TexasCHLforum.com

20 Year Old Male Robbing Female at GunPoint is Interrupted by Armed Citizen
http://www.worcesterma.gov/police/press ... ed-citizen

The armed citizen did well with one exception.

The citizen ordered Mr. Cintron to the ground. Once on the ground the citizen placed a knee on his back in an effort to hold him down while the girlfriend called police. The citizen was able to slide Mr. Cintron’s weapon further away from the two in an effort to keep a safe distance.

While waiting for police to arrive, Mr. Cintron rolled over and began to struggle for control of the citizen’s gun. During the struggle, Mr. Cintron grabbed at the gun and a round was fired into the pavement. At this time Mr. Cintron was able to break free of the citizen’s hold and fled on foot.

Should have just held him to the ground while standing up waiting for the police. That could have ended very badly for ltc holder.

This case shows why these types of situations are so challenging. I read this part:

The officers were told by the couple that they were on their way home when they observed a 29-year-old female being held at gunpoint by a male, later identified as Jeremy Cintron, 20-years-old of 21 Fairfax Road. The robbery was in the area of Sterling and Seymour Streets. Fearing for the female’s safety, the citizen produced his own hand gun that he legally possessed and pointed it at Mr. Cintron. The citizen yelled at him to drop his weapon. At this time Mr. Cintron turned and pointed the weapon at the citizen and began walking towards him. The citizen yelled out several more times to drop the weapon and finally Mr. Cintron complied.

and I thought to myself, there is no way that guy would have turned to face me and my wife/girlfriend while holding a gun. I would have shot him as soon as he started to turn, and possibly as soon as I saw him pointing the gun at an unknown woman.

Then I considered the possibility that this was an undercover cop who was in the middle of making an arrest of a violent criminal (the woman in this case). If so, I would have just shot a cop, and the actual criminal now has easy access to the cops gun.

This would be a great situation for a "shoot / don't shoot" simulator. And it is a very challenging situation to correctly figure out. Make a wrong decision and your wife dies, or you shoot a cop, and a criminal shoots you and your wife.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:This case shows why these types of situations are so challenging. I read this part:

The officers were told by the couple that they were on their way home when they observed a 29-year-old female being held at gunpoint by a male, later identified as Jeremy Cintron, 20-years-old of 21 Fairfax Road. The robbery was in the area of Sterling and Seymour Streets. Fearing for the female’s safety, the citizen produced his own hand gun that he legally possessed and pointed it at Mr. Cintron. The citizen yelled at him to drop his weapon. At this time Mr. Cintron turned and pointed the weapon at the citizen and began walking towards him. The citizen yelled out several more times to drop the weapon and finally Mr. Cintron complied.

and I thought to myself, there is no way that guy would have turned to face me and my wife/girlfriend while holding a gun. I would have shot him as soon as he started to turn, and possibly as soon as I saw him pointing the gun at an unknown woman.

Then I considered the possibility that this was an undercover cop who was in the middle of making an arrest of a violent criminal (the woman in this case). If so, I would have just shot a cop, and the actual criminal now has easy access to the cops gun.

This would be a great situation for a "shoot / don't shoot" simulator. And it is a very challenging situation to correctly figure out. Make a wrong decision and your wife dies, or you shoot a cop, and a criminal shoots you and your wife.

Hopefully the "Totality of Circumstances" will help us in our decision. The article doesn't say what was being said between the actors and what other tells there may have been. As with most of these situations we read about there are a lot of details we don't know.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:This case shows why these types of situations are so challenging. I read this part:

The officers were told by the couple that they were on their way home when they observed a 29-year-old female being held at gunpoint by a male, later identified as Jeremy Cintron, 20-years-old of 21 Fairfax Road. The robbery was in the area of Sterling and Seymour Streets. Fearing for the female’s safety, the citizen produced his own hand gun that he legally possessed and pointed it at Mr. Cintron. The citizen yelled at him to drop his weapon. At this time Mr. Cintron turned and pointed the weapon at the citizen and began walking towards him. The citizen yelled out several more times to drop the weapon and finally Mr. Cintron complied.

and I thought to myself, there is no way that guy would have turned to face me and my wife/girlfriend while holding a gun. I would have shot him as soon as he started to turn, and possibly as soon as I saw him pointing the gun at an unknown woman.

