Shooting in Pierre Part this AM....Anyone know what's going on??

[Hitman]

The real problem is that felons are not properly educated about the laws.

No the real problem is expecting the law to work

 

[charlie12]

If that's owned by the same folks as Landry's on the lake in New Orleans, the food is damned good. It sucks that the armed bystander couldn't help the waitress. Well, at least the shooter was stopped if he planned on taking out anyone else there. Hopefully he recovers quickly.

That Landry's is a chain not local folks.

http://www.landrysseafood.com/locations.html

 

[oleheat]

I saw later that it's down the road from the place I was thinking of.....One thing's for sure: There's no shortage of Landrys in Pierre Part....

 

[Yrdawg]

The lady was way better looking than the crazy ex, also I agree with sad, agree with law didn't work, agree with acting in defense of others....but please never if I'm in this situation call me a good Samaritan...as good as the phrase is theres such an undertone of do gooder, wanna be, and so on. Call me instead an involved citizen, a legally armed involved citizen. Just not Samaritan

YMMV

O...congratulations to the legally armed involved citizen.

 

[Cat]

The woman had a "protective order" against the ex-bf. The person who commented nails it: They aren't worth the paper they're written on....

And who knows- maybe the other customer did stop it from being even worse. Who can predict the next move of a lunatic?

Amen. If a woman honestly feels her life is at risk by the hands of an ex, her immediate next step is to contact the sheriff for an in-parish permit while she waits on her CHP.

And to USE IT if necessary.

 

[Yrdawg]

Amen. If a woman honestly feels her life is at risk by the hands of an ex, her immediate next step is to contact the sheriff for an in-parish permit while she waits on her CHP.

And to USE IT if necessary.

I know two ladies who have similar circumstance, they have neither a Parish or CHP, yet both carry and I think will use. I know cause they know me...it's not common knowlege...although I'd rather see them go legal, I'd rather see them illegal and alive. Knowing these two, I'd be shocked if they were ever searched by the po po.
Just mother and a grandma...till it's time not to be

 

[Tantrix]

Amen. If a woman honestly feels her life is at risk by the hands of an ex, her immediate next step is to contact the sheriff for an in-parish permit while she waits on her CHP immediately get a gun, carry it at all times, and watch her surroundings while waiting on her CHP.

There...that looks better. To hell with waiting on anything...if you truly believe your life is in danger you'll protect yourself permit or not.

 

[Cat]

There...that looks better. To hell with waiting on anything...if you truly believe your life is in danger you'll protect yourself permit or not.

True. But!!! It is arguably best to try to be proactive towards her safety. If she's got a real lunatic on her hands, the way these things go, she will deal with law enforcement more than once. If she has a concealed weapon, no permit, there is just more chance for additional bullish*t. Either when it's discovered on her person, little misdemeanor hand slapping bs, or she uses it, a non permitted concealed weapon and shoots the guy. Resulting in a possibly escalated investigation.

Yes, carry the very day you fear for your immediate safety regardless. But, and my point, get legal. It'll make a nasty situation much smoother.

 

[Tantrix]

True. But!!! It is arguably best to try to be proactive towards her safety. If she's got a real lunatic on her hands, the way these things go, she will deal with law enforcement more than once. If she has a concealed weapon, no permit, there is just more chance for additional bullish*t. Either when she uses it or it's discovered on her person, little misdemeanor hand slapping bs, or pulling a non permitted concealed weapon and shooting the guy.

Yes, carry the very day you fear for your immediate safety regardless. But, and my point, get legal. It'll make a nasty situation much smoother.

Sure, I agree to start the process for a permit, but NOT on the part of going unarmed until it arrives. If such a woman were to be involved in a justifiable homicide defending her life, the only charge she would be left to face is a concealed weapon charge. Not only is that the least of your problems when you just had to use lethal force to defend your life, but the charge would likely get thrown out in a New York second considering the circumstances (and especially here in LA). This is also an area where women have the upper hand...all it takes is a man with 2 fists and 2 feet to beat a women to death. A woman scared to death with a TRO on her ex carrying a gun to protect herself isn't all that out of the ordinary.

 

[Cat]

I totally agree and was remiss in my original statement by not including that. She should be armed from the get-go. Honestly probably before the restraining order. The victim should also try contacting her nearest RAD officer for close quarters dirty cat clawing get away tactics.

