can't imagine any sane person firing shots at someone fleeing in a car, yep...it could get dicey. If the person doing the firing stopped firing before I got to him, I would do more of an observation type approach. Now if the person doing the firing was a uniformed officer of the law, I would probably try to stop the fleeing car with my truck.

Now for the what if back to others. What would you do? I am genuine in my desire to know what others would do. Especially since you just mentioned I might get indicted for stopping what I perceive as an attempted murder in progress.

Initial disclaimer...This is my opinion only. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have a CHL to protect my life, and the lives of the ones I love. Period. That is all. The CHL does not make me Batman, citizen crime-fighter. Period. It is the job of the police to protect the lives of those who don't feel it necessary to protect their own. Period. If I wanted to stop attempted murders, or what I *perceived* to be "attempted murders" (and this is a very important distinction) I would become a police officer, not a CHL holder. Period.

alot of people are in the same boat as you are...and rightfully so. You only need risk yourself for what you feel is truly important.

But wouldn't you want a complete stranger to assist you if you were really in need and that was all the hope you had? What if a CHL holder was the difference between you living and you dying? What about your family (you cant always be around)?

Keith B wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:
We do know that she was unarmed. We do now, after the fact; he may not have known at the time and may have had reason to believe she was. Problem is, if we are using the tinted windows as a defense against knowing about the child, those same tinted windows would keep him form being able to say he saw a gunWe do know that she was attempting to leave and he fired at her when she could not possibly be a threat. She could have been a fleeing felon, and an officer has the right to stop them. He would have no way of knowing she is a fleeing felon. She was just a woman in a carWe do know that she had a child with her. Supposedly the windows were extremely dark tinted, so he may not have seen the child. I concede this. the same windows that kept him from seeing a gunWe do know that a person who is suppose to know better chose to fire his weapon at her in a public area where innocent bystanders could have been killed because of his temper tantrum. That is your speculation of his state of mind, not fact. OK...but it is fact that he opened fire in a parking lot on an unarmed fleeing vehicle. We also know he displayed his weapon as a threat(aggravated assualt)We also know he was not in his jurisdiction. Maybe he has state jurisdiction from California. Now your speculating. It isn't likely. I dunno...maybe she stole a donut from him. Now you're being facetious. absolutely No matter what annoyed Man or anyone else here thinks, shooting at an unarmed woman and her child is not acceptable behavior. If you for sure know she is unarmed and hadn't made a threat to kill you first. I was not aware that words called for deadly force. Especially for a police officer. So yes, 03Lightningrocks throws the flag. Keith B wants to review the video and facts before passing judgment.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

RHZig wrote:As a police officer in one more month I can see why citizens don't trust us like they once did.



But I am sure there is more to the story.

Unfortunately, a lot of that mistrust is based on inaccurate and biased reporting. Remember that, when these things get to trial, the only report the rest of us who weren't there at the courthouse get to see is that part of it that, as the NYT is fond of calling it, "is fit to print." That means that if the editor doesn't think that exculpatory evidence is "fit to print" because it doesn't fit with his preconceived notions, then neither you nor I get to read about it, and our opinion on the matter is accordingly misinformed - which of course is the editor's intention all along... ...to make sure that you are misinformed and buy into his agenda.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Another side to the story????????????? Excuse me while I throw up!!! Shooting at an unarmed woman and her child???????? No other side to a story like this unless you are blinded by team spirit.

I worked in the newspaper business for 9 years, and left it 9 years ago. I still feel dirty by association, and I wasn't even an editor. The cop may well be guilty. Or, he may not be. Or the woman may be the instigator. Or, maybe she's not. The truth is that neither 03Lightningrocks nor any of the rest of us really know what happened. We only know what we are reading or watching online about it. Heck, most all of us are more than 1,000 miles away from Oceanside, so we aren't even getting the benefit of the word on the street. The press is often and notoriously inaccurate when it comes to reporting on crime. Consequently, it seems premature to judge either the cop or the woman until we know more.

That's all I'm saying....

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I will say this, I ever drive into a parking lot and see a person shooting a gun at a fleeing car, I will turn the shooter into a hood ornament and not care if the guy was an off duty cop or not.

I hope you're just upset at the perceived facts of this case. This scenario will get you indicted at the very least. There are plenty of circumstances where a person (LEO or CHL) could be legitimately firing at a fleeing car.

Chas.