Nevada IHOP shooting

[king...@hotmail.com]

I was reading about the shooting at an IHOP in NV, where some guy got
out of his car with an AK, started shooting and walked into the IHOP
and killed a bunch of people (National Guard soldiers) inside before
turning the gun on himself. (obviously the guys had mental issues, as
was stated in the article) I read a lot of comments on the story, and
many centered on the owner of a nearby restaurant that heard the
shooting, grabbed his pistol and ran outside only to see the guy with
the AK, then ran back inside. Obviously a pistol is not the weapon of
choice against a Kalashnikov, but many commmenters said the guy should
have engaged the crazy man with the AK, and could have saved several
lives. This got me thinking - what is his responsibility in a
situation like that? If the crazy guy is pointing a weapon at him and
he is fearing for his life then he's justified in shooting, but if he
witnessed a hostile act (shooting outside the IHOP) without being
directly threatened does he have the right to fire to protect unknown
victims?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[George Shirley]

On 9/9/2011 9:43 AM, king...@hotmail.com wrote:
# I was reading about the shooting at an IHOP in NV, where some guy got
# out of his car with an AK, started shooting and walked into the IHOP
# and killed a bunch of people (National Guard soldiers) inside before
# turning the gun on himself. (obviously the guys had mental issues, as
# was stated in the article) I read a lot of comments on the story, and
# many centered on the owner of a nearby restaurant that heard the
# shooting, grabbed his pistol and ran outside only to see the guy with
# the AK, then ran back inside. Obviously a pistol is not the weapon of
# choice against a Kalashnikov, but many commmenters said the guy should
# have engaged the crazy man with the AK, and could have saved several
# lives. This got me thinking - what is his responsibility in a
# situation like that? If the crazy guy is pointing a weapon at him and
# he is fearing for his life then he's justified in shooting, but if he
# witnessed a hostile act (shooting outside the IHOP) without being
# directly threatened does he have the right to fire to protect unknown
# victims?

I don't know what Nevada law says about it but firmly believe I would
have opened fire on the guy. It is a moral imperative to defend your
fellow citizens as far as I am concerned. If you believe you are in the
right then you must follow up, regardless of state law. This is my
opinion and not based on law but on moral imperatives.

[Bert]

In news:j4d8ms$a61$1...@news.albasani.net "king...@hotmail.com"
<king...@hotmail.com> wrote:

# This got me thinking - what is his responsibility in a
# situation like that?

None.

# If the crazy guy is pointing a weapon at him and he is fearing for his
# life then he's justified in shooting, but if he witnessed a hostile
# act (shooting outside the IHOP) without being directly threatened does
# he have the right to fire to protect unknown victims?

He has the right to do so (and maybe even legal permission, depending on
where he lives), but there's no legal or moral requirement for him to
risk his own life.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[LC]

The parking lot there is an easy 75 yards across, his front door to
the side of IHOP
or 225 feet

the AK has the advantage

LC

[Ralph Mowery]

It probably depends in which state he is in. Where I live (NC) you can only
use deadly force if you think your life or someones else life is threatened.

In this case he would have been justified in using his handgun. However, he
has no legal expectation to use his gun.

If I was in his situation and thinking correctly, I would go back inside,
call the police and take up a position I felt was safe to return fire if he
came in my store.

[Don Lampson]

Another problem for the "good samaritan" with a pistol, engaging the
nutcase with an AK-47, is what would happen when the police show up,
and they see him with a gun as well?
The cops will think there's two homicidal nutcases, and guess what
would happen next?

Don

[SaPeIsMa]

1) His first responsibility moral and legal, is to stay alive.
2) He has NO DUTY to put himself at risk to save another
3) In the US, he has the right to engage someone committing a criminal
act, that puts people at risk of serious injury or death.

[Petey]

What, the same type that think police snipers should just shoot the
weapon safely out of the hostage takers hands instead of employing
deadly force on them like they saw once happen in a movie?

[Petey]

What, the same type that think police snipers should just shoot the
weapon safely out of the hostage takers hands instead of employing
deadly force on them like they saw once happen in a movie?

[Steve B]

I believe the laws reads if you are in fear of your life, or you believe the
gunman is about to kill someone, you are justified. It's just all the
falderal later with some lawsuits and jurisdictions that make people
indecisive.