At any rate and sadly enough, too many think restraining orders are enough. My heart goes out to the waitress and her family. ,

 

[Emperor]

WBRZ at 6:00 last night reported the incident mentioning the CHPermitee as a patron, and also said "the patron pulled his own gun" and exchanged gunfire with the shooter after the shotter shot his ex-girlfriend.

They did not mention his CHP status, nor anything about it being concealed or not.

They did show the patron being taken to the ambulance on a gurney. Now, I had two thoughts on this airing: 1.) The news was at least reporting that a private citizen with a gun actually used it in the melee, or 2.) With no mention of the CHP, any background on the armed citizen, and the showing of him on the gurney, they are silently insinuating the armed citizen was reckless for carrying his onw gun and was also shot because of it.

They did not elaborate, at least at the 6:00 airing, that the armed citizen could/might have saved others, despite the danger to himself.

 

[olivs260]

WBRZ at 6:00 last night reported the incident mentioning the CHPermitee as a patron, and also said "the patron pulled his own gun" and exchanged gunfire with the shooter after the shotter shot his ex-girlfriend.

They did not mention his CHP status, nor anything about it being concealed or not.

They did show the patron being taken to the ambulance on a gurney. Now, I had two thoughts on this airing: 1.) The news was at least reporting that a private citizen with a gun actually used it in the melee, or 2.) With no mention of the CHP, any background on the armed citizen, and the showing of him on the gurney, they are silently insinuating the armed citizen was reckless for carrying his onw gun and was also shot because of it.

They did not elaborate, at least at the 6:00 airing, that the armed citizen could/might have saved others, despite the danger to himself.

Just be happy they didn't make a point to mention that the handgun was legally registered to him.

 

[Emperor]

Just be happy they didn't make a point to mention that the handgun was legally registered to him.

True Dat!

 

[Bearco]

I had a friend who was murdered by her ex boyfriend years ago (murder/suicide). Even if armed and trained, my friend probably would not have survived the ambushed attack with multiple rounds from an AK47. These things should not be taken lightly. The CHP holder possibly stopped more death, but we will never know.

 

[Emperor]

I had a friend who was murdered by her ex boyfriend years ago (murder/suicide). Even if armed and trained, my friend probably would not have survived the ambushed attack with multiple rounds from an AK47. These things should not be taken lightly. The CHP holder possibly stopped more death, but we will never know.

I agree, but what I do know, and I have stated before; If I see a person entering a place where I am, and he/she is already brandishing a firearm, I am going to have mine, cocked and at my fingertips.

If this scum pulled his out from a concealed view and instantly shot this woman, there is not much anyone could have done for her. Sad.

 

[oleheat]

WBRZ at 6:00 last night reported the incident mentioning the CHPermitee as a patron, and also said "the patron pulled his own gun" and exchanged gunfire with the shooter after the shotter shot his ex-girlfriend.

They did not mention his CHP status, nor anything about it being concealed or not.

They did show the patron being taken to the ambulance on a gurney. Now, I had two thoughts on this airing: 1.) The news was at least reporting that a private citizen with a gun actually used it in the melee, or 2.) With no mention of the CHP, any background on the armed citizen, and the showing of him on the gurney, they are silently insinuating the armed citizen was reckless for carrying his onw gun and was also shot because of it.

They did not elaborate, at least at the 6:00 airing, that the armed citizen could/might have saved others, despite the danger to himself.

They do at least mention the details on their website.....Some buttmunch (whose screen name is- ironically- 'Get Real') commented the usual Lib vomit about how the CHP holder could have killed or wounded innocent bystanders- but pulled his own weapon because he wanted to be a "cowboy".
I had to leave him a nice little response- as did others.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/latest/2-die-in-murder-suicide.html?showAll=y&c=y

 

[D-DAY]

Sad but true. We all really are that vulnerable to such ill intent.

I have to believe that if a bad guy shows up and starts shooting random people, the faster someone can return fire the better. It would seem only logical that the bad guys attention would be drawn to the direction the bullets are coming from. Not that anyone wants to be in a gunfight, but I could see how a well placed CHP holder could save lives.

 

[LongGoneDays]

If the shooter seems to be interested in one target only, and seems to be done and leaving, I don't know if I would have engaged him at that point.

Lots more could go wrong from a shoot out, specifically to my person and who I'm eating with.
I know a lot of people say they are ready and willing and cheer others on when they do things like the good guy... myself included.

Just not sure I'd risk the extra possible problems once there was no longer an immediate threat.

