-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Shoot/No-shoot!
- Thread starter Cross-X
- Start date
Overall it does. It shows that there is little time to think about shooting and training is an absolute necessity for carrying. Just cause a gun-owner can put holes in paper doesn't mean they have the mental discipline to make the right choice.
Most civilians don't go looking for trouble.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
And how many cops have we seen lately that screwed the pooch with the decision they made?
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
I liked the article! I just sent the following E mail to the author. I wish we could see more reporting like this.
Dear Ms Horswell,
I read you Shoot / No- Shoot article today on the internet.
I appreciate your candid and truthful reporting of your experience.
So often people like me who believe in the right to self protection, and even Police Officers, face scorn and anger for what we believe.
Your article was decidedly fair. This isn't something that I, as a gun owner, am used to. It seems to me that most times I read about gun use by Police, or a homeowner defending his family, it is in a negative light.
That might be because I live near Boston, and they have such a perverted view of reality here. In any case, very seldom does a news article here report any good reason for firearms use. It's a stacked deck.
Thank you for you honesty and your decision to learn the truth on your own. I hope you will continue to look at self defense, not just from a Police point of view, but from the view of the civilian gun owner as well. We are a group of honest, decent citizens who believe we have the God given right to protect the lives of our family and ourselves.
I look forward to seeing your future work.
Yours truly,
Bill Dxxxxxxxx
Dear Ms Horswell,
I read you Shoot / No- Shoot article today on the internet.
I appreciate your candid and truthful reporting of your experience.
So often people like me who believe in the right to self protection, and even Police Officers, face scorn and anger for what we believe.
Your article was decidedly fair. This isn't something that I, as a gun owner, am used to. It seems to me that most times I read about gun use by Police, or a homeowner defending his family, it is in a negative light.
That might be because I live near Boston, and they have such a perverted view of reality here. In any case, very seldom does a news article here report any good reason for firearms use. It's a stacked deck.
Thank you for you honesty and your decision to learn the truth on your own. I hope you will continue to look at self defense, not just from a Police point of view, but from the view of the civilian gun owner as well. We are a group of honest, decent citizens who believe we have the God given right to protect the lives of our family and ourselves.
I look forward to seeing your future work.
Yours truly,
Bill Dxxxxxxxx
SnakeEye
Banned
Overall it does. It shows that there is little time to think about shooting and training is an absolute necessity for carrying. Just cause a gun-owner can put holes in paper doesn't mean they have the mental discipline to make the right choice.
Most civilians don't go looking for trouble.
And how many cops have we seen lately that screwed the pooch with the decision they made?
i dont think that was the issue that the article raised.
The way i read it the deadly delay to act he spoke of is not based on how much or how little training he had but by the notion that returning fire could potentially lead him into a legal and financial clusterf***.
a dilema the criminal does not share.
mental disciplines not the issue, its the lack of finanical fortitude to withstand the repercussions of his actions that cased him to hesitate..
this is why, i beleive at least, police with union lawyers can afford to "screw the pooch" more than civi's can..
I just got a reply to my E mail from Cindy Horswell.
She thought I made several good points, and she thanked me for reading.
It was short and sweet, but I appreciate her courtesy in replying.
She thought I made several good points, and she thanked me for reading.
It was short and sweet, but I appreciate her courtesy in replying.
Perhaps, but I didn't read it that way. The author never mentions financial considerations, only that there wasn't enough time to think or react.
"In the back of my mind, I kept thinking how firing should be my last resort. I knew deadly force is legally justified only if someone is facing imminent danger. I worried that afterward I might learn — as some deputies have — that the "gun" in the criminal's hand was only a cell phone, or worse yet, I had targeted an innocent bystander. Maybe I might even shoot one of the cameramen trying to film the training experience.
But somehow I had anticipated having dialogue and then some sort of negotiations. 'There should be more time,' I said."
There isn't more time.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Again, I disagree. The training is necessary to allow the shooter to react to the situation in the best possible manner. It IS the mental discipline that allows the shooter to react without thinking and knowing that his actions may lead to the death of someone else. If you don't know for a fact, you can shoot someone, why carry a gun. Its got nothing to do with financial fortitude (at least from the LEO POV); perhaps it does for the civilian, but again, there isn't enough time to debate. You're either in or you're out.
And yes, lawyers help a great deal, but "union" lawyers are the same lawyers that everyone else uses, so I dont' see the relevance.
SnakeEye
Banned
Jaxon:
not directly but..
this statement says to me he was conflicted, considering the legal and inexorably bound financial repercussion of his actions instead of dealing with the threat at hand and placing both himself and others in danger.