It depends a lot on the situation, and I wasn't there at the IHOP. Did the
man with the pistol have a clear shot? Was there anything behind the perp
that the handgunner could have hit? Probably, as this was a restaurant
parking lot. How close was the shot? How good a shot was the pistolier?
It is so difficult to say what I or you would have done. As stupid as it
sounds, if it was that congested or crowded and I could not safely fire at
the perp, I may have tried to create a diversion by firing into the lawn.
But then you get a popper turned your way, and might only add to the body
count. Who knows now? Training says not to draw except to fire, and when
firing, shoot to kill. Then reality rears its ugly head.

BTW, this morning, officers responding to a call in Las Vegas encountered a
man trying to use a fraudulent credit card. The man pulled a gun from his
waistband, and shot an officer, hitting him in his vest, and once in the
arm. That was at 0430 this morning, so all details were not out yet. PO
going to be okay. PO opened up on him, killing perp.

So, once in a while, the good guy wins.

Steve

[SaPeIsMa]

"Petey" <peet...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j4e44f$a2r$1...@news.albasani.net...
# What, the same type that think police snipers should just shoot the
# weapon safely out of the hostage takers hands instead of employing
# deadly force on them like they saw once happen in a movie?
#
#

There's a video on Youtube where a police sniper does exactly that.

[Gunny_2011]

I teach CCW classes here in NV. The answers to your questions are:

He has NO legal responsibility to render aid.

He is legally justified in using deadly force in defense of the life or
safety of himself and others.

At the distances involved and the with the weapons concerned. He made the
right decision not to engage in an almost futile firefight. A snubby or
pocket automatic is no sane match for an AK at those ranges. However, just
to play "what if", if Sencion had crossed over to THIS business and entered,
then the owner would have been well within reasonable defensive handgun
range and would have been highly motivated to empty his gun into the
shooter. If it was me and the guy came into my shop, they might just find
me dead because I tied or lost in the gunfight, but by god they will find me
with an empty gun and a hot barrel.

To show you what kind of family this shooter came from, when the news
interviewed one of his brothers, he responded that "this story is worth a
lot of money and I won't talk to you unless you pay me a bunch". Real
classy family.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:38:05 +0000 (UTC), "Gunny_2011"
<patmag...@hotmail.com> wrote:

#If it was me and the guy came into my shop, they might just find
#me dead because I tied or lost in the gunfight, but by god they will find me
#with an empty gun and a hot barrel.

"You may find me one day dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll
find me in a pile of brass." - Trooper M. Padgett

[Petey]

Yeah, and it was considered a miracle shot there too. It helps that the
guy was sitting in a chair when the shot was taken.

[Carlos Halfcock]

In article <j4iagv$eel$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Petey <peet...@comcast.net> wrote:

# Yeah, and it was considered a miracle shot there too. It helps that the
# guy was sitting in a chair when the shot was taken.
#

It also helps that the range was only 87 yards.

[Mk VII]

At 75yds you have no realistic hope of taking on somebody with a
rifle, even if you have a full-size pistol. You'll get his attention,
and not in a good way.

[Petey]

On 09/11/2011 12:20 PM, Carlos Halfcock wrote:
#
# # Yeah, and it was considered a miracle shot there too. It helps that the
# # guy was sitting in a chair when the shot was taken.
# #
#

# It also helps that the range was only 87 yards.

That too. A target's head can move pretty quickly out of the way at 87
yards (even one indexed through a scope).

[Steve B]

# On 09/11/2011 12:20 PM, Carlos Halfcock wrote:

That is an insult to Carlos Hathcock.

Steve

[nord...@yahoo.com]

# At 75yds you have no realistic hope of taking on somebody with a
# rifle, even if you have a full-size pistol.

It would certainly be a bad choice for someone fresh from the permit
mill with a brand new Ruger LCP in his pocket, but 75 yards is not
completely hopeless for a skilled pistolero with a serious sidearm.
Add to that what seems to be a tendency for some of these killers to
eat their gun as soon as they encounter armed resistance maybe a few
bullets zinging by might have changed things. OTOH the armed citizen
had no obligation to intervene and did have an obligation not to add
to the carnage by taking shots he was not prepared for. I do wonder
what might have happened if the soldiers in the IHOP had demonstrated
more situational awareness.

