CCW holder killed along with police in Las Vegas

diverdon

Constitutionalist, by choice
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Dec 21, 2011
    6,433
    8,376
    WNY
    Las Vegas cop-killing couple left swastika-stamped manifesto on officer's body, previously warned of Columbine killing: report - NY Daily News

    That's when 31-year-old customer, Joseph Wilcox, who was standing near the checkout area with a friend, pulled out his legally registered pistol and "told his friend he was going to confront the suspect," said McMahill.
    <figure class="a-image v">
    article-vegas2-0609.jpg
    Jerad and Amanda Miller sans makeup. The couple are believed to be responsible for the deadly shooting of three people in Las Vegas, including two police officers. </figure>
    "He immediately and heroically moved into a position,” McMahill described. Unfortunately, he didn't realize Amanda was with Jerad.
    “Amanda shot him in the ribs area, where he immediately collapsed,” said McMahill. Wilcox didn't fire off any shots at either of the suspects.
     
    My sympathies go out to those that lost their lives in this event, especially the ccw holder who tried to take a stand. I worry that this will be used in the national rhetoric as an example of "run and hide" is a better way of life than "be armed and stand up for yourself/others".
     
    Looking at the photos of the couple with her partially shaved head, druggie, ne'er do well cut and his gutter trash look in today's news, I have to wonder why the cops dropped total situational awareness and didn't see these two coming.

    The photos attached to this article search really make me wonder why the cops didn't cue in on these two as they walked through the door as a potential problem

    Bundy's son: Las Vegas shooters kicked off ranch
     
    Legally, could the CCW holder have shot the armed suspect rather than confronting him? What options does the CCW holder have?
    I think that would depend partly on what knowledge the CCW had of the situation and on what a "reasonable person" would have done in the situation.

    Please keep in mind that the Journalist writing the stories we read present complete little stories. In real life chaos reigns, and you have to act on partial and incomplete information. You have to act on only what you see and hear, but those who will judge your actions will have access to much more complete information and have much more time to ponder that information. I guess the answer is that "it depends."
     
    I sure there are a couple of folks on this site absolutely pleased that these two patriots, while exercising their 2nd amendment rights, were able to prevent two pigs from illegally seizing their weapons.
     
    Stay the fuck out of it would have been his best option. Sounds cowardly but with our legal system as it is, he would have been fucked if he had lived. Sucks but that's the sad reality of the world we live in.

    Legal justification aside, "stay the fuck out" would have been the correct tactical decision... at least until properly sizing up the situation. It's really damn hard to live up to the sheepdog ideal when you get popped by the bad guy's unnoticed accomplice.

    This, of course, is much easier to say when sitting behind a keyboard. For all I know, I might have missed the whole situation because I was too busy standing by the magazine stand and staring at the latest issue of some car or gun mag.
     
    Legally, could the CCW holder have shot the armed suspect rather than confronting him? What options does the CCW holder have?

    Since he walked in and fired a round in the store, the CCW holder would likely have been ruled justified had he fired on the guy.

    As for highbinder's suggestion that he stay out of it. WTF? I thought that was the whole point of carrying in the first place.
     
    Since he walked in and fired a round in the store, the CCW holder would likely have been ruled justified had he fired on the guy.

    As for highbinder's suggestion that he stay out of it. WTF? I thought that was the whole point of carrying in the first place.

    CJ, from the article it specifically says that the CCW guy chose to engage and got shot when he escalated the situation with his own gun. Here is what the story says:

    There Jerad "told people to get out and that this is a revolution and that the police are on the way," said McMahill.
    That's when 31-year-old customer, Joseph Wilcox, who was standing near the checkout area with a friend, pulled out his legally registered pistol and "told his friend he was going to confront the suspect," said McMahill.
    ...
    "He immediately and heroically moved into a position,” McMahill described. Unfortunately, he didn't realize Amanda was with Jerad.
    “Amanda shot him in the ribs area, where he immediately collapsed,” said McMahill. Wilcox didn't fire off any shots at either of the suspects.

    Yeah I agree that having a gun and using it is the whole point of having you CCW but this guy was playing cop and confronted the kids where he should have been using his situational awareness to get other people (and himself) to safety as the kids had requested. In my mind your CCW is for self-defense (emphasis on the "self" part) especially given the fact that the kid told the Walmart patrons to "get out" and hadn't fired a shot in the Walmart at that point. Granted the kids started the whole ordeal but he escalated it instead of waiting for the cops. He should have been getting himself and others out.
     
