Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Retired cop CCW kills bad perp at Mc Donalds


BlackhawkPaul

Recommended Posts

Excellent post, Thanks Blackhawk Paul. Ever reader here should take a look at this video.

If You have decided to carry a weapon this could have been You in this spot. This man knew what he had to do and he did it. He had others around him trying to help and I am sure others were in the resturant as well. I dont know all the facts on how this went down but I would think as soon as he saw what was gong down his years of time on the job kicked in and he placed his shot or shots where they would stop the fight and without hitting anyone else.

 

I cannot make the point stronger that this well could have been ANYONE OF US WHO CARRY in His place. One less snake to deal with and may his soul burn in hell. A few months ago, I had an experence that I felt was not right and I was expecting trouble that day, But the dude left without trying anything only to later walk in another place, Same guy, Same dress and try to rob a place and after the owner of the business give the dude ever cent he had the SOB shot the poor man to death in front of his wife over less than $50.00 and is still out there someplace possiblity back in Old Mexico by now.

 

Thanks again for this post, Texas Man

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unfortunate" for the bad guy? That's an occupational hazard if you're a criminal.

 

Why did the retired cop physically grapple with the guy? Why didn't he shoot first?

 

Why does he have a right to carry but the rest of us don't? Allow everyone who is a law abiding citizen to carry if they choose, make commiting these crimes a very dangerous occupation, bury a few more criminals, and the crime rate will drop like a shot.

 

Good post, but as you can tell, I have a few issues with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unfortunate" for the bad guy? That's an occupational hazard if you're a criminal.

 

Why did the retired cop physically grapple with the guy? Why didn't he shoot first?

Why does he have a right to carry but the rest of us don't? Allow everyone who is a law abiding citizen to carry if they choose, make commiting these crimes a very dangerous occupation, bury a few more criminals, and the crime rate will drop like a shot.

 

Good post, but as you can tell, I have a few issues with it.

 

 

My guess would be that he saw the tactical situation such that there was an unacceptable chance of hitting a bystander, either with a miss or a pass through.

 

 

Now THAT is a good question. And that is something that has gone back and forth. For about 10 or 15 years, when they retired in CA LEOs became just ordinary citizens, and it was just as hard for them to get CCWs as it was for the rest of us. Looks like that may have changed again. The bigger question is why any of us need to beg from the Lord High Sheriff a permit to exercise a constitutionally protected civil right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unfortunate" for the bad guy? That's an occupational hazard if you're a criminal.

 

Why did the retired cop physically grapple with the guy? Why didn't he shoot first?

 

Why does he have a right to carry but the rest of us don't? Allow everyone who is a law abiding citizen to carry if they choose, make commiting these crimes a very dangerous occupation, bury a few more criminals, and the crime rate will drop like a shot.

Good post, but as you can tell, I have a few issues with it.

Excellent point, and the past history of Florida and their CCW's proves it.

 

BSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unfortunate" for the bad guy? That's an occupational hazard if you're a criminal.

 

Why did the retired cop physically grapple with the guy? Why didn't he shoot first?

Forty, that was most likely a tactical decision with consideration to the number of bystanders. He shouldn't just shoot first, then he would have been painted a vigilante by the media. The escalation of force became necessary when he couldn't control the perp.

Why does he have a right to carry but the rest of us don't? Allow everyone who is a law abiding citizen to carry if they choose, make commiting these crimes a very dangerous occupation, bury a few more criminals, and the crime rate will drop like a shot.

He has the right to carry since he has the experience and training to do so. LEO's make enemies throughout thier careers and have been faced with numerous incidents where they have been forced to defend themselves and others. Every citizen should have the right to carry but they must also be trained and competent. Most folks just don't have the experience or training to make a deadly force decision under duress. An example, "Why didn't he shoot first." That isn't how we are trained pard.

Good post, but as you can tell, I have a few issues with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does he have a right to carry but the rest of us don't?

