shooting in intersection with standing traffic. Any thoughts?

[briandg]

That's not something I want to be involved in. The guy responded a lot quicker than I would have been able to. It seems that it took about three seconds from first shot fired until the second was out into the street and shooting down the road at the other bad guy.

Yes, they are both bag guys, don't split hairs. the other guy fired random shots into heavy traffic at a fleeing vehicle. He jeopardized the lives of maybe hundreds of people.

If this says anything, it's that we can't count on the bad guys to be untrained morons who can't operate a weapon. Most of them are, I suspect, but this guy had obviously done a fine job.


http://www.wkrg.com/news/northwest-...light-shootout-in-northwest-florida/935171718

ESCAMBIA CO., FL (WSFA) -
Commuters sitting at an intersection in Escambia County, Florida, Monday afternoon found the silence of waiting for the traffic signal to turn green broken by rapid gunfire, and the entire scary ordeal was caught on dashcam video.

The Escambia County Sheriff's Office said the incident happened around noon when people from two vehicles started shooting at each other. Authorities have since arrested one suspect and are looking for another.

The incident, which law enforcement believes to be drug-related, started when the driver of a silver Lexus pulled up to the intersection and opened fire on those in a waiting gold Toyota. Two guns could be seen from the Lexus window and between six and seven shots were fired before the car sped off.

Meanwhile, the passenger of the Toyota jumped from his vehicle and returned fire at the fleeing sedan before jumping back into the vehicle as it too sped away.

Investigators later recovered the Toyota and arrested one suspect, identified as 30-year-old Jeremy Olds. They continue efforts to find another suspect, Jonathan James Harris, 27.

 

[jpx2rk]

I saw the dash cam footage on the new last night I believe. I would have needed a change of shorts, and some new seat covers 'cause the pucker factor would have been irreversible. LOL

Those guys probably ride around looking for the competition, so they are always ready to draw down. They don't care about all of the innocent people who happen to be in their way.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, my first thought is if the vehicle is mobile and not blocked in like the Toyota, then stay with it and get outta Dodge. However, if the vehicle is immobile for whatever reason, sitting inside it limits mobility without providing much cover.

Mr. Olds certainly did well to go from sitting in traffic with two kids to recognizing he was being shot at, identifying the threat, and coming up with a good plan to give himself better cover and close with the threat. I've certainly seen people with way more notice get hurt because they got stuck in disbelief at what was happening.

My gut says that Mr. Olds knew bad news was on the way before the shooting started. The attackers certainly looked a bit rushed on their approach.

 

[Mainah]

My first thought after viewing the video is kudos to the personal injury lawyer who got his advertisement on before the story. If I had been driving the Chevy truck I think I may have taken my chances with traffic instead of serving as a cover vehicle for the second shooter. All in all a good reminder of how fast these things happen.

 

[briandg]

It hadn't occurred to me that the two cars may have already made contact in some way, such as eye contact in the mirror, setting the target at high alert. Maybe this was just the time and place that an unavoidable confrontation happened. This could explain how the target managed to get into position and fire in seconds.

 

[JohnKSa]

In a self-defense shooting, you do what you have to do to survive. If it's justified you won't go to jail for what happens to the attacker.

BUT that doesn't mean you're home free across the board. If you injure innocent bystanders you'll likely end up in civil court, and if it's determined that you were negligent, you'll also be criminally liable.

Of course neither of these guys probably cared anything about the bystanders, but for the law-abiding, it's worthwhile to keep in mind that self-defense is about saving lives. Saving one life at the cost of shooting toward a bunch of innocent bystanders may feel right to the one person who is in danger but society and the courts are unlikely to look favorably upon someone who endangers many others to save himself.

 

[briandg]

It would be all but impossible to try and throw the 'self defense' flag, wouldn't it? Even with a 'make my day' law, he had no responsibility to flee himself or try to avoid danger, right? That condition doesn't even come close. The guy jumped out and went after his attacker. Is that covered under that law?

The most damning thing, imo, is the later actions. He broke cover when the attack was over, fired into traffic in attempting to backshoot his attacker who was fleeing the scene at high acceleration.

A cop who did that would almost certainly burn for that, wouldn't he?

 

[briandg]

I find it hard to believe that he didn't hit a bystander or driver. The only thing that prevented other injuries was probably hitting buildings as his shots went high and wide. He still may have put bullets into other cars.

Would anyone here try to intervene? Not me. It was already over by the time I would have been able to respond.

 

[Lohman446]

Would anyone here try to intervene? Not me.

