Will you do this as a CCW?

[Capt.Jim]

We always talk here as a CCW when to intervene or why or if it's right thing to intervene at all and on and on...

This woman clearly not threatened with a weapon of any sort...
Her life is not in danger...
Purse snatchers are about to run away without harming anyone else and definitely not a threat to the life of the CCW...
These are the facts!
I am not reaching any conclusion here like if he did the right thing or wrong thing, but just wanted you to consider the facts of the situation and ...

Watch and comment pls...

CCW Stops purse snatchers !!!

 

[usm1rifle]

I am glad it had a good ending but with no one in imminent danger, this could have turned sour quick.

Would I do this? No.

 

[Rpg]

No, I would not intervene.

Imminent threat not present.

I'm glad it worked out.

 

[Protected One]

I saw this story earlier today and found myself having mixed feelings. The facts as you stated them are essentially correct. However, here is another possibility to ponder that is certainly possible:

The thieves stole her purse, which more than likely contained her drivers license, and thus...her home address. How do we know that the thieves, realizing the potential "bounty" they have, won't do a home invasion that results in injury or loss of life of the homeowner? In that instance, by preventing the purse snatching the good Samaritan would have done a lot more good than originally anticipated. The problem is there are too many "ifs" in that scenario - but the possibility cannot be summarily dismissed.

The situation as it presented itself certainly does not appear to have met the standard for armed intervention, and though I don't think I would have intervened in this case I'm certainly glad that he did.

 

[Hodgin]

I agree with all of the above comments.

 

[Capt.Jim]

I saw this story earlier today and found myself having mixed feelings. The facts as you stated them are essentially correct. However, here is another possibility to ponder that is certainly possible:

The thieves stole her purse, which more than likely contained her drivers license, and thus...her home address. How do we know that the thieves, realizing the potential "bounty" they have, won't do a home invasion that results in injury or loss of life of the homeowner? In that instance, by preventing the purse snatching the good Samaritan would have done a lot more good than originally anticipated. The problem is there are too many "ifs" in that scenario - but the possibility cannot be summarily dismissed.

The situation as it presented itself certainly does not appear to have met the standard for armed intervention, and though I don't think I would have intervened in this case I'm certainly glad that he did.

Yeah, but I don't think anyone should act with intentions to stop a possible future threat... I mean it is not justifiable! What if all their intention were just take the cash and throw the purse away?

 

[b_san]

Would I do it? depends on which State I was in... I hate to second guess someone who makes a split second decision to help someone else especially if it works out for the best, so I won't. One other point to consider is that we can't really see what's going on in the car either so there may have been more threatening language or behavior from the 2 low lifes than we can see from the video, that could have prompted the armed intervention. Regardless looks like everyone went home safe and the bad guys got locked up so, alls well that ends well.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

If I were a LEO, even off-duty, yes. As a civilian, no. People were quick to call this guy a "Good Samaritan" because it ended well. What would they have called him had he shot one of the perps and it turned out he has a family, loved his mother, was a good boy, not carrying a gun or knife, etc.?

 

[venomballistics]

it's about the law where you stand.

If the law supports the action.
If you really saw the whole thing.
and if you can act without turning something simple into an over escalated mess with more casualties that people directly involved ... go right on ahead.
the situation as it presented itself to him, satisfied all of the above.
Most here seem to be speaking from a perspective where the first part is murky at best, in the eyes of the law ... where you stand.

 

[VictorLouis]

i MIGHT try for some OC< or Taser practice.

 

[shouldazagged]

Based on what I saw it could have been disastrous in one or more of several ways. I'd say all concerned were mighty damn lucky, and as a non-LEO I would not have intervened the way the "Good Samaritan" did.

 

[Bartman3562]

In Kansas, you can act in someone's behalf the same as if the crime was against you. So yes, I would hope I could do the same thing. There is already enough people who don't help those that can't as it is. I can't imagine witnessing something like this happen and just standing by.
Just my opinion of course.