[Peter Franks]

On 9/9/2011 7:43 AM, king...@hotmail.com wrote:
# I was reading about the shooting at an IHOP in NV, where some guy got
# out of his car with an AK, started shooting and walked into the IHOP
# and killed a bunch of people (National Guard soldiers) inside before
# turning the gun on himself. (obviously the guys had mental issues, as
# was stated in the article) I read a lot of comments on the story, and
# many centered on the owner of a nearby restaurant that heard the
# shooting, grabbed his pistol and ran outside only to see the guy with
# the AK, then ran back inside. Obviously a pistol is not the weapon of
# choice against a Kalashnikov, but many commmenters said the guy should
# have engaged the crazy man with the AK, and could have saved several
# lives. This got me thinking - what is his responsibility in a
# situation like that? If the crazy guy is pointing a weapon at him and
# he is fearing for his life then he's justified in shooting, but if he
# witnessed a hostile act (shooting outside the IHOP) without being
# directly threatened does he have the right to fire to protect unknown
# victims?

Legal obligation to return fire? Probably not. I don't think that you
can get a definitive answer here. You have legislated law and case law
to contend with here. I don't know the status of 'Good Samaritan' laws
here in NV, but I could see them get twisted by a clever attorney
against someone that could act, but didn't.

Moral obligation to return fire? If you are a coward, no. If you have
the means, regardless of the odds, you should engage. That is what
defines a hero, risking self in the face of insurmountable odds to
preserve others. .50 Desert Eagle, .380 LCP, Boy Scout pocket knife, it
doesn't matter -- when confronted or witnessing unwarranted acts of
aggression, FIGHT BACK.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
his friends."

[Brian Goralczyk]

On Sep 13, 8:59=A0am, Peter Franks <peter.fra...@cox.net> wrote:
#
# Legal obligation to return fire? =A0Probably not. =A0I don't think that y=
ou
# can get a definitive answer here. =A0You have legislated law and case law
# to contend with here. =A0I don't know the status of 'Good Samaritan' laws
# here in NV, but I could see them get twisted by a clever attorney
# against someone that could act, but didn't.
#
# Moral obligation to return fire? =A0If you are a coward, no. =A0If you ha=
ve
# the means, regardless of the odds, you should engage. =A0That is what
# defines a hero, risking self in the face of insurmountable odds to
# preserve others. =A0.50 Desert Eagle, .380 LCP, Boy Scout pocket knife, i=
t
# doesn't matter -- when confronted or witnessing unwarranted acts of
# aggression, FIGHT BACK.
#

You do realize that most heroes are dead, right? So you're saying
that even though I have a spouse and three children, I should
definitely risk my life at something I have little chance of
succeeding at. Just so that someone can call me a hero. Yes, I
certainly agree, I should risk creating 4+ more people to be sad over
a situation so that you can put hero on my gravestone. I think that
if you are thinking about being a hero cause you carry a gun, then
maybe you shouldn't be. You certainly aren't thinking about the full
situation.

[Steve B]

"Peter Franks" <peter....@cox.net> wrote

# "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
# his friends."

And certainly a man shows his love of his fellow man by not unleashing a
barrage of bullets that he cannot control the eventual flight of once they
pass or miss the target. For someone to fire upon the perpetrator at that
distance would show a complete disregard for life. Reminds me of Fearless
Fosdick. If a person had an accurate rifle, or scoped rifle, I think that
would be another case. However, to shoot at 75 yards would be simply
irresponsible, unless you want to sacrifice yourself as a temporary
diversion, and then the shooter would probably have returned to the
restaurant to finish his attack. And what if the perp had a vest on? I
think you'd just enrage him.

from wiki re: Fosdick:

Fosdick has notoriously bad aim and even worse judgment. Oblivious to more
obvious felonies being committed in the background (such as murders,
assaults and bank robberies), Fosdick would bypass them to shoot someone who
walked on the grass or sold balloons without a license.

