Not really sure where you are going with this. You've carried for 30 years and never had to act in a manner which you are defending yourself or others. So what you are saying is you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to acting in a high pressure situation, you just think you do.
Well, yeah, I think I know how I would/will react in a high pressure situation because I've had very good and fairly extensive training in overcoming, or minimizing as the case may be, the physiological impediments that result from such situations. So saying I "think" I know how I'd react is accurate, but saying I "have no idea how" I'd react is decidedly not. That statement would apply to you saying such a thing about someone of whom you know absolutely nothing.
I am glad however that you are a moral authority on judgement....
You left out a word there....I am the moral authority on
my judgment. I don't speak for anyone but myself, though I happen to know that there are those around here who agree with
my judgment(s) about
my moral duty to act, and they incorporate the same or similar judgments and authority over themselves. If you don't, fine, but what's with the 'tude about it?
....though, it is my assessment that those that rush in without knowing all the facts and with inadequate skill set and experience trying to make a difference just just make matters worse.
Well, if you insist on keeping to the meme that no CC'er is capable of evaluating a given situation (without rushing) and concluding to a moral certainty (through observation of the facts in front of them) that the only right thing to do is act (many, if not most around here, with more than adequate skill), while being disciplined in their tactics and true in their aim, then all you've got to say in this thread is that there is no scenario in your mind that would justify someone capable of helping a third party who is being violently victimized right in front of their eyes from doing so. Not every member of this forum would vehemently disagree with you on that score, but many will, and I definitely do.
You propose this concept of a Legal shooter.
I "proposed" nothing. I acknowledged that there is a difference between a legal shooting (or shooter, but the words are synonymous in the context I am using them here) and an illegal shooting, and informed you that the bulk of what the OP opened the conversation with was a thread about a legal shooting. That case was one where the shooter was not being directly threatened when he decided to break leather, but which was determined that same morning to be a legal shoot based both on SC laws concerning defense of self and defense of others. I "proposed" no concept that the facts of the case we were loosely referring to weren't perfectly consistent with in reality.
I counter that regardless of circumstance you being actively engaged in a fire fight either before or as law enforcement arrive will have little impact on their perception as to their actions towards you. Why? Because they can only act on what they immediately see.
No cops were called in the case we (at least fudo and I) were loosely basing our comments on. How would we know that? Because the shooter himself joined the site for the express purpose of correcting tons of bad information that the media reported, and also to correct tons of know-nothing Monday-morning quarterbacking that was going on in the thread prior to his arrival. Cops couldn't have known that there was a robbery in progress because the robbery was in a small space where the armed robber could've seen anyone making a phone call. When the two robbers started ordering patrons and employees on the floor and making them low-crawl on their bellies towards a back room, the CC'er used a small divider between himself and the cash register to conceal him drawing his weapon, and when the robber with the gun turned away from him, that's when he engaged him. Told him to drop his weapon, he spun around and pointed it at the CC'er instead, and the CC'er fired two to center mass and one to the forehead. He tried also to make the other robber stay until the cops got there, but when the guy took off, he applied his training and refrained from firing at him. He didn't "rush in." He was there eating eggs and waffles after working a night shift at a welding shop. He "knew all the facts" as he had just gotten his breakfast when the robbers came in and started immediately threatening to kill MF'ers. He obviously had the "adequate skill" considering his shot-placement and his restraint in not shooting the unarmed fleeing thug in the back.
What the cops "immediately" saw when they did get there was a compliant, calm, well-spoken 23-year-old who, like me at the same age, only had his permission slip to carry for a year or so at the time, and who never wanted to be a hero, never wanted to have to shoot anyone, but who was prepared to shoot in defense of himself and/or others if the circumstances required it to save his or others' lives. And in doing so, describing him as a "legal shooter" is not a "concept," it's a fact according to SC law.
I tried to lead you by the nose to the thread so it wouldn't be necessary to rehash the facts of the case here, but you were only interested in making stuff up about "rushing in" and not having "adequate training" and blah blah blah frickin' blah. Let me guess.....Are you a cop? Is that what your antipathy for CC'ers potentially acting in a third party's defense is all about? Sure sounds like it. Whether or not you're a cop though, maybe hearing the CC'er's Sheriff talk about his specific case will help you understand that scenarios where a CC'er can help others is not, and
should not, always be seen in a negative light as you have chosen to see it in this thread.
Link Removed
Blues