Shooting on Brookside

[skyydiver]

I believe what is gonna get him into trouble is that he put himself in that situation by stopping at the bar if he knew they were right behind him he needed to lose them before stopping. by stopping he made them a threat. now I dont know if they drove around the block and then pulled up or if they pulled in with him but if they were right on him he should have kept going tell he lost them.

So...stay on a BIKE being chased by a truck with drunks yelling at you, vs. at least get parked, and somewhat equalize things? Personally, I'd have been much more afraid on the road than after everyone got "dismounted". I agree that we don't know all the details, but with what is presented, I'm giving benefit of doubt until I hear otherwise.

 

[sdalover]

This is all interesting discussion but until we know more details it is all a mute point. I'm sure at one point when more details are released we will all learn much from the incident.

Every time i read about one of these situations, i try to see what i can learn from it.

At this point, the only fact that seems to be fact (per released police details as posted on news on 6) is the shooter stopped this guy and did it with one 38 caliber shot to the upper torso.

I am taking three thoughts from this shooting:

1. The importance of combat placement when you want to stop a threat. No matter what type of gun, or type of caliber, unless you do your part with shot placement the cartridge cannot do its intended purpose.

2. Amount of shots fired. Again, with a well placed, combat effective shot, the need for additional follow up shots to stop the threat may be reduced and in the public opinion may be the difference between out of control gunner and citizen defending life with a handgun.

Now i know in some cases (people on drugs, clothing, whatever else we can think of) multiple shots may be required to stop a threat... but all I'm trying to point out is how guilty the shooter would look (public opinion) in this case if he shot the guy 3 or 4 times to stop the threat due to some shots
hitting non combat placed areas

3. Having not seen any pics of the people involved and not placing judgement on their hand to hand combat skills or decisions. I do think that if you choose to carry a gun, you should also be ready to defend yourself in hand to hand fighting. Get some training and keep yourself in the best shape possible. Try to have the stamina and skills to at the very least protect your way to safety. There will obviously be situations when all the training and stamina in the world will not help you in a hand to hand, weaponless fight, but i'd like to think the training and conditioning would help more than hurt in most situations.

 

[Michael Brown]

This is all interesting discussion but until we know more details it is all a mute point. I'm sure at one point when more details are released we will all learn much from the incident.

Every time i read about one of these situations, i try to see what i can learn from it.

At this point, the only fact that seems to be fact (per released police details as posted on news on 6) is the shooter stopped this guy and did it with one 38 caliber shot to the upper torso.

I am taking three thoughts from this shooting:

1. The importance of combat placement when you want to stop a threat. No matter what type of gun, or type of caliber, unless you do your part with shot placement the cartridge cannot do its intended purpose.

2. Amount of shots fired. Again, with a well placed, combat effective shot, the need for additional follow up shots to stop the threat may be reduced and in the public opinion may be the difference between out of control gunner and citizen defending life with a handgun.

Now i know in some cases (people on drugs, clothing, whatever else we can think of) multiple shots may be required to stop a threat... but all I'm trying to point out is how guilty the shooter would look (public opinion) in this case if he shot the guy 3 or 4 times to stop the threat due to some shots
hitting non combat placed areas

3. Having not seen any pics of the people involved and not placing judgement on their hand to hand combat skills or decisions. I do think that if you choose to carry a gun, you should also be ready to defend yourself in hand to hand fighting. Get some training and keep yourself in the best shape possible. Try to have the stamina and skills to at the very least protect your way to safety. There will obviously be situations when all the training and stamina in the world will not help you in a hand to hand, weaponless fight, but i'd like to think the training and conditioning would help more than hurt in most situations.

Pay particular attention to #'s 1 and 3.

Michael Brown

 

[HMT204]

Uh-Oh! This didn't work out too good for a pharmacist in OKC....... I'm just saying

And the post was a copy paste from Channel 8.. Nothing more or less.. I think I will just watch and see how this turns out.

 

[LightningCrash]

the shooting was outside

woohoo, then everyone can quit griping about the SDA

 

[tRidiot]

Not quite.
....

At a gas station, if a similar action occurs, you may or may not be justified depending on the mitigating factors.

Michael Brown

I feel fairly confident in my ability to convince a jury that the fist of an adult male attacker could be considered deadly enough to be in fear of death or great bodily harm.

Plenty of cases out there where trained martial artists or even lucky drunks have felled a person and even killed them with a single punch. That one punch could be enough to incapacitate me (or any person in the right circumstances). I find it unreasonable for the state to expect me to risk that kind of circumstance to protect the life of an aggressor against me, given that I have little or no knowledge of their physical fitness, history of violent behavior, level of training in hand-to-hand combat or attitude toward beating a man to death once incapacitated.

I'm not making an argument for blasting away at anyone who threatens you, but a determined attacker, armed or not, is to my belief, a threat to my life, not just my well-being or pride. I have personally seen the aftereffects of people beaten by only fists, and I'd say it's pretty easy to construe great bodily harm, or at least the fear of it.

I do understand where you're coming from, but again... I'd rather do just about anything than to hesitate at the wrong instant for fear of legal consequences and end up losing my life.

 

[Michael Brown]

I feel fairly confident in my ability to convince a jury that the fist of an adult male attacker could be considered deadly enough to be in fear of death or great bodily harm.

Plenty of cases out there where trained martial artists or even lucky drunks have felled a person and even killed them with a single punch. That one punch could be enough to incapacitate me (or any person in the right circumstances). I find it unreasonable for the state to expect me to risk that kind of circumstance to protect the life of an aggressor against me, given that I have little or no knowledge of their physical fitness, history of violent behavior, level of training in hand-to-hand combat or attitude toward beating a man to death once incapacitated.

I'm not making an argument for blasting away at anyone who threatens you, but a determined attacker, armed or not, is to my belief, a threat to my life, not just my well-being or pride. I have personally seen the aftereffects of people beaten by only fists, and I'd say it's pretty easy to construe great bodily harm, or at least the fear of it.

I do understand where you're coming from, but again... I'd rather do just about anything than to hesitate at the wrong instant for fear of legal consequences and end up losing my life.

You pays your money, you takes your chances.

Michael Brown

 

[ttown]

I'm sure there model citzens:

http://docapp065p.doc.state.ok.us/s...=450930&offender_book_id=260151&imageindex=15

 

[TheLastDaze]

the moral of this story is 'shut up and sit down'...

if this simple rule was followed the 33 year old hot head would still be alive...

sucks someone lost their life, but you know it just puts things in perspective for me, (a hothead that should've been dead 1,000 times.) You never know what you're getting yourself into when you confront someone with bodily harm, (I'm wiser and older now)

The big question is;: you think he'll get his gun back after this blows over?

this was totally justified, and if the DA sees it any other way.. I think I'll make a few signs myself...

 

[Glocktogo]

I feel fairly confident in my ability to convince a jury that the fist of an adult male attacker could be considered deadly enough to be in fear of death or great bodily harm.

Good luck with that. I hope you never have to find out.