Then I considered the possibility that this was an undercover cop who was in the middle of making an arrest of a violent criminal (the woman in this case). If so, I would have just shot a cop, and the actual criminal now has easy access to the cops gun.

This would be a great situation for a "shoot / don't shoot" simulator. And it is a very challenging situation to correctly figure out. Make a wrong decision and your wife dies, or you shoot a cop, and a criminal shoots you and your wife.

I am not leo or trained, but I would hope, following in your simulator, that had it been a leo he would be smart enough to not turn his gun towards someone who already had a draw on him, but would instead identify himself and hold position, and go from there. My mental threshold for pulling the trigger is if someone has a gun pointed my way. Whether I would follow through in real life I hope to never find out. If it is a good guy that turns toward me, it would be a regretable mistake he made that I would have to live with. Even if he identified himself, turning towards me could prove lethal for both if us, cause people lie. Especially bad guys.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:This case shows why these types of situations are so challenging. I read this part:

The officers were told by the couple that they were on their way home when they observed a 29-year-old female being held at gunpoint by a male, later identified as Jeremy Cintron, 20-years-old of 21 Fairfax Road. The robbery was in the area of Sterling and Seymour Streets. Fearing for the female’s safety, the citizen produced his own hand gun that he legally possessed and pointed it at Mr. Cintron. The citizen yelled at him to drop his weapon. At this time Mr. Cintron turned and pointed the weapon at the citizen and began walking towards him. The citizen yelled out several more times to drop the weapon and finally Mr. Cintron complied.

and I thought to myself, there is no way that guy would have turned to face me and my wife/girlfriend while holding a gun. I would have shot him as soon as he started to turn, and possibly as soon as I saw him pointing the gun at an unknown woman.

Then I considered the possibility that this was an undercover cop who was in the middle of making an arrest of a violent criminal (the woman in this case). If so, I would have just shot a cop, and the actual criminal now has easy access to the cops gun.

This would be a great situation for a "shoot / don't shoot" simulator. And it is a very challenging situation to correctly figure out. Make a wrong decision and your wife dies, or you shoot a cop, and a criminal shoots you and your wife.

I would hope that, in your scenario, the cop would have the good sense to show his badge.

Nice to see the police themselves release a statement containing sufficient detail that we can see what happened.

Usually the police release no statement or a very general statement with the usual "matter under investigation" and/or the story is picked up by the press who provide scant details or get the story wrong.

Wish more police agencies would release statements like that as a public service.

If you place somebody on the ground at gun point DO NOT come in physical contact with them, stay back, have them cross their legs at the ankle, you can either have them place their hands on their head interlace their fingers or have them keep their arms stretched out spread eagle, this position requires them to make a gross movement in order to stand up, make sure their weapon and bystanders are no where close to where the BG can grab them, stand behind them, try to position yourself so they do not know where you are.
If the guy is a LEO he better be screaming he's a LEO other wise if he swings his gun towards me I will shoot!

There was a thread posted just in the last couple of weeks from someone asking if one has a responsibility to provide first aid to the person one has just shot in self-defense (http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 1#p1200761). The story in the OP of this thread shows exactly why you shouldn’t get close enough to do that. Unless the GSW is immediately incapacitating for medical reasons, the decision to give up when shot is entirely in the shot person’s control. They decide to quit. The flip side of that is that they are also capable of deciding to fight. If you shoot someone, and he quits, he’s still a desperate man. If you give him the opening to get out of his predicament, he may well take it. You can’t give him that opening as long as you stay out of his reach.

The Annoyed Man wrote:There was a thread posted just in the last couple of weeks from someone asking if one has a responsibility to provide first aid to the person one has just shot in self-defense (http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 1#p1200761). The story in the OP of this thread shows exactly why you shouldn’t get close enough to do that. Unless the GSW is immediately incapacitating for medical reasons, the decision to give up when shot is entirely in the shot person’s control. They decide to quit. The flip side of that is that they are also capable of deciding to fight. If you shoot someone, and he quits, he’s still a desperate man. If you give him the opening to get out of his predicament, he may well take it. You can’t give him that opening as long as you stay out of his reach.

