ACTICVE SHOOTER TRAINING COMPLETED

[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?

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.

[Airgator0470]

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.