Citizen with Concealed Carry Saves Police Officer

From Philly.Com:

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.

Not only did the officer who tried to break up the fight suffer significant hand injuries, Chitwood said, but an officer who responded to the request for backup also suffered a major injury to a leg when he was kicked by one of the teens in the fight.

What was it the Left was saying about the “good guy with a gun” myth??

Lent: A Protestant Perspective
"... it simply exposes the superficiality, eclectic consumerism and underlying identity confusion"
  • Brucehenry
    • Scalia

      Yep, letting your children play with guns is a very bad idea. Now, any shout outs from Bruce for the guy that saved the police officer?

      • Brucehenry

        Yes that’s great that the cop was saved.

        My point is that the country is awash in guns, partly because of the myth, the mindset, that everybody needs one. And for every instance you can find of a good guy with a gun foiling bad guys, I can find you dozens of instances of clueless morons shooting themselves or others, or allowing their guns, which, you know they “need for self-defense,” to be played with by kids, with tragic or tragicomic consequences.

        EDIT: I don’t know what the answer is. I know that guns can’t be taken from their owners, and shouldn’t be. You tell me.

        • LiberalNightmare

          If the goal was to protect the children, wouldn’t abortion be illegal?

          • JWH

            Does everything come back to abortion for you? We could be talking about poultry-farming regulations, and you’d complain that unborn children will never get to eat chicken cordon bleu.

        • Retired military

          Bruce
          Any idiot who leaves a gun where an unsupervised toddler can get at it should be thrown in jail at the very least. No one will argue that point.

          Lets look at the AR15 debate as well.
          The stats I saw showed that about 350 people were murdered with rifles last year (maybe 2014). They listed more people murdered (over 700) with blunt objects like fists and hammers. Yet the left goes bonkers over AR 15s. 350 is porbably less than the people murdered in Chicago last year. Yet the left wont even mention those. They dont fit the profile.
          There are 2 times as many cars in the US than guns. Cars are responsible for at least 2 times as many deaths as guns. Simple solution to prevent deaths is to ban cars. They are easier to find than guns as well.

        • yetanotherjohn

          I’ll take that bet. You claim:
          “for every instance you can find of a good guy with a gun foiling bad guys, I can find you dozens of instances of clueless morons shooting themselves or others, or allowing their guns, which, you know they “need for self-defense,” to be played with by kids, with tragic or tragicomic consequences.”
          You said dozens, so you should be able to find a minimum of two dozen (24) cases. Current score is one to one. You need to find 23 more. Of course if someone posts another story here, that will be another 24 cases you will need to come up with.

        • Scalia

          First, I have no problem taking a gun away from a felon. Anybody who’s so irresponsible as to allow a child should go to jail if that child kills or shoots somebody with that gun.

          Second, the upper tier of the number of times Americans defend themselves with guns is around 3 million per year. You said you could find “dozens of instances” of accidental shootings for each legitimate defense with a firearm. Let’s just take a dozen, Bruce. You now need to show me 36 million instances of accidental shootings by Americans in one year.

          Is 3 million too high? Ok, let’s go with the low-ball estimate of 60,000 legitimate gun defenses per year. You’ve got to come up with 720,000 accidental shootings.

          Take your time…I’ll be waiting.

          • Brucehenry

            OK fine looks like I overstated my case. There are actually not “dozens” of instances for every instance of good guy/bad guy heroism.

            So let’s just say for every instance of good guys with guns saving the day, there is an instance of a moron shooting himself, the wrong person, a loved one, or a kid gets ahold of the gun and shoots himself or another kid.

            And the reason for that is because the country is awash in guns, because of the mindset that everybody needs one. That’s my point.

          • Scalia

            That’s actually incorrect, Bruce. According to the CDC, in 2013 there were 16,864 injuries resulting from accidental shootings. For the same year, there were 586 fatalities resulting from the accidental discharge of a firearm.

          • Brucehenry

            In my revised comment, I speak of morons who shoot “himself, the wrong person, a loved one, or a kid gets ahold of the gun and shoots himself or another kid.”

            This is more than just “accidental” shootings. These are suicides, drunken murders of loved ones, cases where, like the Walmart parking lot lady, she tries to be a good guy and shoots a bystander or the mugging victim and not the mugger, road rage shootings, cases like the dead dad who got shot at the movies because the Responsible Gun Owner who packed his piece to the multiplex didn’t like him texting his babysitter, or like the white guy who got irritated at loud rap music and shot a black kid.

