feedback.pdxradio.com

feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

1. Vitalogy
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 5,270

   "As I came out of the door of the Walgreens, sir, I saw several individuals wrestling with him and I came running. I was already at a full sprint and you know, there's no time to think about anything," he explained.

   "I saw another individual holding the firearm. I kind of assumed he was the shooter. So I grabbed his wrist and you know told him to drop it and forced him to drop the gun on the ground. When he did that, everybody says, no, no, it's this guy."

   "Did you ever think in drawing your firearm or you made the determination you didn't have to?" Schultz asked.

   "Sir, when I came through the door, I had my hand on the butt of my pistol and I clicked the safety off. I was ready to kill him. But I didn't have to do that and I was very blessed that I didn't have to go to that place," Zamudio replied.

   "I would have shot the man holding the gun," he added.

   "You would have used that firearm," Schultz pressed.

   "You're damn right," Zamudio said.

   In a Monday interview, Fox News' Steve Doocy noted that if Zamudio had shot his first target it "would have been a big fat mess."

   http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/armed-bystander-shot-hero-disarmed-az-shooter/

   Posted on January 14, 2011 - 03:34 PM #
2. Skybill9
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 7,197

   So, grabbing the guy's wrist and knocking the gun out of his hand constitutes almost shooting him????

   He CLEARLY states that he had his hand on the butt of his gun. He NEVER drew or even un-holstered it.

   I guess when a police officer walks up to a car he's stopped for a traffic violation with his hand on the butt of his gun he "almost shot" the driver???

   Your bias is amazing.

   And if the shooter had still been killing people and this armed citizen had shot him stopping further killings, what would you be saying about him then?

   Posted on January 14, 2011 - 03:41 PM #
3. Vitalogy
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 5,270

   He almost shot the hero and he was the armed citizen on the scene.

   I'd prefer that the cops are the ones shooting, not some gun toting burnout coming out of a Walgreens that can barely string together a coherant sentence.

   Posted on January 14, 2011 - 03:43 PM #
4. Skybill9
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 7,197

   "He almost shot the hero"

   Please explain.

   He NEVER DREW his weapon. How could he "Almost shoot the hero"?

   So you would rather that the shooter go on killing people that have someone that is prepared for a situation like this shoot the killer?

   Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

   Freaking amazing. Talk about facts not mattering.

   Did you watch the whole "Ed" video?

   Posted on January 14, 2011 - 03:49 PM #
5. Andrew
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 3,749

   I saw excerpts from this interview on Rachel Maddow's show. Rachel's piece started with a quote from an Arizona lawmaker lamenting that there hadn't been someone else with a gun there - a "good guy" - who could have prevented the tragedy. Her point (as she led into the Shultz excerpt) was there *WAS* such a person there...and he was a split second decision away from killing an innocent person.

   Posted on January 14, 2011 - 04:25 PM #
6. Skybill9
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 7,197

   And any cop arriving on the scene would have made exactly the same decision.

   There is shooting going on and they see someone with a gun. Guess who is going to lose the benefit of the doubt.

   You can all lambast the guy all you want, the bottom line is HE MADE THE RIGHT DECISSION. Period.

   Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

   Posted on January 14, 2011 - 04:37 PM #
7. Andrew
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 3,749

   Uh, nobody is "lambasting" the civilian with the gun. You are totally missing the point, which is that a civilian with a gun on scene not only did not prevent the shooting but could very well have made it far worse. This civilian used good judgement, but such judgement is not a requirement to purchase and carry a gun in Arizona. The fact that this guy was totally ready to use his weapon (took the safety off, had his hand on it) means lots of others may have been more trigger happy.

   The police are trained to handle these situations. Most civilians are not.

   Posted on January 14, 2011 - 04:51 PM #
8. Skybill9
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 7,197

   "Uh, nobody is "lambasting" the civilian with the gun. You are totally missing the point..."

   That's not the way I read Vitalogy's opening post. The underlying tone of that post is: "The guy almost shot someone" when that is not even close to reality.

   His gun never left the holster so how could he "almost shoot someone"?

   "a civilian with a gun on scene not only did not prevent the shooting"

   He was in Walgreens when the shooting took place. The other bystanders had already disarmed the shooter by the time he had got there.

   "The police are trained to handle these situations. Most civilians are not."

   True, but there were no police on scene so it's up to us to protect ourselves. Also we don't know what kind of training he had (if any).

   Posted on January 14, 2011 - 05:10 PM #
9. kennewickman
   

   vacuum tube
   Posts: 3,389

   Yes but the point is that HE DIDNT kill an innocent person.

   His judgement was sound...Think before taking lethal action, which is what the Police do, they are trained to do this.

   If you have a concealed weapon permit , there are responsibilities that go along with that.

   It is obvious that he knew what those responsiblities were.

   And his sentence syntax while making his comments dont matter in this case, evidently...

   Posted on January 14, 2011 - 06:30 PM #
10. Vitalogy
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,270

    You don't need a permit in AZ. Any idiot can carry a gun.

    I prefer to allow trained professionals to play cop, not some burnout carrying a gun waiting for his fantasy to come true. I don't trust the judgment of the average Joe when it comes to guns.

    Posted on January 14, 2011 - 06:53 PM #
11. skeptical
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,761

    Remember the Portland gunowner who decided to play cop and fired away at a bad guy running down the street away from him -- something that even cops don't do? There's some smart thinking going on right there.

    Posted on January 14, 2011 - 08:08 PM #
12. tomturner
    

    junior diode
    Posts: 27

    Personally, I'm far less fearful of a random citizen shooting at me in Portland than I am the Portland Police. If I get shot by a citizen, at least he/she won't be on paid suspension while a huge white washing tries to shift the blame from the shooter to me.

    Posted on January 14, 2011 - 09:18 PM #
13. Vitalogy
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,270

    The chances of getting shot by a private citizen vs the police is probably about 50/50.

    Posted on January 14, 2011 - 09:52 PM #
14. tomturner
    

    junior diode
    Posts: 27

    Then that proves that being a trained officer does nothing to improve public safety over an average citizen with the same firearm. Go figure.

    Posted on January 14, 2011 - 10:27 PM #
15. Vitalogy
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,270

    No. It says the Portland Police are trigger happy.

    Posted on January 14, 2011 - 11:21 PM #
16. skeptical
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,761

    Turner sez: Then that proves that being a trained officer does nothing to improve public safety over an average citizen with the same firearm.

    This is abloney. When was the last time a cop killed an 8-year old with an uzi?

    Posted on January 14, 2011 - 11:25 PM #
17. Skybill9
    

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,197

    Back to your rock Skeptical. You've obviously gotten into way too much wacky tobacky tonight.

    Posted on January 14, 2011 - 11:41 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.