Skip to comments.Man credits concealed carry weapon for saving two lives(WI)
Posted on 03/27/2012 5:24:57 PM PDT by marktwain
MILWAUKEE A would-be victim says his concealed carry gun was the reason a criminals intentions were stopped cold. He says investigators told him its possible the man who tried to rob him Saturday night could have robbed others this weekend.
Saturday night, March 24th, Danny Black and his girlfriend Julie took the dogs out for a walk. Seven-year-old golden-doodle Chloe was along for the stroll when Black says another person interrupted.
The two were confronted by the driver of a van in the area of 73rd and Courtland. Worrisome words quickly turned into threatening actions. Black says the driver was armed, and tried to rob the two. He was saying to her, give me the bag, give me the bag. It was a semi-automatic and he clicked it like he was loading it, Black said.
Black says his heart began to pound, but it wasnt the adrenaline that helped him through. He credits his own firearm. Black has a concealed carry permit, but hoped to never even threaten to use his weapon in public. Me pulling a gun out saved both of our lives last night. I pointed the gun at him and he said, what was I doing, and just drove off, Black said.
Black says hes all too aware in a different scenario, pulling out a gun against another gunman could have greatly escalated the violence. Im just happy with the way it turned out. I dont ever want to be in that situation again, Black said.
Black says this incident should serve as a reminder to Wisconsin criminals that the victims they target may no longer be as defenseless as they may have been before the concealed carry law took effect in the state. There are thousands of people like me, carrying guns, so them looking for easy targets thats all over now. Thats not going to happen anymore, Black said.
FOX6 News contacted Milwaukee police for comment on this story, but they did not return our email. Its unclear at this time whether anyone is in custody in connection with this incident.
I have been taught in my jurisdiction that you should ONLY pull out a concealed handgun if you feel that your life is in danger or the life of someone else is in danger. My training was that ff you pull out your concealed carry handgun it should be only because you NEED to kill someone to save your life or the life of another person. Otherwise, it stays concealed.
The actions and statements by this person could be used in a court of law (in some jurisdictions) against him as proof that he was not in a deadly force confrontation(i.e. because he didn't shoot) and he was the person who escalated the confrontation by pulling out a handgun (even after the bad guy had his firearm out).
This also is a good example of why you never talk to the media after a potential deadly force confrontation.
If one has a CCL, then you need to understand when deadly force can be used.
If I had seen the gun, and saw the man attempting to get a round in the chamber, and I understood that he was using the gun to rob me, I would have pulled out my gun and started shooting. Period.
Agreed. Pulling it without firing might have been the only way to de-escalate the situation. By the way, I was IN this exact situation.
I understand, and have heard the reasoning behind “the only time you pull it, is when you intend to use it”. I’m just not sure I agree with it.
I just realized that I didn’t respond entirely correct to your comment. I said “Agreed”, and then proceeded to support what this man did (which I do, as he managed to end the attempt w/o any shots fired.)
Of course, it goes without saying you should be prepared to fire in case it does escalate, but let me ask this: Why do officers pull weapons without firing? (that was rhetorical, as we all know it’s too intimidate). And I’m NOT arguing legal tactics here, just the thought process.
The most effective way to stop a deadly attack is to use deadly force, but the force is only justified in order to stop the attack, not to kill the attacker. It's only a coincidence of human physiology that the most effective means of stopping the attacker can so easily lead to the death of the attacker. The death of the attacker is never a justified goal apart from stopping the attack.
Your statement would be better worded, "... only because you need to stop someone ..."
I also understand that some use weapons to intimidate.
The laws (in my jurisdiction) as I have learned them, make brandishing a crime.
The sad truth is that depending on the police who investigate and the DA who determines if charges are filed, justice and what is fair have little to do with whether a person who tries to defend themself will spend time in jail awaiting trial.
My comments were that based on my training in my jurisdiction what the person did, risked his life and freedom.
Getting a CCL is a very personal decision and one with huge responsibility. One needs to know the consequences and potential outcomes of a life and death confrontation, which is what happens when you pull a firearm from concealment.
I think that the policy of “shoot to live” and only when no other safe option is available, is the best approach.
You are right. If in shooting the attacker the attack is safely stopped, there is no need to “execute” the attacker. However, the moment the firearm is drawn from concealment, there should be no hesitation to shoot and the shoot placement should not be a wounding shot nor a warning shot, but a shot that will immediately stop the attack, which is usually a shot to an area that would normally be fatal.
You’re kidding right? When a criminal points a gun at you while demanding your property that not only makes it lawful to draw your weapon, it makes it lawful to shoot the criminal and there is no jury in America that would find differently if the victim is legally carrying a weapon.
That's pretty much it. I was taught to fire two rounds to center-of-mass and then, if the attack continues, a round between the eyes.
Physiologically, what stops an attack is damage to the attackers blood circulation or central nervous system.
Two shots to the chest with a suitable caliber will damage the circulation system of the attacker sufficient to lower blood pressure almost immediately and result in unconsciousness. The follow-up round, in the case that the attack continues, is designed to disable the central nervous system of the attacker. A common reason for needing the follow-up is that the person is wearing body armor of some type.
I agree about not talking to the media, other than that you are just plain wrong, unless of course you live in NYC or some such place. A thug brandishing a gun, demanding your property has already spiked the threat meter. If he shot the bad guy as he was driving away then he well may be in trouble.
You're right. I'm not waiting for him to shoot first just so it will be fair. If someone threatens me with a gun he relinquishes all rights to fairness.
I don’t doubt he would have used it, but the driver disengaged and drove away. Try defending yourself from that in court, firing on a guy driving away.
He was not brandishing. Brandishing is taking out your gun for a non-valid reason.
Pelvic/groin shots are good too.
You are dead wrong. I have pointed my gun without shooting 4 times in my life, each time stopped the attact. I know when I HAVE to shoot. Hopefully I will never need to. Once was a guy trying to kick in my motel door in Houston. I opened it with my 45 ACP pointed at his face. He said “I think I have the wrong room” and ran. White guy, by the way. Another was a guy halfway in my bedroom window in Amarillo (early 70’s, no air conditioning). Large black gentleman. I cocked my Ruger Super Blackhawk in his face. Disappeared very quickly.
:: There are thousands of people like me ::
I am Sparti-Wessoni-cus!
: the only time you pull it, is when you intend to use it. Im just not sure I agree with it ::
My take: Drop your weapon and lay down with your hands spread. IF YOU DON’T, I WILL SHOOT YOU.
Pretty straight forward and “protective” of the perp. No compiance means ventilation.