            Those shootings, or many of them anyway, wouldn’t have happened had not the Responsible Gun Owner not felt the need to be packing all the damn time. The fact is most people who carry guns around don’t need to. The Supreme Court has said they have a right to, though, so we all have to live with it.

            You might be afraid to go to the grocery store without packing heat because you think you might get mugged or something. I’m afraid sometimes to go because some do-gooder yahoo might blast away at a shoplifter and catch me in the crossfire. So you have the right to feel safe, but I don’t.

          • Scalia

            Sorry, but I don’t put suicides in the same category. A person, tragically, kills h/erself. That should not be mentioned in the same context as somebody who shoots the wrong person or a child picking up a gun and deciding to play cowboys and Indians.

            If you’re going to make a valid comparison, you have to measure like-for-like. The vast majority of deaths resulting from automobiles are accidents (many of them, however, resulting from negligence). Given that, one doesn’t rack up every firearm homicide and juxtapose that with car deaths. Suicide, which accounts for the significant majority of firearm deaths, are then automatically off the comparison. Accident for accident, including negligence, demonstrates a far higher death rate for automobiles than with firearms.

            So, when you allege an instance-for-instance correspondence between firearm defense and shooting “himself, the wrong, person, a loved one, or a kid gets ahold of a gun and shoots himself or another kid,” you’re committing a category error. You’re mixing accidents with deliberate acts.

            OTOH, if you’re claiming a correspondence between all firearm deaths and incidents of self-defense with firearms, then you should have simply stated that up front. Moreover, you then have to argue that the very lowest tier of self-defense estimates must be accurate in order to sustain your incident-for-incident assertion. Given the above, the preponderance of evidence is that you simply overstated your case.

            There are over knife-related injuries per annum. Would it be valid to say that for every beneficial use of a knife (spreading peanut butter, performing surgery), there is an incident-for-incident correspondence with accidents and violence? If so, what’s the point? Knives are needed; so are guns.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL and what are guns used for (other than hunting) except to kill or maim people? You can’t spread peanut butter or perform surgery with a gun.

            I don’t know if I’m committing a “category error” or not. My point is the country is awash in guns, largely because of this myth, this mindset, that EVERYBODY NEEDS ONE. You know, for self-defense. Except they don’t. But millions of half-ass incompetent bozos keep guns laying around their homes or cars because they’ve been told they must be ready to cowboy down at any moment and by god they have a durn right to! Consequently people die, sometimes by getting a Darwin Award, and sometimes because they have found themselves in the path of some these incompetent bozos.

            Like I said, though, I don’t know what can be done, considering the view of the Second Amendment the court has adopted.

          • Scalia

            LOL and what are guns used for (other than hunting) except to kill or maim people? You can’t spread peanut butter or perform surgery with a gun.

            The point in bringing up knives is to illustrate why such a comparison with guns is silly. We need knives and we need guns. It should come as no surprise that dangerous equipment will result in injury or death. You tried to argue an incident-for-incident correspondence, and you’re simply incorrect. By the way, with all of the licensing and regulation of automobiles, they still kill more people than every category of firearm deaths. I don’t hear you whining about the country being “awash” in cars. Sorry, but if you’re going to have cars, lots of people are going to die. If people have guns, people are going to be killed. But as the studies I’ve cited have shown, homicide and suicide rates don’t drop with gun bans. People just find other ways to kill. Somebody said that God didn’t make man equal, Samuel Colt did. While I disagree with that statement, it is absolutely true that a Colt will enable a 5’2″ woman to successfully defend herself against a 6’3″ 300 lb. rapist. It does tend the level the playing field, and so long as there is crime, there will be a need for firearms.

            As far as everybody needing a gun, I probably run with far more pro-gun people than you do. Nobody I know insists that every person should have a gun. In fact, they often say that there are a lot of people who should not have one. And whether you care to admit it or not, the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible and law-abiding. You say you don’t know what the answer is, but I can tell you that the answer isn’t whining about guns.

          • Brucehenry

            An opinion that differs from yours isn’t “whining,” Jim, er I mean Scalia.