Some of these paragraphs are going to seem a bit disjointed. I am putting out my thoughts not writing a well formatted argument.

Nope. I carry my firearm and practice with it to protect areas of my life that are my responsibility. My children, my wife, my family, my employees, my customer, and maybe myself. Society have given me no duty to the protection of the general public. There may be some exception in my mind for the obviously defenseless such as children or elderly women who were raised in a culture that did not encourage independence.

The use of force is, in my view, always a negative action. Perhaps unavoidable in certain cases by regrettable even then. In this case, especially as a bystander, it is avoidable for me.

Society has placed numerous hurdles on my carrying of a firearm. Other individuals, with some exception, have the right to overcome those same hurdles, train, and practice themselves. Its not my responsibility should said individuals find that they have not made such a choice.

 

[Aikibiker]

The guys in the car on the left should have debussed on the driver's side. Then they would have had two vehicle between them and the other car.

That or run the light and driven away. Because you know, they were in a car.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If the driver of the Ford decided he didn’t like being in the crossfire and bolted instead of the shooters, Mr. Olds would have been in a pickle. He’s lucky the Ford driver’s OODA loop was much slower than his.

As for intervening, the best outcome in a shooting is legal entanglements and cost of your time and money. From there, the outcomes just get worse. So I am going to need a lot more clear cut scenario than this one before I am even tempted to intervene.

 

[Jeff22]

As to the question of whether or not you should intervene in such an incident when you are not directly involved -- I took this right out of the policy manual at work:

GREATER DANGER EXCEPTION: An officer may shoot without target isolation if the consequence of not stopping the threat would be worse than the possibility of hitting an innocent person.

In such circumstance, one would have to clearly articulate why you chose to engage a threat without target isolation. I'm not sure how this principle would be applied to a private citizen. I suspect it hasn't come up that often and there may not be any "bright line" rulings in court proceedings to clarify the issue.

 

[briandg]

Nothing here applies to that. The guys were both probably bad guys according to the report. the target was arrested for his role.

As for greater danger, according to video and report, the shooter was fleeing the scene when the target went to find him and opened fire for no reason other than retaliation. There was no further threat, no greater danger to the target himself, and as soon as the shooter turned that corner, the target's role was finished. His responsibility lay only in minding his own business while police tried to locate the shooter. I can't figure out any way that this could be applied to a gang banger who took a few bullets to his car, then went to the effort of following another gangster on foot and shooting down the street at him.

I don't think that any intervention was possible, or necessary. The whole process took about six minutes, right? by the time that almost any concealed weapons carrier was able to intervene, the threats were gone. The only thing that a concealed carrier could logically do was arm himself and observe, to be prepared if another threat presented itself.

I don't think that intervention would have been smart in any case, it would have been one of the stupidest moves possible. Most people would only wake up to the situation when the shock of gunfire dragged them away from the distraction of sitting there watching the light. how could anybody that didn't see the entire situation unfolding make a decision as to who he should be shooting at, or of he should intervene at all?

 

[JohnKSa]

Some posts have been deleted. This is the Tactics and Training Subforum. Let's try to keep the discussion focused in that direction.

 

[FireForged]

My thoughts are... this is what conflicts look like in the street. It happens and its over as fast as it started. Get out of the way and get your head down, that's what I think about it.

 

[Jeff22]

intervention

And as this episode shows, many/most of these incidents happen so damn fast that it's hard to process all the inputs and figure out what's going on and how to properly respond

 

[DT Guy]

How on earth would you, seeing that erupt beside you in an intersection, have any idea HOW to intervene? Who's the victim? What precipitated it?

Until rounds started coming at me, I'm a dedicated bystander.

Larry

 

[T. O'Heir]

You can't count on the bad guys to be the least bit concerned about killing or wounding bystanders either. That's what makes 'em 'bad guys'.
In any case, unless you're carrying a badge, it's not up to you to intervene.
"...untrained morons..." Training and not being a moron would have stopped the guy shooting at a moving car with a hand gun. Too much TV.

 

[briandg]

If this says anything, it's that we can't count on the bad guys to be untrained morons

That comment was referring to the fact that they weren't the bumbling idiots that we usually see crooks being. A while back a guy tried to outrun a K9 on a skateboard. These two guys had a real honests to god shootout, the intended target looked just like he was participating in one of the competitions. jump out, roll, pop up and take position, shoot, and move on to the next stage.

I never said that I would intervene. I asked if others would.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The answer to the intervention question was self evident at the start. Anyone with any knowledge of such, would know that this is a nonintervention situation. Why ask?

Also, we don't need to drool over the 'abilities' of criminals.