 

 

Forty Rod, I am glad that I live in Georgia where it's easier to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit, and I agree that all law abiding citizens should have that right. But to answer your question, I'm reminded of one of my Supervisors at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation who was once observed working in his garden after he retired, and he was wearing his gun and holster while in the garden, dressed otherwise in just shorts and flip-flops. When asked what he was doing wearing his gun in the garden, his response was "the sons-of -bitches are now getting out of prison that I dealt with".......After having a contract put on me at one time I can assure you that I go nowhere without being armed. I also have parolees contacting GBI Headquarters trying to find out how to reach me.....and it's not to invite me to the party! Most likely, due to the criminal element in California, an off duty or retired officer is more prone to be remembered by those he has dealt with who do not like him at all... :blush: Gracos Kid

Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess would be that he saw the tactical situation such that there was an unacceptable chance of hitting a bystander, either with a miss or a pass through.

 

So instead he jumped an armed man and got other people involved in a struggle where the perp's gun could have been fired, fired several shots of his own...all still in this same "innocent bystander" environment rich with potential victims...and appaerently only connected with one.He and at least two other had to seek medical treatment. I'm sorry, but I don't see the reasoning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the second of your statements: I have 10 years in the Army and Marine Corps, 8 years before that when I was in high school and college ROTC...back when it was something more than a social club and we were taught how and when to use arms...and a lifetime of selling and using guns of all kinds, and in some of these jobs I was in many situations more stressful than the ordinary street cop will ever see...yet I'M not qualified to carry a gun on a daily basis?

 

Come on folks, I can't be the only person who's "highly qualified" to carry a gun, and I'm certainly not the only one MORE QUALIFIED than many current and former LEOs. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot more military vets than there are police vets, and that all things considered, more (both percentage-wise and in pure numbers) who have faced hostile and very stressful situations.

 

This is in no way to be construed as a putdown of our police,but a question as to why they are more privileged than ordinary citizens, but my original concerns remain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So instead he jumped an armed man and got other people involved in a struggle where the perp's gun could have been fired, fired several shots of his own...all still in this same "innocent bystander" environment rich with potential victims...and appaerently only connected with one.He and at least two other had to seek medical treatment. I'm sorry, but I don't see the reasoning.

 

Yes, and no. The tactical situation had changed, which, after all, is what they do. So what had been an unacceptable risk became an acceptable on. He must have thought, initially, that he could take the thug without firing. Turned out he was wrong, but I wasn't there so I'm not going to second guess him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forty I agree that ccws should be more available to citizens in California. If so maybe this perp would never have made it past his first robbery where he pistol whipped the employees.

 

I can't speculate on exactly what went down as I haven't read the reports and wasn't there so I don't know. I might have done the same thing or I might not. I'll leave it to talking anchorheads to speculate with little info. They do it all the time. :lol:

 

The government needs to realize that armed law abiding citizens are not a threat to society!

Unless you're a dictator.

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forty Rod, I commensurate with you about the lack of CCWs for citizens of California. As to your years of military service, thank you. The problem arises when you try to apply your familiar military "rules of engagement" to a more restrictive civil situation. I hope your continued battle to elect officials who realize that bad guys don't obey the law, only honest citizens do is successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job, for all. I'm impressed with the Micky D's employees that jumped in to help also!!!

 

One can only hope they don't get fired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good!

 

I hear ya Forty Rod on the "Why does he have a right to carry but the rest of us don't? "...just heard on the radio that CA is considering a special CCW allowance for it's legislators. <_< Talk about elitism.

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/should-california-lawmakers-get-special-status-to-carry-concealed-weapons.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef014e86b4b42e970d

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reporter girl got it wrong. It is not a "recent California law" that allows retired cops to carry. It's federal law and it supercedes idiotic state laws and applies nationwide. Without it, the pinheads who pass for politicians in California would STILL be denying retired cops their God-given right.

4TR, you don't like California's stoopid laws. But you don't want to move out of the sinking ship. The rest of us can't help you. You may consider cutting and running cowardly but there comes a point where you have to realize at least if you lived in a more freedom loving state, at least you could get a permit with no problem. I myself could not live in a place that would put me in jail for packing a pistol. My life and the lives of my loved ones are too important to me to compromise on the issue. Please do not jump to the conclusion I am denigrating the great state of California. I am not. It is a beautiful place full of great people and now with the federal law, I hope to visit again some day. Good luck and best wishes to all those there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does he have a right to carry but the rest of us don't? Forty Rod, I am glad that I live in Georgia where it's easier to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit, and I agree that all law abiding citizens should have that right. But to answer your question, I'm reminded of one of my Supervisors at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation who was once observed working in his garden after he retired, and he was wearing his gun and holster while in the garden, dressed otherwise in just shorts and flip-flops. When asked what he was doing wearing his gun in the garden, his response was "the sons-of -bitches are now getting out of prison that I dealt with".......After having a contract put on me at one time I can assure you that I go nowhere without being armed. I also have parolees contacting GBI Headquarters trying to find out how to reach me.....and it's not to invite me to the party! Most likely, due to the criminal element in California, an off duty or retired officer is more prone to be remembered by those he has dealt with who do not like him at all... :blush: Gracos Kid

