If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[arakboss]

Lesson I learned is don't bring an air soft gun to a gun fight.

 

[lucusloc]

So here's a twist to this discussion.
The man's intervention plan and execution (no pun intended) was obviously a fuster cluck, and without much doubt is going to land him in the pokey... so....

Assuming that the decision to intervene has been made, what would have been your plan of approach (other than, "walk away and call 911") and what factors would you be considering?




(To note: Yet another round of, "anyone intervening is an idiotic moron, has mental issues playing out a hero fantasy and not fit to own a firearm" is not helpful, informative nor welcome.)

First, you have to define the crime. Not just the possibility of a crime, but an actual crime. Until that point you must assume a gun out in the open is the result of stupidity and not malice. You can of course prepare yourself for the possibility that the malice is real, but your actions until that is proven to be the case have to abide by what the evidence currently supports, not what you presume.

So you walk up to them and tell them to put the guns down and stop waving them around like a lunatic. This course of action would have saved lots of lives, not just this kids. That rancher in Idaho, a kid in a playground and a few other incidents I can think of where the respondent acted far too quickly to fully ascertain the situation. When you decide to respond to a not-yet-a-crime situation you are assuming some of the risk in that situation in order to ensure all potential innocent people get to go home, not just yourself.

Yes, things change when a real and articuable threat arises. If they point the gun at someone (yourself included) you are justified in taking immediate action, if they communicate a threat through some form of speech or gesture you are justified in taking action, even if it is just shear dumb stupidity that is jeopardizing other innocent lives you could be justified in taking action.

But none of these kids had done anything that actually rose to the level of genuine threat even if the guns were real. By his decision to intervene the mall cop had assumed some of the risk of that situation and was not justified in offloading that risk onto some genuinely innocent people by preemptively shooting them before they could pose a real risk. If he did not want to assume that risk he should have called the cops and let them assume that risk instead, as that is part of their job.

People do dumb things with real firearms all the time. Do you think a gun store owner is justified in shooting every customer that caries a naked gun into their store "because they might be robbing the place"? Or is perhaps a better course of action to assume stupidity and give them a stern talking too about proper firearms handling, and only reacting with violence if the confrontation elicits a hostile response?

This guy would have been justified if, for example, one of the teens attempted to draw one of the guns. That would be a clearly articuable threat. If they had pointed those guns at some other random passerby, that would have been justification too. But until that point they were still, in actual fact, innocent of any threat or malice, just like the mall cop was in carrying his own firearm, even if the kids were being far more stupid with theirs (at least until the mall cop decided to shoot an innocent person over his incorrect preconceived notions. That is probably takes the cake for stupidest action in this who ordeal.)

I will say it again, because it bears repeating; if you are going to intervene in a not yet clearly established situation, you assume some of the risk to make sure everyone who should go home does so. If that means you sit back and do nothing as the situation develops then that is part of the risk you signed up for. You do not get to offload that onto some random innocent just because you think they might be a threat. Only when there is a clear and present danger do you get to flip modes and start making sure your going home is a higher priority than the now clearly established bad guy. Unless someone has clearly established themselves as that bad guy they are presumed to be just as innocent as you are. Act accordingly.

And seriously, if you are not willing to take up that risk just call someone and walk away. That is a far better course of action than killing an innocent person and spending who knows how much of your life in jail because you offloaded the risks inherent in a confrontation onto them.

 

[arakboss]

No matter how justified I think the use of deadly force is, I will always assume that I will go to prison if I use it. If this guy assumed the same, he probably would have reacted differently.

 

[Tony617]

Too many responses to read:

Does an airsoft or BB pistol have a box? If so put in the box. If they threw away the box then put the pistol in a bag for returning it at least.

 

[Benhiatt14]

Sadly this will be used to death by those who don't want us to have guns. Unless a LOT more comes out sure looks like this moron is going to be a very old man when he gets out of prison over stupidity.

Off-duty security guard fatally shoots Renton teen after mistaking BB gun for real firearm

The homicide occurred Wednesday evening outside the Big 5 Sporting Goods store on Grady Way in Renton.

komonews.com

Do we know what happened?? Imagine if you were the star of the show and Hadn't got to tell your side yet... probably should see what actually happened before we judge, lest we be judged.

 

[Alexx1401]

Do we know what happened?? Imagine if you were the star of the show and Hadn't got to tell your side yet... probably should see what actually happened before we judge, lest we be judged.

Imagine NOT pulling your gun, NOT talking to Police after and digging a huge hole for yourself, imagine NOT having fantasies of using your gun to be a hero by taking down some "perps", and you will not have to be the "star" of the don't be this moron show.

 

[Koda]

Imagine NOT pulling your gun, NOT talking to Police after and digging a huge hole for yourself, imagine NOT having fantasies of using your gun to be a hero by taking down some "perps", and you will not have to be the "star" of the don't be this moron show.