 

[feralmerril]

I had a funny one many years ago. I and a GF were on my harley and we had just got off the freeway in Van Nuys Ca. I was taking a residential street on the way to my buddys house. A couple were fighting over a purse. I got off and walked over to intervene. The young man hollered over to me and said, "She`s my wife!" She was a very pretty Spanish type with a tight mini skirt. He took off towards their probable apartment. She was crying and I asked her did she have a place to go. She said her mother lived about a mile down the street and it sounded like it was right where I was headed. I told her to get on, (side saddle) and yelled over to ol` marge, I will be right back. I figured he had no interest in her right? I drove her to her moms and turned around to get marge. I met marge stomping down the sidewalk and she wouldnt even get on the motorcycle!
On another incident I had a pair of friends that had just retired, sold their house and was buying another at page Arizona. For whatever stupid reason Franks wife Bonnie was carrying either cash or the entire payoff check from the house to buy the new one in her purse! Now frank was ex retired military, worked with me and had just retired again. In other words he was once a real fit fighter but now was a big heavy out of shape 65 years old. They stopped to go in to circus circus in vegas. A youth grabbed bonnies purse in the parking lot and ran. Frank ran after him but they came to a fence or wall that the purse snatcher scrambled over but frank couldnt make it over. Another man seen it and took up the chase while frank was holding his chest and weezing. The purse snatcher threw down the purse and the other guy picked it up and brought it back to frank and bonnie. All the money was intact.
They wined and dined the man, bonnie kissed him' and
told him if they ever could do anything for him to just call them etc.
Now I was helping them move the last trailer load. We had the house empty with just the phone sitting on the floor. We were saying our good byes and the phone rang. It was their new friend. He had just lost his job, his wife had left him and he was just getting out of the hospital from a heart attack. Thats when I said good bye and went home.

 

[hangnoose]

ARE THE CROWN JEWELS IN THOSE LOUIS VITTON BAGS?

YOU would think so the way those ladies hang onto them for dear life risking their arms being torn off or dragged under the car. All for some shopping coupons & a few bucks?

 

[Protected One]

Yeah, but I don't think anyone should act with intentions to stop a possible future threat... I mean it is not justifiable! What if all their intention were just take the cash and throw the purse away?

I hear what you are saying, yet don't you think that ANY threat stopped is a possible future threat stopped as well? I do.

That doesn't need to be the intended purpose. I call it "The Uncle Ben Effect".

 

[dougb1946]

If I were a LEO, even off-duty, yes. As a civilian, no. People were quick to call this guy a "Good Samaritan" because it ended well. What would they have called him had he shot one of the perps and it turned out he has a family, loved his mother, was a good boy, not carrying a gun or knife, etc.?

MN case. A misguided youth was talking an elderly woman out of her purse by pistol whipping her. She gave up the purse. Man with a CW gave chase (you are allowed to attempt to recover stolen items). Misguided youth pulled weapon on CW, who then pulled his weapon. Youth died of the "slows". As he was just turning his life around, there was a court action. Law said this was actually two incidents. The GG with CW had not pulled his weapon until threatened, and was showing good form by attempting to catch the misguided youth. Then, when the youth tried to use lethal force, the CW was justified in defending himself. As the only real witness for the youth was his sister, and she was implicated, the civil case doesn't look real good. Apparently the deceased had a long record, as does the sister. The family that preys together apparently sinks together.

 

[hangnoose]

"UNCLE BEN EFFECT"

There goes the next owner of the Clippers, lol.

 

[Rastoff]

I would have tried to help the woman, but I would not have drawn my gun until the threat to me is elevated to great bodily harm and is imminent.

The ends don't justify the means.

 

[Duckford]

There goes the next owner of the Clippers, lol.

He means Uncle Ben Parker, Spiderman's uncle, who is killed by a criminal that Spiderman let go. Nothing to do with the gentleman who sells rice.

 

[Capt.Jim]

If I were a LEO, even off-duty, yes. As a civilian, no. People were quick to call this guy a "Good Samaritan" because it ended well. What would they have called him had he shot one of the perps and it turned out he has a family, loved his mother, was a good boy, not carrying a gun or knife, etc.?

I think like many anti-gun people some of us don't give enough credit to law abiding citizens with CCW.
It happened before too, during the mall shooter incident!
Remember?
CCW guy drew his gun and the shooter saw him with the gun and stopped his killing spree and shot himself or something like that...

But the moral of the story is that the sensible citizens with CCW for no reason at all don't just draw their guns and start "spraying bullets" like antis claim they will do..

Why you think he would need to shoot the people?

Why we are always suspicious about the guys with CCW who won't comprehend the situation correctly at the moment (if) they draw their guns?

If a person with CCW can't differentiate a criminal act from a heated family argument, how we trust the same person when it comes to his/her self defense he/she would identify a criminal and his bad intentions correctly in the blink of an eye and react accordingly to the situation?