ACTICVE SHOOTER TRAINING COMPLETED

David,

step #1 is to determine priorities.

What is more important; public perception or one's own personal perception.

In the case of Zimmerman - again - it has been decided by a court of law Zimmerman acted legally. IF Zimmerman loses sleep I'd bet it is not because he thinks he acted unethically or illegally.

As for the rest of the "legal protection". I can't even imagine him not suing the pants off the race baiting bastards that have caused and continue to cause him grief. That IS his legal right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frady

Bob- Respectfully, I'm not convinced. I agree with you that if reasonable people read the laws we would come to that conclusion. In practice, however, I don't know that things really play out that way.

Imagine we were having this conversation a couple years ago and we asked how to law protected us if we saw someone walking through the neighborhood and followed them to see what they were up to. As we now know, a "wannabe cop" doesn't get treated with the same perspective of a real cop.

---

I know what you are saying... BUT... You're mixing CIRCUMSTANCES. The case you are referring to was NOT a case involving a citizen involving themselves with an active shooter. The topic/point of the thread is CIVILIANS using force to inject themselves into an ACTIVE SHOOTER situation and then using force.

You have just as much "authority" to "use force to protect" as any cop does... and your actions and the results face the same legal test as a cops would. Perhaps you misunderstood the context of my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumbler

David,

step #1 is to determine priorities.

What is more important; public perception or one's own personal perception.

In the case of Zimmerman - again - it has been decided by a court of law Zimmerman acted legally. IF Zimmerman loses sleep I'd bet it is not because he thinks he acted unethically or illegally.

As for the rest of the "legal protection". I can't even imagine him not suing the pants off the race baiting bastards that have caused and continue to cause him grief. That IS his legal right.

---

Actually... he was found to have acted WITHIN the law INITIALLY by the agency of initial jurisdiction AND the local SAO, initially, the LAW did protect him... we all know what happened when politics took over...

Rumbler- It's not simply a matter of public perception. Z-man was very lucky that two very competent attorneys stepped up to defend him (of course to get tons of free PR) without bankrupting him. If not for those two guys, he would have been stuck with a public defender -- not to crack on PDs, but they are generally overworked and do not have the same resources -- or bankrupt himself to pay for defense.

Beyond that, while he prevailed in court what would you say his job prospects are right now? What if he were a professional working in the business community?

As for the lawsuits, he has what we would think is a slam dunk against NBC yet as far as I know he hasn't seen a dime. They have the lawyers and resources to keep him in court for years and drag it out. Has he actually won any civil suits against anyone? If he's willing to do celebrity boxing matches with DMX I would certainly think he's willing to sue a major news outlet. I think you have WAY overestimated his ability to get compensation for his tarnished name.



Airgator- I understand I'm not comparing apples to apples. My point is the law is pretty clear on self defense, or at least as clear (if not more) than the authority of citizens vs. LEO. If the law that has been written specifically to protect us didn't protect Z-man (and I'm just using him because it's such a clear misuse of the justice system) then is it unreasonable to believe the same could happen to any of us?

Quote:

---

Actually... he was found to have acted WITHIN the law INITIALLY by the agency of initial jurisdiction AND the local SAO, initially, the LAW did protect him... we all know what happened when politics took over...

---

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. There is the law as it was written and intended, and there is real life. Does it really matter to Z-man that the initial agency and the local SAO acted reasonably? Did it make his situation any better in the long run?

Again, reading the law I agree with you, it's what happens when politics get involved that worries me.


btw- I'm not saying I would never run into a situation, I'm just saying there would be a brief moment to really think about it. Of course if it's a school, any place one of mine is in or a host of other scenarios I'm going in no matter what.

Right off the top of my head I can think of several businesses Zimmerman could theoretically start/use to maintain anonymity and generate revenue for his family.

I have the feeling that we (collectively) are not privy to the big picture from his perspective.

You and I have different life perspectives; you have a wife and baby to consider. I have a dog that bites . . . and farts, and then looks at me like I did it. Anyway, I certainly do not fault you for your perspective. . . or at least I don't think I do . . . :chinscratch:

Jafar, thank you for your service. Especially if overseas. My dad is very much the same. He is a Vietnam vet and is very pragmatic with the value of ordinary citizens. He has seen and done enough that he is no longer a glossy eyed patriot. He would kill every living thing that got in the way of his family's safety but would not become John Wayne for your average baggy pants, bone head, mall dweller. He has a different perspective on the value of human lives. And it is totally understandable. When you pack your friends' body parts into bags to be shipped home, it kinda changes your value system.