People who intervene don't do it out of hero fantasies. He screwed up big time and will pay for it but hero fantasies are not the motivation here.

 

[Yarome]

Imagine NOT pulling your gun, NOT talking to Police after and digging a huge hole for yourself, imagine NOT having fantasies of using your gun to be a hero by taking down some "perps", and you will not have to be the "star" of the don't be this moron show.

You certainly never tire of the "hero complex" shtick, do ya!


There are times when it is fully appropriate to intervene and to use a firearm for defense of others. The key is to be fully aware of all local laws when doing so, and it's true, then exercising your right to remain silent and seek legal representation.

There is no doubt this man made some egregious errors in his approach, but considering that there were 1.7mil defensive uses of firearms last year, the main take-away from this case seems to better serve as a lesson to carefully consider your options and approach... rather than use it as a justification or allow it to scare people into not exercising their 2A rights when it is appropriate to do so.

Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions and there is no "right" or "wrong" in that, but for those that preach, "never use a firearm when your life is not directly threatened"... it makes me wonder how they would feel if their own loved one was murdered while another citizen with a firearm stood by, had ample opportunity, but chose to stand by and let it happen.

When later asked and that person were to give the same response those that preach "never intervene" would give.... "Not my problem!"(?).

Just food for thought...

 

[Catfishmoon]

It appears those who predicted early in this discussion, that judging by the actions of the shooter, this may not be his first rodeo are correct...

I think it is safe to assume the individual is tilted in that direction


"According to charging documents, the June 5 incident wasn't the first Myers chose to "intervene" after mistakenly believing someone was armed. In March of 2022, Myers followed a person carrying a metal object he thought was a gun from one store to another. He did this, prosecutors wrote in charging documents, because he believed he "may need to intervene' and he 'might have to shoot' that person."

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

It appears those who predicted early in this discussion, that judging by the actions of the shooter, this may not be his first rodeo are correct...

I think it is safe to assume the individual is tilted in that direction


"According to charging documents, the June 5 incident wasn't the first Myers chose to "intervene" after mistakenly believing someone was armed. In March of 2022, Myers followed a person carrying a metal object he thought was a gun from one store to another. He did this, prosecutors wrote in charging documents, because he believed he "may need to intervene' and he 'might have to shoot' that person."

 

[HA556]

"According to charging documents, the June 5 incident wasn't the first Myers chose to "intervene" after mistakenly believing someone was armed. In March of 2022, Myers followed a person carrying a metal object he thought was a gun from one store to another. He did this, prosecutors wrote in charging documents, because he believed he "may need to intervene' and he 'might have to shoot' that person."

Uh huh, and the thought plickens!

 

[Yarome]

It appears those who predicted early in this discussion, that judging by the actions of the shooter, this may not be his first rodeo are correct...

I think it is safe to assume the individual is tilted in that direction


"According to charging documents, the June 5 incident wasn't the first Myers chose to "intervene" after mistakenly believing someone was armed. In March of 2022, Myers followed a person carrying a metal object he thought was a gun from one store to another. He did this, prosecutors wrote in charging documents, because he believed he "may need to intervene' and he 'might have to shoot' that person."

So?

I know I actively practice situational awareness and there have been occasions when I've kept my eye on a person that was acting sketchy while in public. Even running mental exercises in my head as to where cover is and "what would I do.. if" scenarios. It's good practice.

Are you saying that makes me predisposed to murder someone?

This could easily sound like one of those tactics that prosecutors like to use. Like... If you have sought firearm training it's because you PLAN to use your firearm and are predisposed to violence. If you have a sign or bumper sticker on your vehicle that promotes the 2A... you are predisposed to firearm violence.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

People who intervene don't do it out of hero fantasies. He screwed up big time and will pay for it but hero fantasies are not the motivation here.

I tend to think some might, but I'm wondering what you think his motivation might have been.

 

[Koda]

I tend to think some might, but I'm wondering what you think his motivation might have been.

Over reaction, reacting before finding all the risks, tunnel vision. My only holdup is the fact the kids were carrying guns openly in hand and nobody here is calling that out as part of the problem and even defending that as [stupid but] lawful as if that even matters cause it doesn't and its not lawful for underage kids to carry guns.
Replicas do not count in any case so that will not be considered here either. My only position is that its not unreasonable to assume they had ill intentions even if they didnt. Thats it, nothing more.

 

[Koda]

It appears those who predicted early in this discussion, that judging by the actions of the shooter, this may not be his first rodeo are correct...

I think it is safe to assume the individual is tilted in that direction


"According to charging documents, the June 5 incident wasn't the first Myers chose to "intervene" after mistakenly believing someone was armed. In March of 2022, Myers followed a person carrying a metal object he thought was a gun from one store to another. He did this, prosecutors wrote in charging documents, because he believed he "may need to intervene' and he 'might have to shoot' that person."

Was that incident in the capacity of his security job?
Did he get convicted from that incident?
Can you provide a link to this claim so we can understand the whole context?