He wasnt fighting the bad guy...he wasnt in the moment... he was fighting the district attorney in his mind before he ever even fired a shot, and was in fact too conflicted to even fire one in return even after being fired upon.. the result is he was shot and the bad guy got away.
======================================================
jaxon
and i certainly think having the legal buffer of a kennel full of attorneys in ones corner could certainly help resolve and expedite the decision making process to fire..especially in a bass ackwards state like this.
interpretation is a subjective thing, its just my take on it.
======================================================
not directly but..
this statement says to me he was conflicted, considering the legal and inexorably bound financial repercussion of his actions instead of dealing with the threat at hand and placing both himself and others in danger.
He wasnt fighting the bad guy...he wasnt in the moment... he was fighting the district attorney in his mind before he ever even fired a shot, and was in fact too conflicted to even fire one in return even after being fired upon.. the result is he was shot and the bad guy got away.
======================================================
jaxon
Sadly, people in states like MA been brow beaten into having to have more consideration for the criminals life than their own, because any life they may have after saving their own would likely be hardly worth living after the ensuing legal and financial ass-raping thats likely coming, even for a totally 100% righteous self defense shoot...
and i certainly think having the legal buffer of a kennel full of attorneys in ones corner could certainly help resolve and expedite the decision making process to fire..especially in a bass ackwards state like this.
interpretation is a subjective thing, its just my take on it.
I thought it was a very good article but I'm not to thrilled with the idea of "shooting" plastic bullets at live people I just can't get my head around this fact. I've been invited to go to a paint ball shoot more times than I can count but something in me says shooting people just for the fun of it just doesn't sit right with me.If I have to shoot someone it's a life and death situation not a game. Or am I being overly sensitive?
Highlander, no you're not being overly sensitive. I feel the same way.
My pre-teen grandsons are allowed to play paintball, and it freaks me out every time they tell me about it.
My pre-teen grandsons are allowed to play paintball, and it freaks me out every time they tell me about it.
Not at all.
And to me it says he was wondering if he could take a life, despite it being "legally justified".
And you're reading way to much into this with your own perspective and bias. But that's okay, its what we do.
And that may well be, but it doesn't answer the question about mindset. I can't recall a specific financial ass-raping recently, but I think you're starting at shadows.
I'm not sure where you get your information, but I hardly think the police have a "kennel full of attorneys" anywhere.
Subjective based on bias. Objective based on experience.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,630
- Likes
- 33,766
How about "attorneys on call whose fee will be paid by the taxpayer or union, rather than by liquidating retirement assets or taking out another mortgage."
The attorney provided by the taxpayer has the municipality's interests in mind. The attorney provided by the union, payed for by dues and the attorney held on retainer again payed for by the officer represent the officer's interests.
That's a great article for the public. I couldn't help but think about those poor officers involved in the recent NYC shooting. They had to make this judgment and then have the likes of the "reverend" Jesse Jackson come out to second guess them.
A fair investigation will show if the shooting was justified or not, but they've already been damned by the media and the public due to this charlatan who has no idea about what making this kind of judgment means.
Unfortunately articles like this will not get play along side of the stories about LEO shootings.
A fair investigation will show if the shooting was justified or not, but they've already been damned by the media and the public due to this charlatan who has no idea about what making this kind of judgment means.
Unfortunately articles like this will not get play along side of the stories about LEO shootings.
An additional thought: While driving through NY on the way to NC last week I saw a bulliten board on the side of the I95S asking the public to withhold judgment with regard to this shooting until the AG had fully investigated. I'm not sure, but I think it was payed for by the police union. These hate mongers like J.J. and Al Sharpton are a menace to society and a hazard to honest police officers.
Both our current and past Town Counsel are/were incompetent boobs that happened to be members of the bar!
In no way would I ever have wanted them to represent me or my interests and in fact they rarely provide good representation of the town's interests (over their own interest in billing hours)!! There are documented cases where they presented improper advice to the town (which cost the town excessive legal fees before losing), "illegal" (meaning directly contrary to prior high federal court rulings or law) advice, etc.
This is in addition to Jon's comments that the town's best interest is RARELY the same as the best interests of the officer involved.
In no way would I ever have wanted them to represent me or my interests and in fact they rarely provide good representation of the town's interests (over their own interest in billing hours)!! There are documented cases where they presented improper advice to the town (which cost the town excessive legal fees before losing), "illegal" (meaning directly contrary to prior high federal court rulings or law) advice, etc.
This is in addition to Jon's comments that the town's best interest is RARELY the same as the best interests of the officer involved.
In most civil litigation cases involving the municipality, the municipality's insurance company will provide their attorneys. They just decide how much $$$ they're going to pay out to keep the municipality out of court. No matter how frivolous the case is or may seem.