Gullible, dense and impossibly inept, he regularly shoots dozens of innocent
bystanders and apprehends the wrong individuals-while the real criminals go
free. A darkly comic running gag in the series is the stoic, stone-faced
image of a determined Fosdick standing amidst a still-smoking pile of
bullet-riddled pedestrians-the inevitable collateral damage of any Fosdick
crimefighting endeavor. "When Fosdick is after a lawbreaker, there is no
escape for the miscreant," wrote Capp in the introduction to Al Capp's
Fearless Fosdick: His Life and Deaths (1956). "There is, however, a fighting
chance to escape for hundreds of innocent bystanders who happen to be in the
neighborhood-but only a fighting chance. Fosdick's duty, as he sees it, is
not so much to maintain safety as to destroy crime, and it's too much to ask
any law-enforcement officer to do both, I suppose."


Steve

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:44:16 +0000 (UTC), "Steve B"
<pittma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

#"Peter Franks" <peter....@cox.net> wrote
#
## "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
## his friends."
#
#And certainly a man shows his love of his fellow man by not unleashing a
#barrage of bullets that he cannot control the eventual flight of once they
#pass or miss the target. For someone to fire upon the perpetrator at that
#distance would show a complete disregard for life. Reminds me of Fearless
#Fosdick. If a person had an accurate rifle, or scoped rifle, I think that
#would be another case. However, to shoot at 75 yards would be simply
#irresponsible, unless you want to sacrifice yourself as a temporary
#diversion, and then the shooter would probably have returned to the
#restaurant to finish his attack. And what if the perp had a vest on? I
#think you'd just enrage him.

Now..on the other hand..a number of us out here regularly shoot handguns
well past that 75 yrd mark..out to 200 or more.

It all depends on if a guy is confident of his shooting ability and
secondly..his backstop.

Body armor or not..destracting the bad guy for even seconds might..might
save lives. Given the same circumstances..one could look for cover,
take it and return fire to the bad guy, while his potential victims make
leg bail. But its up the the "good guys" ability and the
circumstances.

There are no clear answers to this sort of circumstance, a few wrong
answers..and a few right answers.

And each person will have to pick one or more for themselves if they are
ever put in this sort of situation..

Im reminded of the Texas Tower shooting in the 1960s. It was not just
the cops firing on the bad guy..but dozens of citizens, with everything
from .32s to deer rifles

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818290/posts

But then...that took 96 minutes from start to finish.

Most crazy shooters get it done in just a few minutes, before they are
shot..or shoot themselves.

The answers are up to each person..and Monday Morning Quarterbacking is
just noise.

Gunner

[SaPeIsMa]

"Peter Franks" <peter....@cox.net> wrote in message
news:j4nr47$uqs$1...@news.albasani.net...
#
# Legal obligation to return fire? Probably not. I don't think that you
# can get a definitive answer here. You have legislated law and case law
# to contend with here. I don't know the status of 'Good Samaritan' laws
# here in NV, but I could see them get twisted by a clever attorney
# against someone that could act, but didn't.
#
# Moral obligation to return fire? If you are a coward, no. If you have
# the means, regardless of the odds, you should engage. That is what
# defines a hero, risking self in the face of insurmountable odds to
# preserve others. .50 Desert Eagle, .380 LCP, Boy Scout pocket knife, it
# doesn't matter -- when confronted or witnessing unwarranted acts of

# aggression, FIGHT BACK.
#

# "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
# his friends."
#

There is no obligation or duty to be stupid or suicidal.
Not to mention that it helps NO ONE to do so

If you're facing a rifle at 75 yards with a pistol, your FIRST
responsibility is to go for cover
Anything else is stupid.
After that your choices and options may change.
But that would be a different set of choices.

[James]

Right, get out of the bad guys way, call for help.

I've never fired an ak-47 or had one fired at me,
just review the news videos of the North Hollywood Shootout to
learn what an ak-47 can do to you if it is fired in your direction.

If you get involved, you'll be considered a threat even if you are
in constant contact with 911 center until officers arrive and have
time to figure out who is the bad guy(s).

[Peter Franks]

On 9/14/2011 4:11 PM, James wrote:
# Right, get out of the bad guys way, call for help.
#
# I've never fired an ak-47 or had one fired at me,
# just review the news videos of the North Hollywood Shootout to
# learn what an ak-47 can do to you if it is fired in your direction.
#
# If you get involved, you'll be considered a threat even if you are
# in constant contact with 911 center until officers arrive and have
# time to figure out who is the bad guy(s).

