Right. But there is concern that people won’t be accurate in their decision-making to shoot or in the shot itself. How many times would this scenario play out before someone innocent gets shot? I don’t trust the average civilian gun-owner to be accurate in their judgment and marksmanship. The way this situation was handled, with praising the vigilante, invites more vigilantism.
Really, all it takes is 2 vigilantes who think each other is the shooter to have another problem.
There is always risk. But in this case it wouldn’t be measured against a baseline of zero, but against the additional kids who would’ve died if nobody did anything until law enforcement intervention.
My guess (and that’s all it is) is that the attacker would’ve eventually subdued and shot the wrestling teacher too, then gone on to kill many more.
By now this is a cyclical pattern in our country, sure as the tide. Every few years or months, another school shooting happens, we all offer thoughts and prayers, forget about it, and then it happens again.
It seems like the relatively lower risk of vigilantism and misidentification is preferable than the certainty that the attacker would keep on killing, unimpeded, otherwise.
It’s always a judgment call, and acts of heroism always involve extreme risk. Yes, heroes can make mistakes too, same as law enforcement, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t even try.
Moderating:
Spun off from the existing debate for those who want to debate if defensive shootings, especially by civilians, are ever acceptable. Please try to keep this thread to that topic, along with the risks to such civilian shooters from their peers and the cops.
I wish people would stop using “vigilante” to describe this person. I thought that was settled in the previous thread, but I guess not. But being a pejorative, it tends to poison the well of the discussion of whether any citizen should have the right to carry a handgun around.
Absolutely this.
Edit: n/m, I misread THIS topic too — I wanted to talk about the vigilantism part, not so much the “enough information” part. I’ll save it for another thread.
This person was not a vigilante, agreed.
And I think very few find fault in the actions he took.
The point of a separate thread is to have a hypotheticals and alternative realities as allowed discussion.
One extreme - the shooter’s weapon is already out of reach and he is on his knees hands in air saying “don’t shoot, I give up.” This is still not zero risk. He can have another weapon on his person and your attention diverted for two seconds is all he needs to get it out, shoot you, and continue the rampage. Unlikely but nonzero. Okay to kill him with multiple shots to be sure, so no risk?
Other end - struggle with teacher in place. If the father instead of taking careful aim and unloading several shots into the shooter instead shouted “Freeze! Any movement and I shoot!” … would that have been taking too great of risk?
My take is that the former is small enough risk that not shooting is the correct response, but keeping the gun leveled at him with the teacher leveling the shot gun too, is called for until police arrive.
And the latter is just too much risk to take while weapon is in his hands.
But there is a lot of space between.
I think that in the case which started the original thread, based on what information I have, there were at least two justifiable courses of action: either shouting “freeze and drop the gun or I’ll shoot” or just shooting the teenager. The first carries some risk of additional innocent deaths. The second removes that risk, but replaces it with the near certainty of the death of the teen. There’s no choice available at that point without a serious downside. (Doing nothing, or staying back and calling 911, would also be choices with serious potential downsides.)
I also think that it’s not possible to provide a general answer when the circumstances can vary so widely. It really does have to be on a case by case basis. Some cases are going to be a lot clearer than others.
ETA: I agree that if the shooter has dropped the gun and is on their knees with hands up, shooting them is a wrong choice; though holding them at gunpoint until the police show up and have them handcuffed is justifiable — though risky, as the police might mistake the person still holding a gun for the shooter and shoot them. If there’s another person present, maybe they can help tie up the shooter.
In an active shooter scenario, whether a “vigilante” interferes or not, I think it’s a safe bet someone, quite likely an innocent person, is getting shot. Right? That’s just the nature of active shooter scenarios. You’re absolutely right that a “vigilante” might hit the wrong target. We’re talking about an inherently unsafe, chaotic situation. I understand you don’t trust the average gun-owner to be accurate in their judgment, but would you rather cede judgment to the active shooter? What’s the alternative here?