My daughter was hesitant to get her LTC, because she is an RN, and was worried, that if she had to shoot someone, it would violate her nursing oath, which in part ( because I don't know the whole thing and I am admittedly too lazy to look up) says that she would cause no harm to her patients. I explained that anyone who wished to cause her harm, was not her "patient" until he/she had been admitted. Until then they were her attacker, and her shooting them, was not a violation of her oath. Even if her actions, resulted in them becoming her patient.

I would sure hate to wake up in ICU, and see my intended victim, as my caregiver. It might cause me to believe Judgement had already determined my fate!!

Soccerdad1995 wrote:This case shows why these types of situations are so challenging. I read this part:

The officers were told by the couple that they were on their way home when they observed a 29-year-old female being held at gunpoint by a male, later identified as Jeremy Cintron, 20-years-old of 21 Fairfax Road. The robbery was in the area of Sterling and Seymour Streets. Fearing for the female’s safety, the citizen produced his own hand gun that he legally possessed and pointed it at Mr. Cintron. The citizen yelled at him to drop his weapon. At this time Mr. Cintron turned and pointed the weapon at the citizen and began walking towards him. The citizen yelled out several more times to drop the weapon and finally Mr. Cintron complied.

and I thought to myself, there is no way that guy would have turned to face me and my wife/girlfriend while holding a gun. I would have shot him as soon as he started to turn, and possibly as soon as I saw him pointing the gun at an unknown woman.

Then I considered the possibility that this was an undercover cop who was in the middle of making an arrest of a violent criminal (the woman in this case). If so, I would have just shot a cop, and the actual criminal now has easy access to the cops gun.

This would be a great situation for a "shoot / don't shoot" simulator. And it is a very challenging situation to correctly figure out. Make a wrong decision and your wife dies, or you shoot a cop, and a criminal shoots you and your wife.

if he was undercover, he should yell something to the affect of "Im an undercover officer" and present a badge. and if he was a cop i doubt he'd turn toward you while leaving his criminal unattended.

Jusme wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:There was a thread posted just in the last couple of weeks from someone asking if one has a responsibility to provide first aid to the person one has just shot in self-defense (http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 1#p1200761). The story in the OP of this thread shows exactly why you shouldn’t get close enough to do that. Unless the GSW is immediately incapacitating for medical reasons, the decision to give up when shot is entirely in the shot person’s control. They decide to quit. The flip side of that is that they are also capable of deciding to fight. If you shoot someone, and he quits, he’s still a desperate man. If you give him the opening to get out of his predicament, he may well take it. You can’t give him that opening as long as you stay out of his reach.

My daughter was hesitant to get her LTC, because she is an RN, and was worried, that if she had to shoot someone, it would violate her nursing oath, which in part ( because I don't know the whole thing and I am admittedly too lazy to look up) says that she would cause no harm to her patients. I explained that anyone who wished to cause her harm, was not her "patient" until he/she had been admitted. Until then they were her attacker, and her shooting them, was not a violation of her oath. Even if her actions, resulted in them becoming her patient.

I would sure hate to wake up in ICU, and see my intended victim, as my caregiver. It might cause me to believe Judgement had already determined my fate!!

Yep..... “First do no harm” applies to people who are your patients. although it expresses a commendable sentiment, there’s no way that oath applies outside of the healthcare arena, and it isn’t a commandment for every aspect of your life away from work. If it were, then nurses would be barred from stuff like ....... uhhhh..... voting democrat, or assisting in performing abortions for instance. Secondly, the oath doesn’t say “first do no harm, even if it means the other person kills you”. Third, by shooting someone who badly needs to be shot, she may be preventing harm that person would have done to someone else down the road - not to mention preventing harm to herself. There are plenty of doctors who have LTCs and carry......and they take the same oath to first do no harm.

The Hippocratic oath puts forth specific stipulations with regard to conduct towards one's patients: those to whom you have a separately defined legal fiduciary duty. That duty exists when formed as a agreement by both parties (a guy shows up in your office or you're working the ED and they roll in, et c.). In non-emergent situations, it can be appropriate to refuse to establish that relationship (i.e. an outside hospital wishes to transfer a patient to you for reasons that are unnecessary or not in the best interest of the patient, though calling such a transfer an emergency legally requires one to accept the transfer).

None of those circumstances exist between your daughter and some guy who tries to rape and likely thereafter kill her. She should arm herself with a weapon and the proficiency in its use to prevent that and a whole host of other possible assaults without fear of violating any oath as a doctor or nurse.