    Legally, could the CCW holder have shot the armed suspect rather than confronting him? What options does the CCW holder have?
    If you decide to carry, (1) fully understand why you are, and what can transpire, then and years later (2) don't pull it until you have apprized the situation as body language is an easy read most of the time. (3 ) when it clears the holster there is no turning back, you press the attack until the threat is over then lay the unloaded weapon on the floor, call 911 an ID your self as the protector, render assistance or step back. (4) if you have issue with any of the first 3 don't carry, get a body guard or stay home.
     
    My hat is off for this guy. I wish he had received more training and busted caps in their asses instead of the other way around.
    He didn't leave his shit and walk out, he saw a firefight and people in danger and went to join in.
    Who is to say that the bad bitch didn't see another cop and took that shot and then like a coward ended it?
    Did the bad couple see him and figure the jig was up? Did he save anybody else had they gone un-checked?
    Brave man to me. Regards, FM
     
    Wise words from one of our friends regarding the recent shooting in Vegas....

    9 June 14

    CCW Naivety:

    The vast majority of state CCW licensees are genuinely "good" people, but
    many have had precious little relevant training, and much of it fraught
    with errors and unrealistic expectations.

    For example, many naively believe:

    1) When they see "bad things" happening in public places (which don't
    involve them directly) that they should step forward and "get involved" and "
    do some good."

    2) VCAs will do what they are told to do, because they're intimidated by
    the gun in the hands of the righteous CCW holder.

    3) The CCW holder will be thanked and congratulated for his courageous
    intervention and good intentions

    4) VCAs will be so impressed with the CCW-holder's gunfire, that they will
    fall down immediately upon the first impact, just like on TV!

    5) That "going armed" means having "a little something" (like a .380
    pocket pistol), and that such "mouse-guns" that will be sufficient for most
    lethal threat(s).

    6) Holding and maintaining suspects at gunpoint until police arrive is
    easily done and mostly risk-free.

    The unhappy reality is this:

    1) Any time you voluntarily inject yourself into a dangerous circumstance
    in which you were otherwise not involved, you are required, by law, to act
    in a "non-negligent" manner.

    What, under Heaven, does that mean?

    It means that, when anyone can point-out where you could have done it
    better, you will inherit some personal liability for all the "bad things" that
    are invariably going to happen, bad things like death, personal injury,
    property damage, etc.

    In most cases, when you see "bad things happen," you don't have enough
    solid information to take any kind of unilateral action, particularly action
    that may be the direct cause of personal injury or death. Gunfire is
    irreversible! You may not be seeing what you think you're seeing.

    Best option is almost always to quickly withdraw, get to a relatively safe
    location, and then call the police. This is the kind of situation you pay
    a police department to confront and handle!

    2) VCAs at whom you point your gun will likely not be impressed in the
    least, because they probably won't even see it! Expecting voluntarily
    compliance under such circumstances is mostly wishful thinking. When you do get
    his attention, the best thing for you to do is encourage him to turn and run
    away!

    3) Don't expect to be thanked! Don't expect anyone to be "understanding."
    Do expect to be arrested at the scene, maybe charged. Do expect to be
    endlessly criticized and second-guessed by the media, investigators, your
    friends, et al. Do expect to be sued. Don't imagine this incident will have
    any kind of "happy ending!"

    4) When you are compelled to employ gunfire to protect yourself, lower your
    expectations of your pistol and your ammunition. Upon being struck by
    your bullet(s), the most likely reaction of the VCA(s) will be to run away,
    showing scant indication of reduced mobility! When he/they continue to
    present a lethal threat, be prepared to hit him/them multiple times. Even then,
    any kind of instant de-animation is extremely unlikely.

    5) Small 380Auto pistols, and snubby revolvers are arguable as
    second/back-up weapons, but they represent a desperate lower-limit when that is all
    you have with you. When "going armed," you should be carrying the most
    formidable pistol you can comfortably fit into your life.

    6) Holding suspects a gunpoint and waiting for police to arrive is an
    activity that is so dangerous, I recommend you not do it al all!

    Suspects may attack you, despite the fact you're holding a pistol on them.
    Arriving police may mistake you for the suspect, and, since you're
    holding a gun, engage you immediately and without warning.

    As mentioned above, when you have a dangerous suspect at gunpoint, the best
    thing to do, from the standpoint of your continued good health, is to
    persuade him to voluntarily disengage and run away. Police will probably pick
    him up a short time later anyway, and you'll end your high risk-exposure as
    quickly as possible.