 

[RVTECH]

An NPR story from today:

King County prosecutors on Monday charged 51-year-old Aaron Brown Myers of Redmond with second degree murder in connection with the shooting death of a 17-year-old boy outside of a Renton sporting goods store Wednesday.

Officials say Myers shot the boy, identified in court documents only as H.R., seven times following a confrontation in the parking lot of the Big 5 Sporting Goods store on Grady Way. The boy, who friends say was attempting to return a malfunctioning airsoft gun to the store, was pronounced dead at the scene.

Myers also faces a second degree assault charge in connection with his alleged attempt to apprehend another teen during the confrontation, which was caught on surveillance video.
Myers approached the boys after seeing an airsoft gun in one's pocket and assuming they intended to commit an armed robbery, "despite the fact that he is not a member of law enforcement and thus has not been trained in how to safely prevent crime," according to charging documents.

The teens complied with Myers' commands, "putting their hands in the air and placing the airsoft pistol he'd seen on the ground, and telling him it was just a 'BB gun,'" prosecutors wrote.
Myers had pinned one boy, identified in documents as B.A., to the ground. At some point, H.R. attempted to back away from the confrontation, his hands still in the air. That's when officials say Myers fired multiple shots at H.R., hitting him once in the side and six times in the back.
Myers told police he "shot [his] firearm, hitting H.R.," according to court documents.

"Rather than calling 911 or waiting for any evidence at all that could confirm or deny his assumption, he claimed he had a 'duty to intervene' and did so. The defendant exited his vehicle, pointed his own very real firearm at the three teenagers, and rapidly approached them," court records state.
Myers was detained by officers at the scene.

Court records indicate that several nearby law enforcement officers saw and heard parts of the confrontation leading up to H.R.'s death. It's unclear from court records whether they made an attempt to intervene prior to the shooting.

Prosecutors set Myers' bail at $2 million, citing "the likelihood that the defendant will fail to appear in response to a summons and that he may commit a violent offense."

Court documents also reference an incident in March 2022, during which Myers "followed a person carrying a metal object that he believed to be a gun from one store, through another store, and away from the second store, all because he may need to 'intervene' and he 'might have to shoot' the person." In that instance, law enforcement officers intervened before anyone was hurt.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Over reaction, reacting before finding all the risks, tunnel vision. My only holdup is the fact the kids were carrying guns openly in hand and nobody here is calling that out as part of the problem and even defending that as [stupid but] lawful as if that even matters cause it doesn't and its not lawful for underage kids to carry guns.
Replicas do not count in any case so that will not be considered here either. My only position is that its not unreasonable to assume they had ill intentions even if they didnt. Thats it, nothing more.

Those aren't motivations (as in he was motivated to do it because he wanted to be seen as a hero) those are flaws in the execution of his plan. And I ain't never heard anyone say they were motivated to do anything because tunnel vision. I've only seen the one photo of the dead kid, but the real world isn't Beverly 90210 and teenagers and young adults (or call them 'not underage kids') aren't played by 35 year olds. I tend to doubt he asked for ID to conform their age and even if they were underage and had real guns, that in itself isn't proof they were enroute to commit a crime or justify what he did.

 

[Koda]

I tend to doubt he asked for ID to conform their age and even if they were underage and had real guns, that in itself isn't proof they were enroute to commit a crime or justify what he did.

That I actually agree with and think will get him convicted.
Re" motivation. Do you really believe he wanted to intervene solely to be a hero in the community? What evidence do you have to support that other than he actually was wrong?

Maybe they are flaws but Ive known many people over the years who make dumb choices in life they should know better but lots of people have a disconnect with logic and it does get them in trouble, they over react, act impulsively, jump to conclusions... any of these flaws can get someone into a situation where they wind up facing criminal charges but doesnt indicate any motive good or bad.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

That I actually agree with and think will get him convicted.
Re" motivation. Do you really believe he wanted to intervene solely to be a hero in the community? What evidence do you have to support that other than he actually was wrong?

Maybe they are flaws but Ive known many people over the years who make dumb choices in life they should know better but lots of people have a disconnect with logic and it does get them in trouble, they over react, act impulsively, jump to conclusions... any of these flaws can get someone into a situation where they wind up facing criminal charges but doesnt indicate any motive good or bad.

"Solely"? No, my personal opinion is that that wasn't his only or even main motivation, but I have no hard evidence to support my opinion so I shan't be sharing it here and will happily change my opinion should more information prove me wrong

 

[Catfishmoon]

Can you provide a link to this claim so we can understand the whole context?

I understand many of us in this forum have different points of view and normally I would have provided a link to any news item I mentioned. But in my opinion there is a pattern of hubris towards any thoughts (or news item) not shared by some in this thread.
So I thought "why bother?" People know how Google works if they care to find it.

But since you requested.

https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/big-5-renton-shooter-charged-aaron-brown-myers/281-fa69e315-fba1-4973-b738-ad57b9c4d4be