Flight 93.

-end

[king...@hotmail.com]

All good responses here.

Well, self preservation would always be my first impulse. I suppose I
might feel differently if my wife or other family member was in the
restaurant, though. I agree a pistol is not the best choice if
confronted by a Kalashnikov, although I suppose even that depends on
what you're carrying. A .38 snubby? Forget it - go hide and call 911.
A long barrel big caliber revolver? I'd think you'd have a fighting
chance, especially if you're in a covered position. While there's no
way of knowing in the heat of the moment, (or even afterwards) who's
to say this crazy guy could have hit somebody at that same range who
was engaging him? Sure, he'd have the advantage but that's no
guarantee. It does make for an interesting thought exercise.

My question was more concerned with the legal/moral/ethical question
of a citizen's obligation (or lack thereof) to attempt to stop a
violent crime, and that was answered fairly succinctly.

FWIW, the Hollywood shootout involved two guys wearing body armor with
AKs modded to fire full-auto, so that's not exactly a valid comparison
to the IHOP incident.

[Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley]

On Sep 14, 6:22=A0pm, Peter Franks <peter.fra...@cox.net> wrote:
# On 9/14/2011 4:11 PM, James wrote:
# # If you get involved, you'll be considered a =A0threat even if you are
# # in constant contact with 911 center until officers arrive and have
# # time to figure out who is the bad guy(s).
#
# Flight 93.

Not a valid point - if somehow Flight 93 had landed intact, *everyone*
on board would have been detained and questioned, until it was
determined which of the passengers were the hijackers.

[James]

hi,

I was not comparing the IHOP to NHS,
but what an AK-47 will do when fired in your direction
in semi or full automatic.

You are correct about the NHS bad guys armor and
modified full auto weapons.

Flight 93 passengers were in contact with family and
knew that the plane was going to be used as a weapon,
they did the right thing.

If I take action against the bad guy at IHOP then I could
be mistaken for another bad guy until proven otherwise,
or fired at by another good guy trying to help.

[Peter Franks]

On 9/16/2011 2:53 PM, James wrote:
# hi,
#
# I was not comparing the IHOP to NHS,
# but what an AK-47 will do when fired in your direction
# in semi or full automatic.
#
# You are correct about the NHS bad guys armor and
# modified full auto weapons.
#
# Flight 93 passengers were in contact with family and
# knew that the plane was going to be used as a weapon,
# they did the right thing.
#
# If I take action against the bad guy at IHOP then I could
# be mistaken for another bad guy until proven otherwise,
# or fired at by another good guy trying to help.

Zero other people "[firing] trying to help" in this case, and many
others. I guess they all thought the same thing.

A "good guy" knows his target.

Look, you can make whatever decision you feel comfortable with. I know
my decision. And it is fight back.

[clu...@lycos.com]

"king...@hotmail.com" <king...@hotmail.com> wrote:

#I was reading about the shooting at an IHOP in NV, where some guy got
#out of his car with an AK, started shooting and walked into the IHOP
#and killed a bunch of people (National Guard soldiers) inside before
#turning the gun on himself. (obviously the guys had mental issues, as
#was stated in the article) I read a lot of comments on the story, and
#many centered on the owner of a nearby restaurant that heard the
#shooting, grabbed his pistol and ran outside only to see the guy with
#the AK, then ran back inside. Obviously a pistol is not the weapon of
#choice against a Kalashnikov, but many commmenters said the guy should
#have engaged the crazy man with the AK, and could have saved several
#lives. This got me thinking - what is his responsibility in a
#situation like that?

Taking care of himself and who he cares about.

Not shooting a friendly. You are responsible for every bullet.

The rest are on their own. They can rely on the police, their choice.

Wes

[Steve B]

# Zero other people "[firing] trying to help" in this case, and many
# others. I guess they all thought the same thing.
#
# A "good guy" knows his target.
#
# Look, you can make whatever decision you feel comfortable with. I know
# my decision. And it is fight back.

I can live with the guilt of not firing back at a doubtful target more than
I can live with the guilt of killing or wounding an innocent.

But that's just me.

Steve