    As I tell my students,

    "I'm not here to tell you what to do. I'm here to tell you what's going
    to happen when you do. Then, you make your own, informed decisions. I'm
    not here to suggest you do the 'right thing,' nor the 'moral thing,' even
    the 'legal thing.' I'm suggesting you do the smart thing, from the
    standpoint of your continued good physical health, financial health, mental
    health, and general well-being. "

    As more good citizens make the decision to "go armed," the foregoing is
    going to become more and more critical.

    "Here lies the body of Mike O'Day,
    Who died maintaining his right-of-way
    His right was clear
    His way was strong
    But, he's just as dead,
    As if he'd been wrong!"

    From an epitaph on a mock head-stone, erected, among others, as a warning
    to young recruits during military training in the early 1940s.

    /John

    John S. Farnam
    [email protected]
    _______________________________________________
    John Farnam's Quips mailing list
    [email protected]
    Copyright 2014 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.
     
    CJ, from the article it specifically says that the CCW guy chose to engage and got shot when he escalated the situation with his own gun. Here is what the story says:



    Yeah I agree that having a gun and using it is the whole point of having you CCW but this guy was playing cop and confronted the kids where he should have been using his situational awareness to get other people (and himself) to safety as the kids had requested. In my mind your CCW is for self-defense (emphasis on the "self" part) especially given the fact that the kid told the Walmart patrons to "get out" and hadn't fired a shot in the Walmart at that point. Granted the kids started the whole ordeal but he escalated it instead of waiting for the cops. He should have been getting himself and others out.


    Coulda swore I saw at least one story that said he fired a shot when he entered Walmart. Choices suck either way.
     
    My hat is off for this guy. I wish he had received more training and busted caps in their asses instead of the other way around.
    He didn't leave his shit and walk out, he saw a firefight and people in danger and went to join in.
    Who is to say that the bad bitch didn't see another cop and took that shot and then like a coward ended it?
    Did the bad couple see him and figure the jig was up? Did he save anybody else had they gone un-checked?
    Brave man to me. Regards, FM


    Mike, at the point the CCW holder engaged the kids there was no fire-fight occurring. The CCW started the fire-fight by engaging the kids who were at that point just trying to clear the Walmart patrons out of the building and waiting for the cops to show up to engage the cops.
     
    I agree with gunfighter, but the big question is, if someone fires a round in the store, and tells everyone to get out, do you have justification to shoot? If you knew about the LEOs being shot, sure. But most likely you would not know that.

    s
     
    Funny how when the whole Martin/Zimmerman thing went down, people on here vehemently defended Zimmerman for gunning down an unarmed kid. Yet some of the very same one's who were in Zimbo's camp then are now talking about tucking tail and running when confronted with a true and imminent threat. I guess to some CCW is only for scrawny teenagers munching on Skittles lol
     
    Mike, at the point the CCW holder engaged the kids there was no fire-fight occurring. The CCW started the fire-fight by engaging the kids who were at that point just trying to clear the Walmart patrons out of the building and waiting for the cops to show up to engage the cops.

    Saving cops isn't worth the trouble?

    I'll give the guy his props, he moved toward the danger. Likewise I give the college student credit for stopping the California shooter while he reloaded his shotgun.

    Every time one of these things happen we in the gun community wish that there was a CCW there. Well it won't always turn out the way we fantasize but taking on the attacker is the way to start the beginning of the end of this high profile suicide shit. Currently these bags feel invincible amongst us. It is only when firepower shows up that they fire their last and take their lives. If in the planning stages they had as much fear of the checkout girl in aisle 7 as they do of the guy in response gear, going back to jumping off a bridges would become more palatable.
     
    Last edited:
    Looking at the photos of the couple with her partially shaved head, druggie, ne'er do well cut and his gutter trash look in today's news, I have to wonder why the cops dropped total situational awareness and didn't see these two coming.

    The photos attached to this article search really make me wonder why the cops didn't cue in on these two as they walked through the door as a potential problem

    Bundy's son: Las Vegas shooters kicked off ranch

    So what you're saying is that the cops should have profiled these two based on what they looked like and what they were wearing?

    From my understanding of the events, these two walked in a back door and shot these two cops in be back, as they were eating their lunch. Basically they were ambushed and never saw it coming. Had in fact they come in through the front door and the officers had "cue'd in" on them because of their appearance or demeanor, then I'm sure some on here would have been crying to the heavens that they were profiled. Even then it might not have made much difference unless the officers were eating with one hand and had their service weapons out in their other hand.
     
