You write a good movie character .... unfortunately, there's not always time for that in the world this guy lived in.
Posted on 07/23/2004 7:07:35 PM PDT by Mulder
The lion is not going to turn around and start shooting at you should you cease shooting at him. The same is not true of an armed fleeing felon who has just shot you.
The prosecutor failed. Beck should have been charged with reckless endangerment, or the equivalent. He took no care to avoid shooting the woman. His shooting skills suck. Pray and spray idiots shouldn't be allowed to operate and should be punished when they shoot people when they don't have to.
Wow.... this is quite a story.
What state is this in? It'd be helpful to know in the headline when it is not obvious in the story.
HIS TEMPER? He was robbed ~and~ shot in the head.
Obviously, his downrange was not completely safe, but in his obviously duressed situation, he did his best to respond.
You have obviously not studied much about self defense or instinct. Most shooters, cops included, who shoot in self-defense or emotionally loaded situations like this one fire until the gun empties. After the first shot, it is all adrenaline and instinct. They will not often recall firing more than once.
She wasn't just a bystander, she was about to be a participant. The perp was opening the door to her van when our shooter plugged him and hit her as well.
Wrong. He should get a medal for fighting back.
According to your logic, the active passengers on Flight 93 should have their estates sued for "endangering" the passive passengers. After all, who is to say that the hijackers would not have had a change of heart and safely landed the plane? (I suppose the same folks who say that an armed felon really isn't planning to carjack a woman sitting in a van, after he opens the door to her van).
He took no care to avoid shooting the woman
I doubt that. Anyway, if the woman had been paying attention, she would have exited the scene before things hit the fan. She was operating a vehicle in public, on a public road. As such, she has an obligation to pay attention to her surroundings. No different if she gets hit by a police car that is running it's lights, because she is not paying attention.
His shooting skills suck
3 out of 17 puts him in "cop" territory. Also, he was wounded, so cut the guy some slack.
Pray and spray idiots shouldn't be allowed to operate and should be punished when they shoot people when they don't have to.
He wasn't an idiot, any more than the passengers on Flight 93 were "idiots". He was acting to prevent the commission of multiple forcible felonies.
The chances of a bystander getting hit in a gunfight are less than the chances of getting struck by lightning.
Whatever damages occur as a result of good guys fighting back are dwarfed by what would happen if the good guys were banned from fighting back.
"Most shooters, cops included, who shoot in self-defense or emotionally loaded situations like this one fire until the gun empties. After the first shot, it is all adrenaline and instinct. They will not often recall firing more than once."
As good a definition of going girly as I ever heard.
In fact we saw a NYPD cop pull this stunt a few months ago. She wounded her partner and missed the perp entirely as she emptied her gun. Though she was safe--the perp was un armed--and she knew it.
I would fire and gauge the effect. I don't recommend emptying a gun--an empty gun is useless.
I have my faults but when the shite hits the fan I pretty much keep my wits about me. I recommend it if you're playing with guns.
Do you have any actual background in this at all?
Not especially. Such conflicts of rights are resolved by superior force (unless superior cunning is used in the theft) . Absent an organized society, they are resolved more or less on the spot and in accordance with the will of the person who can bring the superior force to bear. In an organized society, such conflicts of rights may be resolved on the spot or later in accordance with the laws or customs of the particular society. (Of course this is still in accordance with the will of the person who can bring the superior force to bear because that force includes the resources of the society. But that person’s will by itself is not enough. )
Since we live in an organized society (sort of), make an argument as to why the laws and customs of an organized society should favor one right over another when a conflict of rights exists.
The woman was directly in the line of fire. Beck already missed at least 6 times and he missed 7 out of 10 when the woman was directly in the line of fire. Are you supposing Beck thought a robot was in that driver seat, or like some people(Beck) that bullets take a path according to where their own mind wishes them to go? Beck had an obligation to avoid shooting when anyone else is within the line of fire. He must withhold fire until he has a clear shot.
" She was operating a vehicle in public, on a public road. As such, she has an obligation to pay attention to her surroundings."
Again, just to make it clear: Mr. Beck's obligation is to withhold fire until others are not in the line of fire.
" 3 out of 17 puts him in "cop" territory."
Same principle applies there, withhold fire until no others are within the line of fire. Firing at and injuring innocent people is reckless and jail time is appropriate for doing so regardless.
"Also, he was wounded, so cut the guy some slack."
He fired at an innocent person. There was no justification for that.
"the passengers on Flight 93"
Irrelevant, they did not attack and endanger each other.
" The chances of a bystander getting hit in a gunfight are less than the chances of getting struck by lightning. "
Irrelevant. If you shoot at people in the line of fire, it is likely you will kill them. If anyone shoots at me, I will not care why they are shooting at me. I will just kill them.
