"SkyEyes" <
skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:62927902-0a66-4366...@l6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
Wrong on a couple of counts
1) IT was not some "little old lady" who had picked up Loughner's gun
2) Zamudio did NOT point his gun at anyone
<
http://shootingforliberty.org/?p=289>
"3) The armed citizen who entered the scene that day did not
"almost shoot the wrong guy." I encourage you to listen
to him speak about the incident on the ProArms Podcast.
Zamudio explains that he never removed his gun from
his pocket. He came upon the scene when Loughner was
on the ground struggling with a group of people, one of
whom had been wounded. Zamudio saw an individual
holding Loughner's gun with the slide locked back.
The individual was not facing Zamudio. He felt that
the person was not a significant threat so he ordered
them to put the gun on the ground which they immediately
did. At no time did Zamudio deploy his firearm.
After learning that the person he had encountered was
not a danger, he helped to hold Loughner on the ground
until the police arrived, some four minutes later.
Slate and The LA Times took some of Zamudio's statements
out of context and hyped other statements to try and make
the situation seem more precarious than it actually was.
To be sure, the situation was dangerous. Zamudio arrived
on the scene with little information and was forced to make
some very difficult choices very quickly.
Is it possible that someone else would have screwed up.
Of course it is! Then again, it is perhaps just as likely that
an off-duty cop arriving on the scene with the same amount
of information would have made the wrong choice.
Yet I don't hear anyone arguing that the police should be
disarmed.
The reality is that an armed citizen, even with no formal
training,
made all the right choices and managed to contribute
to a positive outcome - i.e. Loughner winding up behind bars.
Engaging in "what if" analysis is useful to a point, but it
should
not take away from the reality of what actually happened. "