Skip to comments.WI:Marine With Concealed Carry Permit Saves Woman From Being Beaten To Death
Posted on 03/16/2013 2:23:02 PM PDT by marktwain
Charlie Blackmore Jr., a 32-year-old Marine Corps veteran, was driving home from work at 4:00am Tuesday when he saw a man violently kicking a large object on the ground. He parked his car to see what was going on and upon drawing closer to the scene, Blackmore realized that the "object" was a young woman.
When the man refused to stop beating his visibly injured victim, Blackmore pulled out his Springfield XDM 9mm.
Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. praised Blackmore Wednesday in a statement to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel: "I want to get to a day when acts like this are viewed as a citizen doing their civic duty. Criminals have got to be reassessing things right now. They have to be asking themselves if it is worth it anymore, might they face resistance or be shot? That's a good thing."
Yep, along with Dr. Ben Carson we may finally have an outpouring of leaders to get the country straightened out.
Is there a link to this article?
Don’t Forget Sheriff Joe Arapio of Maricopa County, Arizona.
America is a better place because of men like Charlie Blackmore Jr. and Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr..
I guess they must've meant a "threat" to punks, thugs and would be dictators.
The Marine did everything right and the situation went well, but there are all kinds of judgments he needed to make in that situation that are real stress testers.
The hardest one, I think, was when the perp stopped the beating when ordered to, and started to walk away, then asked the Marine to shoot him. Following him with gun drawn and talking on the cellphone could have been a high risk maneuver, based on the actions of third parties.
That is, if you see a man walking down the street, with another man following him, gun drawn and aimed, and talking on the phone, what do you do? And unless the police are talking to the dispatcher, what do they do? Not enough information.
Happy ending. Happier ending would be been shooting/killing the feral, subhuman POS to save the legal system and taxpayers a lot of time and money. Perp’ll be back in society doing even worse, all too soon. But it is what it is.
i get to vote for him. he’s a good guy. just pray he never lets his head get too big.
if you could have immunity like an officer it’d be a different thing, but you don’t, and you’re coming into a situation partway through, you have no idea why what is going on is going on. she may have tried to run him over, which women like to do, or killed his dog, or nothing at all.
the problem is the average citizen has no idea and if you make a mistake the courts and defense attorneys wil have NO mercy on you. you are not law enforcement and you screw up doing a citizens arrest or drawing your weapon on an innocent person, you’re screwed.
they - libtards - have made it so you will forfeit your rights if you try to do what you think is helping someone. the fact is people who carry are not doing it to be some unarmed person’s rescuer. we would in a world where you weren’t sued and jailed for using common sense, but it’s not worth losing your 2a rights over.
now in a shtf situation where there are no/courts, leos and you are your own law, it’s different.
In Madistan the liberals would be looking to prosecute the hero.
“...the fact is people who carry are not doing it to be some unarmed persons rescuer...”
Okay, there is an Arizona exception to that. I have known several people, including a Marine, who have used their arms several times rescuing a defenseless person(s) from an attacker(s). Never for themselves.
It’s a peculiar thing that I would attribute to a “confidence aura” that armed people can have, that criminals pick up on and say to themselves, “not that one.”
Plus, when a place has so many guns on the street, it becomes not just polite, but genteel, and the good citizens are much more prone to act, instead of going rigid and calling the police.
When you say exception, in the law? If so that is great.
But people make choices. They decide to go around unarmed. They think the world is marshmallows and cream. Their irrational desire to believe nothing bad could ever happen to them is what they want to believe, and so they go around unarmed and without a mentality that would help them get through a bad situation.
I mean government would love for all of us to think and act this way, they could always be a hero, or at least, a shoulder to cry on while they take a loved one’s body out of the chalk outline and onto a stretcher.
If people weren’t so litigious and ready to sue someone who could potentially come to their aid, or had a DA that would prosecute them because they’re anti-gun for citizens, or want to make an example out of you for your vigilantist behavior, I think a lot more people would be willing to consider doing it.
But the bottom line is we are not trained to be officers, we are coming into situations already in progress and we have literally no idea of why what’s occurring is occurring. For all we know the bad person is the one that is currently “losing”. And if we make that mistake and get involved we have NO PROTECTION at all.
You know the mentality of judges is terrible. “I can understand your reaction, but I can’t agree with what you did, you are not an officer and you put others at risk not fully knowing what is going on....” I mean look at the people who are just travelling through an area and go to jail because of technicalities like magazine capacity.
It’s going to be a bad enough ordeal to keep your 2A rights if you have to defend yourself with a firearm, much less walking into a situation blind. Ask anyone who’s had to defend themselves and hope the DA doesn’t charge them, and then whether the criminal or their living family try to sue you (George Zimmermann comes to mind). And woe if you and the perp are different races and you’re white and male.
this whole country, this whole world, is being turned upside down. I know why. Damned if I’m going to fall into their traps prematurely.
I hope they don't damage their brains trying to find something to charge the brute with...
Back in the last surge of gun-controlism in the 1970s, it was already a national debate when a new prosecutor was elected in Maricopa County, AZ. The yapping media went to his first news conference and blurted out the complex question: “What do you do if somebody breaks into your home?”
Without hesitation, the prosecutor succinctly replied, “You shoot the S.O.B!” And this has pretty much been the policy in the entire state ever since. And this was in the 1970s, when the gun-controlists had momentum.
Today in Arizona, wrongful death litigation against a citizen would be for the most part laughed out of court. It is almost exclusively used against LEOs, and then only when the LEO killed a bystander or clearly innocent person.
The two types of criminal gunmen in Arizona are either not from Arizona, either Mexicans or transients; or they are so crazy they don’t care if other people are shooting back at them, like Laughner in Tucson. Even at the political assembly for liberal Democrat Giffords in very blue Tucson, there were several armed people in the audience. He was tackled by a man with a gun while reloading, because it was faster than shooting him.
I like to point out that where there is gun liberty, even the mostly crazy people are more self-controlled, because the little bit of rationality they have left inhibits them when they face a gun, or the prospect of a gun.
My final point is that in Arizona, people are realizing that “every adult person of good character” is a lawman, and that the police are a convenience only, to stop bad problems already underway, to do detective work, and to doggedly pursue known badmen until arrested and put in prison. Basically doing the police work that the public are too busy to do.
The other states, are the other states, with their own rules.