 

[oleheat]

If the shooter seems to be interested in one target only, and seems to be done and leaving, I don't know if I would have engaged him at that point.

Lots more could go wrong from a shoot out, specifically to my person and who I'm eating with.
I know a lot of people say they are ready and willing and cheer others on when they do things like the good guy... myself included.

Just not sure I'd risk the extra possible problems once there was no longer an immediate threat.

But is that actually the textbook fashion in which everything went down? It's not as if the killer had thrown the weapon over his shoulder. Maybe you are right, and there was no longer "an immediate threat".

But I would advise you to look at what took place at Grady Crawford Construction in BR last year. The two innocent women murdered by the crazed bastard weren't his intended targets, either- but he killed them anyway.

Maybe you are correct, and I am wrong. I just have a really hard time with the idea of putting that much trust into the hands of a lunatic who has seconds earlier murdered someone before my eyes- and is still holding the gun- if there is any chance I can ensure my (and/or my loved ones') survival.....

 

[Nolacopusmc]

If the shooter seems to be interested in one target only, and seems to be done and leaving, I don't know if I would have engaged him at that point.

Lots more could go wrong from a shoot out, specifically to my person and who I'm eating with.
I know a lot of people say they are ready and willing and cheer others on when they do things like the good guy... myself included.

Just not sure I'd risk the extra possible problems once there was no longer an immediate threat.

Your write!


Seriously, you bring up a very valid point. Depending on one's role in a critical incident, the priority of life scale may slide.

For LEO the priority of life is:
INNOCENTS
SUSPECT (non-threatening)
SELF

Obvious there is debate over the last two depending on who you ask, but in the same regard that you are expected to shoot the bad guy and then save his life, depending on who you ask, the last two flip flop.

For Soccer Mom:
Self / Loved ones responsible for
INNOCENTS
SUSPECT

Of course, everyone will cry "But you do not know what he was going to do, so you have to assume he was going to kill everyone. What were you going to do, wait for him to shoot someone else?"

To a point, that is a valid argument. However, it is not always the case.

However, as only someone directly involved in the critical incident can attest to, we all have a sixth sense if you will, a gut instinct, about how things are in addition to the physical evidence we gather through our senses. Equally important, that physical evidence, such as him dropping the gun, turning and walking to the door, or any other manner of indicators that he had "accomplished his mission", may make engagement not the best thing.

There have been times when I have drawn my gun on duty with the full intent and legal and moral justification to shoot, but something immediately before I pulled the trigger told me not to. i cannot explain it 100%. there are others I am sure who know what I am referring to.

I will say though, that in MOST situations like we see here, engagement (accurate and effective engagement) would be the best option--but not always.

NONE OF US KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ATTHAT CRITICAL INCIDENT.

There are those here foolish enough to think that at the disturbance in the air pressure of the room caused by the firing of the brain synapses in the suspect's skull, their spidey sense would have alerted them to danger. With that alert, they would have silently, yet at lightning speed, pushed back from the table and their extra-sloppy roast beef po-boy, drawn their G26 from the front pocket of their slightly too-tight pants while in a seated position, and engaged said Tango before he could take another Sheeple's life. Their shot would have expertly weaved through the SWAG decor, around the plastic ficus tree, between little Susie's pigtails, striking the wolf in the optical T-zone as they have practiced thousand's of times at the range. Before the first drop of BG blood strike's the cheap industrial carpet, they drop to a knee, perform a tactical reload, do a 360 scan-(for his buddies), and then begin to administer first aid to the downed sheeple.

Meanwhile, a brass quartet starts playing the Top Gun theme and naked Swedish models wipe the single bead of sweat from our Hero's brow. he is awarded the key to the city. a library is named after him, and they make an official "Sheepdog burger" at the restaurant, that he of course eats free at for life.

Seriously, you KNOW that scenario has been played out in some people's mind on this board.

There is no way to know unless you are there, but there are times when engagement is not the best option, even though shots have been fired due to your position, friendlies in the area, movement of the suspect and others, and a myriade of other variables.

Because remember, as soccer mom/dad, YOUR PRIORITY is yourself and your party. As Mr. Miyogi said "Best way block punch, no be there."

If you can avoid bullets ever coming your way by not engaging if you do not HAVE to, that is sometimes the best choice.

HOWEVER, MOST times, you will want to deliver effective rounds on target as quickly as accurately possible.