• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Shot At Louie's On Lake Hefner; Suspect Killed By Armed Patron

Lutherf

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
54,561
Reaction score
59,924
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What if the suspect had no intention of harming anyone else?
 
Well this certainly won't make it very far if at all in the national news scene.
 
Lutherf said:
2 Shot At Louie's On Lake Hefner; Suspect Killed By Armed Patron - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

Suspect walks into restaurant and shoots two people. Suspect is engaged by armed citizen. Armed citizen kills suspect.

Suspect = "bad guy with a gun"
Armed citizen = "good guy with a gun"

Please note, it's not about guns, it's about good people and bad people. On occasion it's also about crazy or careless people.

Common theme = "People"
Click to expand...

All gun laws are aimed at people
 
ecofarm said:
What if the suspect had no intention of harming anyone else?
Click to expand...

Did you really just ask this question? :doh

Might as well ask "What if the guy intended to kill everyone there, and anyone else he could get before someone stopped him?" :roll:

Neither question is pertinent.

When one observes someone start to kill one or more people in their general vicinity, no more proof need be provided in order to act in self-defense and the defense of others.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Did you really just ask this question?

When one observes some kill one of more people in their general vicinity, no more proof need be to act in self-defense and he defense of others.
Click to expand...

We don't have much information at this point, but for the sake of discussion... The suspect had exited the restaurant, seems the citizen met him there. The victims appear to be intentional not random. What if the citizen shot him in the back as he was walking away, and the suspect had no intention of harming anyone else?

I'm not saying the citizen was wrong or should have known something or wasn't acting in reasonable self defense. I'm posing an intellectual or philosophical question. What if the man intended to surrender to police?

Again, the point is discussion. The suspect probably pointed the gun at others and or the citizen.
 
ecofarm said:
What if the suspect had no intention of harming anyone else?
Click to expand...

1) who cares?

2) how could anyone wait to see if that was true

3) again, such actions would be unreasonable
 
TurtleDude said:
1) who cares?

2) how could anyone wait to see if that was true

3) again, such actions would be unreasonable
Click to expand...

It would make killing the suspect pointless.
 
ecofarm said:
What if the suspect had no intention of harming anyone else?
Click to expand...

Suspect had already showed rather convincing evidence that he was willing to seriously injure or kill someone. If he was still armed he was still a threat. The guy just shot two people. Someone engaging him would have to be a blithering idiot to assume that he was done for the day and no longer posed a threat.

I don't know how the engagement with the "armed citizen" went down but I can think of a whole lot more reasons that engagement went right than I can of reasons it might have gone wrong.
 
Lutherf said:
Suspect had already showed rather convincing evidence that he was willing to seriously injure or kill someone. If he was still armed he was still a threat. The guy just shot two people. Someone engaging him would have to be a blithering idiot to assume that he was done for the day and no longer posed a threat.

I don't know how the engagement with the "armed citizen" went down but I can think of a whole lot more reasons that engagement went right than I can of reasons it might have gone wrong.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good. I don't have a problem with the shooting, reasonably presuming obvious evidence of threat existed.

Now, let's say the suspect had attacked his intended targets and had no intention of harming anyone else. Even justified, the killing then serves no purpose. If cops had dealt with it, then there's one less death.
 
ecofarm said:
What point would be served?
Click to expand...

one asshole dead. the public spared thousands in court costs and hundreds of thousands in incarceration costs. and again, its a good bet the slain mope's nastiness was not limited to this one incident
 
ecofarm said:
That's all well and good. I don't have a problem with the shooting, reasonably presuming obvious evidence of threat existed.

Now, let's say the suspect had attacked his intended targets and had no intention of harming anyone else. Even justified, the killing then serves no purpose. If cops had dealt with it, then there's one less death.
Click to expand...

you and I will differ but the death of a cold blooded killer is net gain in my view not a negative.
 
Lutherf said:
2 Shot At Louie's On Lake Hefner; Suspect Killed By Armed Patron - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

Suspect walks into restaurant and shoots two people. Suspect is engaged by armed citizen. Armed citizen kills suspect.

Suspect = "bad guy with a gun"
Armed citizen = "good guy with a gun"

Please note, it's not about guns, it's about good people and bad people. On occasion it's also about crazy or careless people.

Common theme = "People"
Click to expand...

What a bizarre way to live.
 
TurtleDude said:
one asshole dead. the public spared thousands in court costs and hundreds of thousands in incarceration costs. and again, its a good bet the slain mope's nastiness was not limited to this one incident
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
you and I will differ but the death of a cold blooded killer is net gain in my view not a negative.
Click to expand...

You know that doesn't hold water intellectually. Death serves no legitimate purpose in and of itself. Death resulting from self defense is justified yet unfortunate.
 
ecofarm said:
You know that doesn't hold water intellectually. Death serves no legitimate purpose in and of itself. Death resulting from self defense is justified yet unfortunate.
Click to expand...

