Here’s another reason why beat cops like card-carrying good guys. They can mean the difference between life and death for a peace officer in trouble.
Don’t tell that to their rabidly anti-gun police chief who would rather burn perfectly good money than sell police confiscated guns to law-abiding Americans.
“Our way of addressing the gun issue in America is to destroy them all,” said Michael Chitwood, township police superintendent.
Bob Owens over at Bearing Arms offered some very good analysis:
Sadly, young thugs around the nation, egged on by the behavior of the Obama White House, the Justice Department, and Black Lives Matter, feel that they can get away with attacking the police, and have the expectation that they will be able to get away with it.
These mobs expect police officers intimidated by the “Ferguson Effect” to hold their fire and take a beating. They think they can get away with acting like savages.
Concealed carriers and lawful gun owners are a wild card in the mix. Criminals don’t know how a concealed carrier will respond, and they are intimidated by the uncertainty of what a citizen may do.
POLICE ARE crediting a vigilant gun owner with saving the life of an Upper Darby cop Friday after he saw the officer being attacked and surrounded by a large group of teens.
“There were 40 kids. If it wasn’t for the good Samaritan stepping forward, he’d have been dead meat,” Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said. “There’s no doubt they would have attacked him.”
…An officer who broke up a fight between two teen boys that had attracted a large crowd at that location was holding one of the combatants at bay when the teen’s opponent attacked the officer, Chitwood said.
“As he breaks up the fight, he takes one kid and then the other jumps [on] him. Now he’s fighting two of them and he’s calling for an assist officer at the same time,” Chitwood said. “There’s a crowd of 40 or 50 kids watching the fight, and they all move in towards the officer.”
That’s when the good Samaritan, who lives on the block, came out of his house with a gun in his hand and told the teens to get away from the cop, Chitwood said.
“He had the gun in his hand, but he didn’t point it at the kids, he just told them to back off,” Chitwood said. “If this guy didn’t come out and come to the aid of the officer, this officer would have had significant problems.”
The 35-year-old gun owner, who has a concealed-carry permit, kept the group of teens at bay until responding officers arrived, Chitwood said.
I don’t know if Ken would do the same, but I probably would.
We can’t let the violent criminals bring chaos and disorder to our society.
Sam
Meh. Every cop needs a good beat-down every once’t in awhile.
My rule of thumb is, all fist fights are okay, til someone gets to stompin’ on someone else’s haid. Then I shoot them.
Head stompin’ is ATTEMPTED MURDER everywhere, and a good shoot.
Sam, did you get a look at ‘is balls?
All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
Exactly right, Sam.
A question, in Illinois, a person with FOID & CCW in this example, would it legally make a difference if he broke this up carrying an AR-15 (or any rifle/shotgun) rather than a handgun? Would be a much better choice against 40 punks.
Just to be clear, Illinois’ concealed carry statute covers only handguns and does not permit the concealed carry of either shotguns or rifles. That said, the story implies that the good Samaritan was holding a handgun by use of the singular “in his hand” and the reference to his being a concealed carry permit holder. Then again, news reports are reliably unreliable.
The story also indicates that the good Samaritan came out of his house in response to the imminent threat of death or great bodily harm with the gun in his hand. This indicates that concealed carry was not involved in this incident.
To the point of your question as to whether a home owner in Illinois would be justified in responding to the described scenario with a shotgun or rifle in hand, I offer a few thoughts. The described response with the threat of deadly force seems completely justified. The primary advantage of handguns is their size and accessibility – it is easier to keep one handy to address an emergency. However, given ready access and the choice, a long gun would be my preference. Their greater effectiveness, ease of aiming and visual intimidation are hard to argue against. When facing a very large and obviously dangerous mob (and that is exactly what is described in the story) an AR with a standard 30 round magazine would be practically ideal. A shotgun would be a close second, although most lack the capacity to effectively address such a large mob.
However, while I believe I could readily articulate the reasonableness of responding to the described scenario with a rifle or shotgun and would not hesitate to do so, we as Illinoisans also have to consider the issue of the perception of such a use of a long gun. In a State where so many insist on suggesting that violence is caused by guns and think that guns that look “scary” should be banned, response with a long gun might be treated very differently by the media, by the police and by the local State’s Attorney. This may be particularly true in a case such as the one described where the use of an “assault rifle” against a “group of children” would be decried as utterly heinous. This varies by the particular community, but it is something to consider and I raise the point to promote thoughtful consideration.
JAS is an attorney and firearms instructor.
Damn good at both, I might add.
John
Thanks for the input JAS.
Boys? These guys look like linebackers.
I don’t think that picture is from this incident. It’s cold in PA right now and these kids are dressed like its summer. Pic is probably just to illustrate a point.
Doesn’t look like a cop on the ground, either.
Correct, Mr. Larry.
Pic was from a fight at or near that particular school though.
I think I googled images for “Upper Darby High School Pennsylvania fight”.
John