    Ok, so from a law enforcement standpoint, which by the way, NC may be different than Nevada, Too many people are not very knowledgeable about the law when it comes to deadly force. Unfortunately a lot of people think its more like old school military tactics (do not fired until fired upon, not sure where people get this from). Its all in how well you can articulate the situation, and some people are better at doing that than others. They tend to be the ones who hesitate and pay the ultimate price. It just goes to show you what we (law enforcement) deal with on a day to day basis. We have less than seconds to make life changing decisions and then have to sit back and listen to everybody talk down about what happened because they have countless hours to analyze the situation at hand and don't think about the very limited time frame in which law enforcement has to make that decision.
    Its really sad for all the innocent people that lost their lives to these idiots.
    People, read your General Statute on Deadly Force and believe in it if you carry a weapon. Defend yourself or a third person from what you believe to be deadly force. Just be advised it will be a decision that will affect the rest of your life, and be prepared for the aftermath from the media and public. Its really tough, even when you are right without a doubt. I wish this CCW carrier would have pulled the trigger. Maybe he was uncomfortable with the thought of taking another humans life, maybe he was unsure if he was legally justified to do so, maybe he did not have a clear shot and had innocent people in the background that he was worried about hitting. Who knows.
     
    I am not a LEO, but when I sit in a restaurant I always find a seat that is tactically safe. My back not up against a window, and I am facing most of the patrons. I do not know where the LEOs were seated, but if I was in uniform I would always have my guard up. It would be most interesting to see a video of the attack.

    Hopefully police everywhere receive enough training to have it bored into them that they are a target anytime they put their uniform on.

    s
     
    if someone fires a round in the store, and tells everyone to get out, do you have justification to shoot?
    If I was in the store I would not draw or give myself away, until I understood what was really going on, and only then after my family was safe. Again body language will tell you most everything if, you can read it correctly under stress.
     
    As far as the police officers that were ambushed.....
    I have trained countless number of green Officers and experienced Officers. I have told them all the same thing. We do in fact put our lives on the line. Its sad to say, but if somebody wants to kill you its not that hard for them to do. If thats not something you can handle then maybe you should move on because you never know when or where a nut case like these 2 will show up. You just have to stay sharp and focused all the time to limit their opportunities. Its really hard to win an ambush situation like what these officers experienced.
     
    Hopefully police everywhere receive enough training to have it bored into them that they are a target anytime they put their uniform on.

    s

    It'll never happen and even if it did, once the citizens started to see the results of such training, the complaints and lawsuits would skyrocket.

    In respect to the armed citizen, my hats off to you bro. You can rest easy knowing that you didn't cower away from a threat. Instead you faced it head on and that your attempts to bring resolution to this incident probably ended up saving lives.
     
    Saving cops isn't worth the trouble?

    There was no possible way the CCW guy would have known that cops were the targets. You're making an assumption based on knowledge gained after the fact. The CCW guy only knew that 1 kid was trying to get people out of the store, that's ALL he knew. CCW guy chose to engage the ONE kid for no other reason but that he felt compelled to do so, the idea of saving cops would not have been a factor and obviously not the motivation.

    Is saving cops worth the trouble: Yes
    Was that what was happening here: No
     
    There was no possible way the CCW guy would have known that cops were the targets. You're making an assumption based on knowledge gained after the fact. The CCW guy only knew that 1 kid was trying to get people out of the store, that's ALL he knew. CCW guy chose to engage the ONE kid for no other reason but that he felt compelled to do so, the idea of saving cops would not have been a factor and obviously not the motivation.

    Is saving cops worth the trouble: Yes
    Was that what was happening here: No

    I'm sure none of us have all the facts on how this whole thing went down and it will be a while before the after incident report comes out but perhaps CCW guy was acting more on just the fact that these two were trying to empty the store. I'm sure he saw him carrying a weapon and I've heard reports that there were shots fired inside the Walmart before CCW got shot.

    Zimmerman had two option: 1) Continue to take a beating that could result in serious harm or death. 2) Stop Martin. Those were the only options available. I do not believe this is the case here.

    Agreed, but the only reason Zimmerman took a beating to begin with was because he "profiled" and was following Martin around. Granted Martin was a POS to begin with but, it would've never happened had Zimmerman not initiated that chain of events.
     