I was driving tonight and was thinking a little more about the situation we have all been discussing. In my previous post I was being very matter-of-fact in my response to a thought provoking question. I already said I would go back inside. But upon further thought, I kinda simplified it to a more "on the scene" response. I came up with this: if I was outside the building and could hear women and children inside screaming between gunshots???? There is no way I could stay outside. I would go in with a garden rake if it's all I had. Think about it in those terms. I think in that scenario, even my dad would be indistingishible from a wolf.

Wolves and sheepdogs have a lot in common. They both have fangs, and a capacity for violence.

The real difference comes in their values - their perspectives - if you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumbler

Right off the top of my head I can think of several businesses Zimmerman could theoretically start/use to maintain anonymity and generate revenue for his family.

I have the feeling that we (collectively) are not privy to the big picture from his perspective.

You and I have different life perspectives; you have a wife and baby to consider. I have a dog that bites . . . and farts, and then looks at me like I did it. Anyway, I certainly do not fault you for your perspective. . . or at least I don't think I do . . . :chinscratch:

---

Everyone always blames the dog....

:stinker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumbler

Wolves and sheepdogs have a lot in common. They both have fangs, and a capacity for violence.

The real difference comes in their values - their perspectives - if you will.

---

Exactly. What I am saying is that in the case of hearing kids screaming, even my cynical dad would come out of his shell and sheepdog to such a degree that he would look extremely wolf-like. It would amaze me if any person on this forum could stand around outside and hear that. But my values and expectations of armed males may be different than others. I do know that if my role turned out to be such that I only helped get people out of the building, then I would always wonder if I could have done more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frady

Rumbler- It's not simply a matter of public perception. Z-man was very lucky that two very competent attorneys stepped up to defend him (of course to get tons of free PR) without bankrupting him. If not for those two guys, he would have been stuck with a public defender -- not to crack on PDs, but they are generally overworked and do not have the same resources -- or bankrupt himself to pay for defense.

Beyond that, while he prevailed in court what would you say his job prospects are right now? What if he were a professional working in the business community?

As for the lawsuits, he has what we would think is a slam dunk against NBC yet as far as I know he hasn't seen a dime. They have the lawyers and resources to keep him in court for years and drag it out. Has he actually won any civil suits against anyone? If he's willing to do celebrity boxing matches with DMX I would certainly think he's willing to sue a major news outlet. I think you have WAY overestimated his ability to get compensation for his tarnished name.



Airgator- I understand I'm not comparing apples to apples. My point is the law is pretty clear on self defense, or at least as clear (if not more) than the authority of citizens vs. LEO. If the law that has been written specifically to protect us didn't protect Z-man (and I'm just using him because it's such a clear misuse of the justice system) then is it unreasonable to believe the same could happen to any of us?




This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. There is the law as it was written and intended, and there is real life. Does it really matter to Z-man that the initial agency and the local SAO acted reasonably? Did it make his situation any better in the long run?

Again, reading the law I agree with you, it's what happens when politics get involved that worries me.


btw- I'm not saying I would never run into a situation, I'm just saying there would be a brief moment to really think about it. Of course if it's a school, any place one of mine is in or a host of other scenarios I'm going in no matter what.

---

All of your concerns ARE valid... no question about it. It's too bad we all have to add such considerations to out total thought process when considering whether or not to act.

Me... I'll roll the dice in a pure active shooter situation. However, should I see two strangers getting into it... I, as a civilian, perhaps would not be so quick to act for the very reasons you pointed out.

When we conduct our annual HR218 qualifications, the retired cops are CAUTIONED very strongly against injecting themselves into a situation between two distinct parties. You DO NOT know WHO has done WHAT to initiate the conflict... thus you could very well take action against a real victim w/o knowing it.

All good points in this thread to consider... in the end, the INDIVIDUAL has to retain the final say-so as to what he or she is willing to do w/o pressure from anyone or anything.