          • Everything that proceeds from your keyboard reads as a whine…

          • Scalia

            whine: to complain in an annoying way.

            complain: to say or write that…you do not like something.

            Sounds pretty accurate to me.

            Bruce, the following are excerpts from every one of your posts in this thread:

            My point is that the country is awash in guns…

            And the reason for that is because the country is awash in guns…

            The fact is most people who carry guns around don’t need to. The Supreme Court has said they have a right to, though, so we all have to live with it.

            My point is the country is awash in guns…

            You three times stated that the country is awash in guns (sounds like a complaint to me, and after the third time, gets annoying because you offer no solution), and said as much the other time because if there’s too many people packing, there’s too many guns in the public square.

            Sorry, Bruce, but you are whining about guns, but you, so far, haven’t whined about cars. Cars aren’t designed to kill people, they are far more regulated than guns, yet they kill more people than guns do. You can try to increase safety, but at the end of the day, nobody blames the car. They say something like, “Cars don’t kill people…oh wait…”

          • Brucehenry

            LOL for someone who lectures me about “category error” you sure do make a lot of comparisons between cars and guns and knives and guns yada yada.

            But so sorry to annoy. You just didn’t seem to be hearing me but obviously you did.

          • Scalia

            You made the incident-for-incident claim, I didn’t. Consequently, it’s perfectly legitimate to logically analyze your claim and to show that you are comparing apples to oranges.

            The root of your complaint is the number of people who are injured or killed by firearms. My comment about cars in that context is quite apt. You’re wringing your hands over firearm deaths, but you’re silent about automobile deaths. You’re silent about cars because you realize that no matter how much we regulate them, there’s an inherent risk in having them. So, we punish those who speed, and there are laws against vehicular homicide, driving while intoxicated, etc. That’s really the best we can do short of banning cars. No matter what laws you put on the books, people are going to drive irresponsibly, and we’re not willing to trade the freedom to drive because a lot of people are killed exercising that privilege. However, you do an about-face when it comes to guns. It’s quite appropriate to point out the inconsistency.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope. Cars have many obvious benefits. They get us all to work and to school, to vacations and evenings out, and trucks transport all our goods. The modern economy could not run without them, so we must accept the risks inherent in their ubiquity, while trying to ever minimize that risk.

            On the other hand, aside from hunting, what function does a gun have besides killing and maiming? If guns were suddenly all raptured away, would the economy come to a standstill? What if cars did?

            Cars v guns is a silly comparison, sorry.

          • Scalia

            The obvious benefit of a gun is saving your life and the lives of others. Restricting guns to the military (e.g. Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, etc.) has saved a bunch of lives, right? Wrong. How many hundreds of millions of lives have been lost in wars? Nonetheless, no nation will divest itself of firearms because they are necessary to help preserve our way of life. The same goes with the private ownership of guns, and that’s demonstrated by the fact that Americans save their lives and the lives of others from 60K to millions of times every year.

            You dismiss the comparison because you don’t think guns are necessary (which is why you ridicule people who carry them and do everything you can on these boards to support the gun banners). You are wrong under every statistic and category. Our freedom was won by firearms and our freedom is maintained by the same. As our Founders noted, despotic rulers fear an armed populace. Thankfully, our Founders didn’t.

            You still don’t know what to do about gun violence? Will you shed any tears if the liberal you vote for adds a gun-grabbing judge to the SCOTUS? Will you post an objection on these boards when that court overturns its 2A precedent? I recall reading in the distant past that you’ve come closer to the gun-rights position given the arguments presented on these boards (please correct me if my memory is short-circuiting). If so, you appear to be backtracking. Your acknowledgement of the recent SCOTUS rulings appears forced and resentful. You have to live with it because that’s the way they ruled, but the impression I’m getting is that you’d rejoice if it went the other way.

            I truly, sincerely hope neither you nor your family ever have need of a firearm. I know too many people who would not be alive if they didn’t have a gun.

            Yes, the comparison is valid when measuring accidental death. Since I never argued that our economy depends on firearm sales, your appeal to it is irrelevant.

          • Brucehenry

            So lives are saved by guns anywhere from 60,000 times to “millions of times” every year? I doubt the lowball number and absolutely reject the high estimate.