    Funny how when the whole Martin/Zimmerman thing went down, people on here vehemently defended Zimmerman for gunning down an unarmed kid. Yet some of the very same one's who were in Zimbo's camp then are now talking about tucking tail and running when confronted with a true and imminent threat. I guess to some CCW is only for scrawny teenagers munching on Skittles lol



    When that unarmed kid is the one on top of a person beating them then yes, happy shooting for the person on the bottom shooting the person on top of him.
    Its hard to play the unarmed kid / victim status when its clear they were on top assaulting someone which the evidence clearly showed.


    As to being in a public place and someone appears with a gun unless that gun is fired at you, pointed in your direction or the person with the gun makes a verbal threat to you then you retreat.
    If you feel threatened with deadly force you are then ( generally) allowed to use deadly force.

    You will however be required to convince the cops, prosecutor and perhaps a jury as to your belief in a convincing manner, like Z-man did.
     
    There was no possible way the CCW guy would have known that cops were the targets. You're making an assumption based on knowledge gained after the fact. The CCW guy only knew that 1 kid was trying to get people out of the store, that's ALL he knew. CCW guy chose to engage the ONE kid for no other reason but that he felt compelled to do so, the idea of saving cops would not have been a factor and obviously not the motivation.

    Is saving cops worth the trouble: Yes
    Was that what was happening here: No

    Perhaps you phrased it poorly but I point out this

    ?..The CCW started the fire-fight by engaging the kids who were at that point just trying to clear the Walmart patrons out of the building and waiting for the cops to show up to engage the cops.

    Key phrase "...just trying to clear the Walmart patrons out if the building and waiting for the cops to show up to engage the cops"

    The deceased recognized imminent threat to life by stating he was going to confront the male with his CCW. His problem was in being a good human being and not having that little part of his limbic system still attached to its dinosaur days that said "I see danger. This fucker is going to die." Not taking the accomplice into account was violation of the plus one rule.

    If he can articulate the threat to his life, facts before the encounter would only support his thinking if admissible, he would be good to go.

    I don't yearn for the Wild West but we typically scoff at the idea of waiting for cops as they will always be late to the fray. The CCW has to determine his reason to carry protection of self/family only or are you going further. Sadly it didn't end well for thus guy but he had some balls, give him credit, perhaps his threat told them the game was up and their retreat, caused by him, saved lives.
     
    Couple old self defense phases come to mind.
    Heroes die, don't be a hero.
    Don't draw unless to shoot. Don't shoot unless to kill.
    Don't stop shooting until the threat is eliminated.

    Easy to second guess but there is no way of knowing how anyone would react until faced with the situation. I pray I am never faced with such a decision.
     
    I'm sure none of us have all the facts on how this whole thing went down and it will be a while before the after incident report comes out but perhaps CCW guy was acting more on just the fact that these two were trying to empty the store. I'm sure he saw him carrying a weapon and I've heard reports that there were shots fired inside the Walmart before CCW got shot.


    I agree. All I have to go on is what was said in the article.
     
    Perhaps you phrased it poorly but I point out this



    Key phrase "...just trying to clear the Walmart patrons out if the building and waiting for the cops to show up to engage the cops"

    The deceased recognized imminent threat to life by stating he was going to confront the male with his CCW. His problem was in being a good human being and not having that little part of his limbic system still attached to its dinosaur days that said "I see danger. This fucker is going to die." Not taking the accomplice into account was violation of the plus one rule.

    If he can articulate the threat to his life, facts before the encounter would only support his thinking if admissible, he would be good to go.

    I don't yearn for the Wild West but we typically scoff at the idea of waiting for cops as they will always be late to the fray. The CCW has to determine his reason to carry protection of self/family only or are you going further. Sadly it didn't end well for thus guy but he had some balls, give him credit, perhaps his threat told them the game was up and their retreat, caused by him, saved lives.

    I agree with your sentiment and his heroics but I still think that he acted too aggressively. He could have simply helped people exit and didn't have to press the encounter. There's no way the CCW guy would have known they were there to kill cops or anyone else. Maybe they were just there to steal a few TVs... Now, if random CCW guy shoots people who are just stealing TVs and not having fired a shot and in fact have cleared the building of patrons, I think it's pretty safe to say that the legal system would have slam down hard on the CCW guy, i.e. instant felon if not in prison for murdering a poor guy just trying to watch tv.

    Bottom line here is that nobody's questioning his heroics and I give him credit for that but it was unnecessary and not his place in the first place. He should have been a hero and gotten himself and everyone else out of the building.
     