"Whatever damages occur as a result of good guys fighting back are dwarfed by what would happen if the good guys were banned from fighting back."
Mr. Beck gave them a valid concern regarding this form of effective self defense. He displayed a notable level of incompetence, that he should have been aware of, and had no justification for firing at the woman.
I don't think he was thinking of much other than killing the s.o.b. who shot him in the head.
Do you have any actual background in this at all?
Yeah, I'm me and have been for a long time.
But an answer is not what you wanted when you wrote "Do you have any actual background in this at all?"
The key words are "actual" and "at all".
I've been where I've been I've done what I've done and I DON'T have to justify my self to you.
And I must say that I'm sick of you punks on these threads (and boy are there a lot of you) implying cowardice on the part of others with your stupid questions. Stick to WHAT I said and skip calling me names--I'll hand it right back to you.
I was just curious, because your criticism, while valid in a classroom theory (we could all sit back and advise this man and others as to how to do it better) your condemnation of this man shows little understanding of the reality of how real human beings react under stress. Especially citizens who have just been robbed and shot in the head, probably for the first time in their lives.
One difference in this case is that the criminal demonstrated a willingness to actually fire his weapon without provocation. As such, the expected number of people who would have been killed had the criminal escaped was likely greater than one.
In both cases, I would regard traumatic factors as justifying the good guys' behavior. In one case, the good guy had just been shot in the head; hitting 3 times out of 17 shots wouldn't be great marksmanship under normal circumstances, but for someone who was just shot in the head it doesn't seem too bad. In the other case, since the good guy hadn't been expecting to find himself in a situation where he was armed against a criminal, he cannot be faulted for not having perfect judgement in such a situation (even if his judgement was imperfect).
So he should have waited until the bad guy had gotten away and killed the woman.
Again, just to make it clear: Mr. Beck's obligation is to withhold fire until others are not in the line of fire.
He would not have gotten another shot. So is it better that the murderer is dead and the other woman injured, or would it be better if the murderer got away and killed the woman and who knows who else?
"Whatever damages occur as a result of good guys fighting back are dwarfed by what would happen if the good guys were banned from fighting back."
Mr. Beck gave them a valid concern regarding this form of effective self defense. He displayed a notable level of incompetence, that he should have been aware of, and had no justification for firing at the woman.
He was just shot in the head. That probably affect his level of competance. Given that someone who was just shot in the head will probably not be in a good position to immediately judge how it has affected them, it would seem that one must either rule that imperfect judgement by someone who was just shot in the head is excusable, or that anyone shot in the head has a duty to avoid any efforts to attack the shooter. Frankly, I'd rather go with the former.
Predictions and claims regarding the future are empty and are not a valid foundation to justify shooting at someone. Mr Beck should have decided that there was nothing he could do w/o a clear shot.
" He would not have gotten another shot."
Given Mr. Beck's primary motivation of getting the SOB that shot him, I'm sure he would have been disappointed. Too bad, he had no justification to shoot at the woman.
"So is it better that the murderer is dead and the other woman injured, or would it be better if the murderer got away and killed the woman and who knows who else?"
Clairvoyance is not reality.
" He was just shot in the head. That probably affect his level of competance."
His competence amounts to pray and spray, it was never any different. If it was, that concern for where the bullets go, and looking out for others that might be in the line of fire would have been his natural reaction in this case. I'm sure the perforated woman has nominated this clown for the "Clymer of the Year Award". I second that.
"...your condemnation of this man shows little understanding of the reality of how real human beings react under stress...."
I don't care how human beings react under stress.
That statment is not the result of hardheartedness. Rather it reflects the world I grew up in. "A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do". That world is of course dead. But before it died a man couldn't "lose it" and still BE a man.
Society instilled this attitude in a man because of the dangerousness of the result of not being "tough". You can kill someones child, you can kill someones mother you can kill your partner. Or the job won't get done and the perp will go on to kill someones child....etc.
Those guys who train our soldiers do nothing BUT look for ways around 'the way human beings react under stress'. And they find them too. They ALWAYS have.
I know for a fact that I would not have fired like this poor guy did. I would have been close enough to be assure that the perps body stopped the rounds or I would have just kept up the chase.
I "know" this because although today I would have the "understanding" of someone such as yourself (and you are the rule today rather than the exception) I would have to face myself as I am formed. And I was formed in a world that expected me to rise to responsibility, and when I looked into a mirror I would know, by THAT standard, that I was not a man.
You write a good movie character .... unfortunately, there's not always time for that in the world this guy lived in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.