Tell me. How do you know that someone who just walked into the room you're in and shot two people doesn't intend to shoot any more people in mere seconds?
 
ecofarm said:
That's all well and good. I don't have a problem with the shooting, reasonably presuming obvious evidence of threat existed.

Now, let's say the suspect had attacked his intended targets and had no intention of harming anyone else. Even justified, the killing then serves no purpose. If cops had dealt with it, then there's one less death.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's absurd to assume that someone who just shot two people is no longer a threat. If he shot the people and dropped the gun then using deadly force to stop his escape may have been excessive but the bottom line is that he's still a threat.

Several years ago in OKC there was a guy by the name of Jerome Ersland who had two punks come in to his pharmacy and try to rob the place at gunpoint. Ersland shot one of the punks and chased the other out the door. At that point Ersland good. Unfortunatel for Mr. Ersland, he went back into his store, stepped over the body of the punk he shot, reloaded and then went back and put two more (if I remember correctly) into the punk. That was excessive. There is no way Ersland could REASONABLY claim the punk on the floor was a threat especially after he stepped over him to reload. Ersland, justifiably, got saddled with a murder charge.

Assuming that the "armed citizen" didn't pull some form of "Ersland" then shooting the suspect was a reasonable act.
 
Rucker61 said:
Tell me. How do you know that someone who just walked into the room you're in and shot two people doesn't intend to shoot any more people in mere seconds?
Click to expand...

You ask politely and wait patiently in as non-threatening a posture as you can maintain. By all rights you should also make your request in Spanish, French, Chinese, Farsi, braille and ASL just in case the individual you are asking isn't an English speaker.
 
ecofarm said:
You know that doesn't hold water intellectually. Death serves no legitimate purpose in and of itself. Death resulting from self defense is justified yet unfortunate.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If I could wave a wand and cause all the violent criminals in the USA to cease to exist It would be a good. I have no use for their existence. But I don't support the government having the power to kill them. I oppose the death penalty for that reason, not because I oppose assholes being wasted. That is why I spend so much time (and my own money) teaching good people how to shoot accurately under pressure. If one or two of them waste a violent criminal, its worth all the time.

I don't believe all people are equally valuable. Some, by their actions, are plague upon the rest of us
 
Rucker61 said:
Tell me. How do you know that someone who just walked into the room you're in and shot two people doesn't intend to shoot any more people in mere seconds?
Click to expand...

He cannot, its mental masturbation to pretend what he has assumed. Its like saying what if the tiger that just mauled two people to death was too tired to maul a third so why shoot it? Objective and reasonable people-seeing that sort of activity-are going to grab the first implement that kills and go tiger hunting
 
Lutherf said:
Like I said, it's absurd to assume that someone who just shot two people is no longer a threat. If he shot the people and dropped the gun then using deadly force to stop his escape may have been excessive but the bottom line is that he's still a threat.

Several years ago in OKC there was a guy by the name of Jerome Ersland who had two punks come in to his pharmacy and try to rob the place at gunpoint. Ersland shot one of the punks and chased the other out the door. At that point Ersland good. Unfortunatel for Mr. Ersland, he went back into his store, stepped over the body of the punk he shot, reloaded and then went back and put two more (if I remember correctly) into the punk. That was excessive. There is no way Ersland could REASONABLY claim the punk on the floor was a threat especially after he stepped over him to reload. Ersland, justifiably, got saddled with a murder charge.

Assuming that the "armed citizen" didn't pull some form of "Ersland" then shooting the suspect was a reasonable act.
Click to expand...

I agree but personally I would have voted to acquit
 
Grand Mal said:
What a bizarre way to live.
Click to expand...

What part is bizarre? Across the globe there are felonious assaults every day. Sometimes the assailant gets away. This time he didn't.

While it's certainly an uncommon event for most of us I don't see what makes it "bizarre".
 
Rucker61 said:
Tell me. How do you know that someone who just walked into the room you're in and shot two people doesn't intend to shoot any more people in mere seconds?
Click to expand...

Obviously one doesn't wonder. That does not negate the philosophical discussion.

In this case, the article states the suspect had exited the restaurant when he encountered the citizen (for lack of a better term). We don't know if the citizen witnessed the murders. Now, before you think I'm jumping the shark here, even someone outside would obviously know a shooting had occurred. The suspect probably has blood on him and is pointing his gun at people. The shot is legit. But what if it was a back shot at a suspect who was not pointing his gun and who had no intention of harming anyone else. At that point, however justified the shooting, it becomes effectively a pointless execution.
 
Lutherf said:
You ask politely and wait patiently in as non-threatening a posture as you can maintain. By all rights you should also make your request in Spanish, French, Chinese, Farsi, braille and ASL just in case the individual you are asking isn't an English speaker.
Click to expand...

You better be talking as fast as the car commercial guys on the radio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom