TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Solaris wrote:

warnmar10 wrote:
What if the BG had beat up/disarmed CHL Instructor and used the gun to shoot the store clerk?

Yeah that goes to the problem of OC, he showed his cards, and thus limited his response choices and perhaps made himself a target. Then he drew, further limiting his choices. dead guy was pushing him around, and he could not fight back, and had trouble maintaining his balance. then he got himself backed into a corner, it looked like he left himself with 2 choices, holster and go hands on or shoot. He chose option 2.

Like I said, I cannot find a single thing he did right.

He lived.

You win.

Thank you, sir!

Solaris wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Solaris wrote:

warnmar10 wrote:
What if the BG had beat up/disarmed CHL Instructor and used the gun to shoot the store clerk?

Yeah that goes to the problem of OC, he showed his cards, and thus limited his response choices and perhaps made himself a target. Then he drew, further limiting his choices. dead guy was pushing him around, and he could not fight back, and had trouble maintaining his balance. then he got himself backed into a corner, it looked like he left himself with 2 choices, holster and go hands on or shoot. He chose option 2.

Like I said, I cannot find a single thing he did right.

He lived.

So did the clerk and he managed to do it without shooting anyone. The clerks tactics were far superior to VicMackeys. The final irony would be confirmation the clerk was armed the entire time. The clerk did EVERYTHING right. VicMackey did EVERYTHING wrong. It is all right there on video to see.

1st rule of a gunfight, do not be in one. The clerk understood the rule, the Instructor did not. his life is forever changed not for the better.

"Anytime somebody is absolutely certain about something, they are almost always absolutely wrong" ― Jeff Lindsay

I am not suggesting that 100% of everything he did is right. That would be an absolute statement, and that would make me look foolish. All someone would have to do is find just one thing he did poorly to prove me wrong.

Your statement was that you couldn't find a single thing he did right. That is also implying an absolute, and it is just as easy to prove you wrong. He survived an attack to live another day. That was something he did right.

I get it. You think he was completely in the wrong, while many of us feel he was mostly in the right. We may not come to an agreement, but absolute statements make it difficult to have a normal conversation and learn from this event. That's what we're here for: to learn. But a constant din of "he's wrong, he's wrong, he's wrong" has hijacked this conversation. I will no longer reply to you on the subject, so we can get back to the learning experience that it was meant to be.

Solaris wrote:

warnmar10 wrote:
What if the BG had beat up/disarmed CHL Instructor and used the gun to shoot the store clerk?

Yeah that goes to the problem of OC, he showed his cards, and thus limited his response choices and perhaps made himself a target. Then he drew, further limiting his choices. dead guy was pushing him around, and he could not fight back, and had trouble maintaining his balance. then he got himself backed into a corner, it looked like he left himself with 2 choices, holster and go hands on or shoot. He chose option 2.

Like I said, I cannot find a single thing he did right.

He lived.

Funny thing about jump school: they spent a couple weeks watching us do PLFs (parachute landing falls, in leg-speak), critiquing every one, and making us do it until we got it right. But then jump week came along, and all that mattered was that we could walk off Gowan Field on our own two legs. If we could walk, it was a good PLF. if we got carried, we failed.

Seems similar to this situation, I think. We can Monday-morning quarterback all we want on this forum, but in the end, he went home safely to his family (and he doesn't have to leave them again for a stint in the grey-bar hotel). Seems like a good outcome to me.

Solaris wrote:However all we have is the non-audio tape, so that is all we can comment on, and for whatever reason nobody really wants to talk about tactics right/wrong, but on just some how justifying a shooting none of us will ever have all the facts to.

Maybe the BG was drunk. Maybe the instructor has had a family member killed or hurt by a drunk driver. Maybe he wanted to call this idiot into the police so they could get him off the road?

Maybe...maybe...maybe...

Lots of things we don't know. But some things we do. We do have more than just the non-audio tape. We do have the text of the linked article that states unequivocally, "Ron Ruple, assistant chief of the Mandeville Police Department, said evidence from the scene, including statements from witnesses, video evidence and the shooter’s own account, pointed to a justifiable act of self-defense."