    I'm not Leo or military so I don't have additional tactical training from there. I got my chl from a retired Leo. I usually go annually to one of the tactical training places to work on my skills. The training is done by Leo and military trainers. One thing they always pound on is chl weapons are defense weapons not offense. It sucks this guy and the officers lost there lives, like said above if it leaves the holster you better be prepared to use it. Assessing the situation, you are the one in the disadvantage. Defense will help keep you alive, offense lowers your chances significantly.
     
    If I see someone with a weapon I am drawing my pistol and shooting them. Its why I have it. There is no safety is having a pistol, it is a responsibilit and a burden. If you are not 100% committed to use it you end up like this poor idiot. IMO, too many young bucks out there with a gun and without the will and skill to use it.
     
    I like many of you have seen some of the idiots that have a ccw,I shot my carry gun often and would have no problem shooting someone that is a threat to ME or MY family. I am sorry that 3 good people ended up dead but maybe the ccw holder did prevent more casulties from 1st responders.
     
    CCW holder's, there's going to come a time when we all may have to pull it out. If and when some dirt bag place's MY/YOUR life or MY/YOUR family's life in danger it's all over for that person. Everyone will have to decide, what they will do when that time comes, but self preservation of me and family/friends is always my number 1 thought. All we can due is pray for the Family's. There is a lot of things that are going to happen after a shooting and you will need to be prepared for it. I once spoke with a sheriff, and he explained to me deadly force is not always needed. He told me to get legal advice and talk to a lawyer about different situations.
     
    Last edited:
    As far as the police officers that were ambushed.....
    I have trained countless number of green Officers and experienced Officers. I have told them all the same thing. We do in fact put our lives on the line. Its sad to say, but if somebody wants to kill you its not that hard for them to do. If thats not something you can handle then maybe you should move on because you never know when or where a nut case like these 2 will show up. You just have to stay sharp and focused all the time to limit their opportunities. Its really hard to win an ambush situation like what these officers experienced.

    Cops are at a disadvantage most of the time. If some scumbag has made a plan to kill you and has set the plan in motion, you're already behind the 8-ball. You have to see the threat and decide to act before he pulls the trigger on a target he has acquired and decided to destroy. Doubtful these officers had much of a chance to react. Survival lies in superior training, split second recognition and reaction, and a mindset that you'll win the gunfight...always. But, you have to see death coming first...
     
    My wife thinks I am nuts but when we go out to dine I always take a seat against the wall ( no one behind me ) and a good view of things in front of me.
    Anyone wearing a uniform or open carrying is a natural and automatic target for people intent on doing harm.
     
    Leave it in the holster and if you pull your gun you should be firing it.

    +1 Roger THAT!
    I was taught that if it's serious enough (one is in fear for one's life or the life of others or extreme injury) to pull a weapon, there are NO warning/wounding shots. Shoot to kill cuz you ARE gonna get sued by the perp's relatives even IF you don't go to jail for unlawful manslaughter.

    I feel for the man and his family. I wish he would have covered his six and checked for additional perps. Sad, but he is a hero. Maybe the family can take some comfort in that thought.
    RIP, sir.
     
    Couple old self defense phases come to mind.
    Heroes die, don't be a hero.
    Don't draw unless to shoot. Don't shoot unless to kill.
    Don't stop shooting until the threat is eliminated.

    Easy to second guess but there is no way of knowing how anyone would react until faced with the situation. I pray I am never faced with such a decision.

    "Heroes die, don't be hero" ?
    not always, at least I hope__
    if allowed,I would prefer : "Martyrs die, don't be a martyr"
     
    Last edited:
    If I see someone with a weapon I am drawing my pistol and shooting them. Its why I have it. There is no safety is having a pistol, it is a responsibilit and a burden. If you are not 100% committed to use it you end up like this poor idiot. IMO, too many young bucks out there with a gun and without the will and skill to use it.

    Only problem with that statement is you need to identify the target first. What if it's another CCW holder or an off duty cop.
     
    Only problem with that statement is you need to identify the target first. What if it's another CCW holder or an off duty cop.

    And they were enjoying a Wal*Mart "register pop"? Seriously, I see what you're saying, and no, the presence of a weapon isn't sufficient grounds to make a surmise of criminal intent. There's been a good bit of Monday morning QB'ing here without facts and without knowing the intangibles that the armed citizen might have noticed that some would call the "hinky factor." It suffices to say that most (not all) people with a state license are way out of their depth from the jump on a two-way range.