Passerby shoots, kills motorist assaulting deputy after traffic stop

I have visited the USA a few times and not had nor needed a gun at any time. Though the most dangerous place I went was tijuana (mexico).

I am not criticising your right to defend yourself, obviously there are parts of the USA as you describe that are not safe at all.

What I am critical is the culture of a people that have let their criminals / accidents / self defence all centre around guns when every other modern western culture has managed to largely avoid this.

If gun accidents are at the approx 600 level in the USA that is more then one a day, which going by the self defence stories posted on here ad nauseum say once a month, is still a (*)(*)(*)(*)load more accidents then helpful defensive uses. Thats not to say you shouldn't have a gun for self defence, that is to say there is a big problem.

 

There are many more Defensive Gun Uses per year than the 600 accidental deaths. They aren't published here. Also, the utility of a firearm isn't limited to self defense.

 

Barring additional information, tourists rarely venture to the more dangerous areas of any given location they may visit, even though countless individuals have to live in those dangerous areas. The city of Tijuana itself does not tell the full story, unless you went out of your way to visit the more dangerous portions of the city. If you were to visit the city of Oakland in the state of California, your experiences would perhaps be far different.

Most other western cultures do not have the same unique structural setup as the united states with regard to the law, violent criminals, recidivism rates, porous borders with a corrupt and violent nation, and the general disrespect for both law and order that is not popular.

Approximately two firearm-related accidental deaths per day per year, out of a situation where there are between three hundred and five hundred million firearms in private circulation, with approximately forty one thousand more being added on a daily basis.

 

Well I'm not going to pull a yo-yo out against someone trying to kill me, sorry.

When violent people are put down, they don't live to harm others. I'm personally glad that a murderer will never harm another living person when they are put down.

Even liberal sources account for about 100k defensive firearm uses per year, so unless gun accidents and homicides (of innocent law-abiding people only) exceed 100k, guns are an obvious net positive.

Two deaths per day in a nation of 320 million is certainly a travesty for those two people, but we probably have two people per day that die from bubble gum usage as well. Statistically, 600 deaths per year from 300+ million firearms is not significant.

Countries like yours teach that it's better to be a victim to rape and potential murder, than it is to kill another violent human being.

We don't subscribe to that nonsense.

 

Trump was elected,
Obama is currently still President,
However, you sure don't waste any time with your insults, do you ?

It was the Deputy asking for assistance, not a Vigilante act.

 

Here is a little education on the law of the land.

Justifiable use of deadly force has nothing to do with injuries sustained after the fact.
The law in most states says deadly force is justified to stop a forcible felony.

A typical deadly force statute......

DEADLY USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

 

With respect, I already said in my post that if you need a gun to defend yourself, you need a gun to defend yourself.

Countries like mine do not teach people to become a victim, they simply try to build a situation/culture where people do not become a victim due to lack of carrying a firearm.

 

The deputy did not flag down the vigilante. The vigilante got himself involved entirely of his own volition.

 

That's nice.

- - - Updated - - -

That's nice.

- - - Updated - - -

That's nice.

 

You have a culture of no violent criminals?
People with carry licenses are not committing crimes. Its the criminals that are not allowed to carry guns that are the problem.

 

So if someone is in need of help because they are violently under attack, you are now called a vigilante if you help the victim. Gotcha.

 

The officer was a little busy being violently attacked at the time.

If he could have called a time out, do you think he would have asked for help?

If someone has you on the ground stabbing you in the face and an officer walks by, should he wait until you signal for assistance?

- - - Updated - - -

The idiocy that people come up with takes even my jaded personality aback sometimes.

 

Perhaps your nation is too far gone re criminals and guns.

Regarding Australia, no generally random violent crime is quite rare.

The worst part of our culture might be people throwing some punches on a night on the booze, but certainly guns are never pulled out nor are knives really.

There seems to be an issue with domestic violence, but certainly not something more guns would solve.

 

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What difference does it make if the police officer did or did not seek out assistance at the time of being assaulted, that invalidates the actions of the private citizen that came to aid?

By every measure of any law that can be cited, this was not an act of vigilante justice. Use of deadly force in defense of another person is a valid legal action.

 

I am not passing judgment on what the guy did to help the police officer.

But the term vigilante literally means:- a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

It does not need to have negative connotations

 

He wasn't out enforcing the law. He saw a cop getting his clock cleaned and fearing for his life, so he did the right thing.

"Look! A ne'er-do-well!" BANG BANG!

 

Well there you go, you have pointed out exactly why Australia and the US cannot be compared to each other in any way, shape, or form when it comes to guns, self defense, or crime.

 

The cop requested the citizen to shoot his attacker, by the way.

 

You called him a vigilante. Where is any evidence that he fits your description above? Is he a part of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority?
By all accounts, he is a lawful citizen, minding his own business, that saw someone being assaulted and came to the rescue within the law.

 

I actually didn't call him a vigilante.

All I am saying is technically the definition isn't that far off, certainly not a reason to argue the point.

- - - Updated - - -

By the sounds of it he did a reasonable thing.

I am not sure that was the police officer passing legal authority across and not just a natural defensive reaction trying to get himself out of a pickle.

 

Screaming "shoot him" is pretty specific.

 

Wrong. Florida Law:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.

 

The hero didn't need the cop to say anything. If he believed the officer was going to suffer great bodily harm if he did not act, then his actions were legally justified as a licensed carrier of a concealed weapon.

 

This case may actually result in the change of police procedure in the State of Florida. As is the longstanding tradition, the hero's firearm was seized for evidence. A local FFL (shout out to Shoot Straight, no affiliation) gave him one so that he's not walking around unarmed for a year or more waiting on LE to return his pistol.

HOWEVER, it appears that there is no actual law that allows for a firearm to be seized in the scenario of a good shoot, because no crime has been committed. The State's Attorney office is already looking into it.

 

They kept Zimmermans too, even though he was not initially charged. He was not officially charged until Jesse Jackson came to town and highlighted the protests. Zimmermans charge was purely politically motivated. He got his gun back after he was exonerated.