 

According to the Constitution....everyone has the right (unless they have proven otherwise)....2nd amendment if I recall….you Californian's need to jump on your elected officials and join the rest of the country. Thats just the start IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unfortunate" for the bad guy? That's an occupational hazard if you're a criminal.

 

Why did the retired cop physically grapple with the guy? Why didn't he shoot first?

Forty, that was most likely a tactical decision with consideration to the number of bystanders. He shouldn't just shoot first, then he would have been painted a vigilante by the media. The escalation of force became necessary when he couldn't control the perp.Why does he have a right to carry but the rest of us don't? Allow everyone who is a law abiding citizen to carry if they choose, make commiting these crimes a very dangerous occupation, bury a few more criminals, and the crime rate will drop like a shot.

He has the right to carry since he has the experience and training to do so. LEO's make enemies throughout thier careers and have been faced with numerous incidents where they have been forced to defend themselves and others. Every citizen should have the right to carry but they must also be trained and competent. Most folks just don't have the experience or training to make a deadly force decision under duress. An example, "Why didn't he shoot first." That isn't how we are trained pard. Good post, but as you can tell, I have a few issues with it.

 

 

I'm sorry but that is an elitist attitude that has been proven dead wrong in every state that has shall issue concealed carry and for over 20 years now. That has been the anti-gun arguement as far back as 1986 when Florida passed it carry laws. They said then there would be blood in the streets and innocents getting shot because averasge folks aren't cops.

It aint happened.

 

 

Gun control;

The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her on pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a women explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound!!! :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reporter girl got it wrong. It is not a "recent California law" that allows retired cops to carry. It's federal law and it supercedes idiotic state laws and applies nationwide. Without it, the pinheads who pass for politicians in California would STILL be denying retired cops their God-given right.

4TR, you don't like California's stoopid laws. But you don't want to move out of the sinking ship. The rest of us can't help you. You may consider cutting and running cowardly but there comes a point where you have to realize at least if you lived in a more freedom loving state, at least you could get a permit with no problem. I myself could not live in a place that would put me in jail for packing a pistol. My life and the lives of my loved ones are too important to me to compromise on the issue. Please do not jump to the conclusion I am denigrating the great state of California. I am not. It is a beautiful place full of great people and now with the federal law, I hope to visit again some day. Good luck and best wishes to all those there.

Actually, the CA law regarding retired Peace Officers is older than the Federal law. It was in place when I moved from CA in 1990... one of the things I knew I'd miss about CA... along with the weather, my friends... and Cowboy shootin'. Not necessarily in that order.

 

40 Rod,

It ain't about elitism, or anything else, except... the fact that even retired, many cops have been accosted and worse by criminals they'd dealt with in their job. There are some jurisdictions that don't like that law... It isn't left up the individual jurisdiction. And it's only for those that retire honorably, after a specified length of service... (used to be 10 years minimum) and with the approval of their last command structure... (IIRC). And the individual retains that "right" until they die or are deemed incompetent). Also know that the CA Peace Officers Association is very well represented in Sacramento. They have the political clout and savvy to make things happen. And, at various times in CA history, there have been some very fine CA legislators that were former peace officers (under the CA Penal Code they include Prosecutor Investigators and some other classifications as well). Far better than either the NRA or CPRA's lobbyists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 Grumpy Old Fart With A Gun (GOFWAG)

+1 4T-Odd's demand for CCWs for Kali citizens.

 

Did you see there's a bill in Sacramental making Kali a Shall-Issue state, but only for elected officials??

 

Some are more equal than others...

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 Grumpy Old Fart With A Gun (GOFWAG)

+1 4T-Odd's demand for CCWs for Kali citizens.

 

Did you see there's a bill in Sacramental making Kali a Shall-Issue state, but only for elected officials??

 

Some are more equal than others...

 

Yup - see my post #19 for a link...

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

40Rod, I'm all for you carrying. I'll do all I can to insure you are able to.

 

But, I don't intend to give up my right to carry under LEOSA in protest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but that is an elitist attitude that has been proven dead wrong in every state that has shall issue concealed carry and for over 20 years now. That has been the anti-gun arguement as far back as 1986 when Florida passed it carry laws. They said then there would be blood in the streets and innocents getting shot because averasge folks aren't cops.

It aint happened.

 

 

Gun control;

The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her on pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a women explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound!!! :angry:

 

+1

 

"He has the right to carry since he has the experience and training to do so. LEO's make enemies throughout thier careers and have been faced with numerous incidents where they have been forced to defend themselves and others. Every citizen should have the right to carry but they must also be "trained and competent". Most folks just don't have the experience or training to make a deadly force decision under duress."

 

To imply that an LEO is the only one that is "trained and competent" to carry concealed and that the average citizen is not is a gross mis-statement. For example, as Forty Rod stated he has a vast background to qualify as being "trained and competent". While yes, the rules of engagement may be different, that background provides the common sense as when to apply those rules. You cannot convince me that just because they are a LEO that they have a higher degree of retained training of the practicle employment of concealed carry than many of the other private citizens. The fact that they are a retired law enforcement officer should not put them higher on the totem pole than any other individual that is mentally and morally qualified who wants to receive a concealed carry permit. Just like the average citizen, they are no different; there are great folks, good folks, and just plain dumb folks.

 

These individuals don't appear any more "trained and competent" than any other Tom, Dick, or Harry on the street:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVZjbyzFGQ

 

 

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/12/19/did-d-c-cops-overreact-to-snowball-fight-14th-and-u/

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/02/call_it_lavatory_larceny_--_bu.html

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/mar/14/20040314-121512-4314r/

 

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/4324561/detail.html

 

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.asp?nl=905885285127&tmpD=

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13512149/

 

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2006/06/nothing-new-here.html

 

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2010/12/06/baltimores-drunk-and-armed-police-rule-questioned/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see indications of this thread deteriorating into a dumb cop rant.

Here's all I have to say about it:

 

Don't be angry because law enforcement officers are allowed to carry.

Help campaign against anti-gun candidates.

Join the NRA

Make your voices heard until every law abiding citizen is granted their 2nd Amendment rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see indications of this thread deteriorating into a dumb cop rant.

Here's all I have to say about it:

 

Don't be angry because law enforcement officers are allowed to carry.

Help campaign against anti-gun candidates.

Join the NRA

Make your voices heard until every law abiding citizen is granted their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

 

No Bob, it's not a dumb cop rant. It's a vivid example of how police officers can be just as human as the rest of us. To believe that they use exellent judgement at all times just because they are/were police officers is incorrect. To be given a preferential treatment for the right to carry because of one's previous employment status is wrong and slights the individuals who can't get one because they don't have the "right" occupation. I'm not angry that law enforcement officers can carry, I'm glad they do. I'm angry that other people that are just as deserving do not get the same consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see indications of this thread deteriorating into a dumb cop rant.

Here's all I have to say about it:

 

Don't be angry because law enforcement officers are allowed to carry.

Help campaign against anti-gun candidates.

Join the NRA

Make your voices heard until every law abiding citizen is granted their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

+1, UB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see indications of this thread deteriorating into a dumb cop rant.

Here's all I have to say about it:

 

Don't be angry because law enforcement officers are allowed to carry.

Help campaign against anti-gun candidates.

Join the NRA

Make your voices heard until every law abiding citizen is granted their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

 

I don't think anyone is heading toward a 'dumb cop' rant. Just pointing out that officers are humans too and just because a badge and sidearm are given to an individual doesn't mean they are any better than the private citizen who has training also.

 

But yes, retired officers should be allowed CCW because of the 'enemies' they may have made in their career ;)

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, GG they did give me a badge to go with the pittance of a salary. The sidearm, leather, cuffs, baton, OC, boots and all other equipment came out of my pitifully poor own pocket. Those were not "given" to me.

 

Before anyone gets to envying LEOs for their "priveleged" status think about the vow of poverty that goes with the badge and the almost NO thanks from anyone for the sacrifice and shortened life span.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.