            You say you know “too many people who would not be alive if they didn’t have a gun.” Well, I don’t know a single soul of whom that could be said, and I’m 61 years old and have lived in some pretty crappy neighborhoods. I did know a couple of guys shot and killed by drunken idiots.

            I did say in the past that I have come around more toward the “gun rights” position, but, as you say, I have lately re-reconsidered, especially since, since Obama’s election, so many nutjobs have acquired so many more guns. Yeah yeah it’s because any day now he’s gonna grab ’em all ( and any day now all that QE stuff is gonna ignite Zimbabwean-style inflation and any day now Christians are all going to FEMA camps and any day now all restrooms will be unisex).

            I’m scared of armed nuts. I’m particularly scared of armed nuts who are convinced they are not nuts.

          • Scalia

            How many times have you been shot at? How many times have you been involved directly or indirectly in a shooting? You said you knew “a couple of guys shot and killed by drunken idiots.” Were you there? If not, why are you scared? If you think the pro-gun arguments are ridiculous because of your 61-years’ experience, why are you scared? Talk to me when a bullet goes whizzing by your head.

            I doubt the lowball number and absolutely reject the high estimate.

            Based on what? You deny every study? The lowball estimate isn’t from right-rights advocates. In fact, they strenuously reject that figure as methodologically flawed. I merely include it because even at its lowest estimate, Americans defend themselves tens of thousands of times every year with firearms. You glibly reject that because it doesn’t gibe with what you want to believe. That’s pretty steep, Bruce. I’ve cited study after study and have provided crime analysis from around the world. Sorry, but you don’t have a rational leg to stand on.

          • Brucehenry

            I actually was once shot at, in 1978, because I had just humiliated a guy by making out with “his” girl in a club. As we left, he sped around a corner in the passenger seat of a car, firing a handgun out the window in my general direction. No one was hit. Thank God I didn’t have a gun and return fire, someone might have been.

            PS months later I caught that sonofabitch, unarmed, outside the same club and I beat his ass. I was much younger then, lol.

            PPS if you’ve cited a “study” that demonstrates 60,000 saved lives a year I missed it.

          • Scalia

            I’ve cited a bunch of studies, sorry you didn’t catch them, and…1978 was 38 years ago. You still scared?

          • Brucehenry

            Wasn’t scared of that particular drunk, no, but people are much nuttier today, and I have a family now.

          • Scalia

            Like I said, talk to me when the drive-bys happen in your neighborhood.

          • Brucehenry

            What did I just describe?

          • Scalia

            Something 38 years ago and you tell me that you’re scared. Sorry, it doesn’t make sense. You have a family now, but you don’t see any gun violence in your neighborhood. To me, that doesn’t warrant being scared.

          • Brucehenry

            And do you see gun violence — drive bys — in the neighborhood where you, an attorney, live? And if you DO see a drive by shooting, will you feel compelled to pull out your piece and shoot at the fleeing gangsters? What if you miss and hit a bystander?

          • Scalia

            A woman was shot to death just a couple of subdivisions next to where I live, and we’ve had several other murders and random shots fired in my town, but I’m not making the claim that I’m scared.

            By the way, I’m not scared. I’ve just decided to do what I can to ensure the safety of my family, and that includes bearing arms. To me, it’s just being responsible. If you don’t think you need one, that’s your decision. I just hope you’re never in a position where you’d wish otherwise.

          • Brucehenry

            If every gun owner was as sober and imbued with integrity as you, sir, I wouldn’t worry. Too many are like this guy:
            http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.stripersonline.com%2F3%2F31%2F31870163_speedo-gun-guy.png&key=mG0bwVA9oCwh3c5wsiORuQ&w=600&h=540

          • Scalia

            Looks like a good candidate for the zoo.

          • Brucehenry

            There are lots of pictures of that guy on the web, all apparently posted by himself. What a hoot.

          • Scalia

            You’re from North Carolina, right? For your reading enjoyment:

            Sheriff: Homeowner shoots, kills break-in suspect

            1 dead after NC grandfather fires back at trio in attempted rape of teen granddaughter, sheriff says

            This isn’t, of course, exhaustive. Just sayin’. 🙂

          • Brucehenry

            I am absolutely flabbergasted that in the Robeson County crime, no one involved was named Locklear. (Those who live in eastern NC will get it.)

            EDIT: Also in NC, I think:

          • A well publicized shooting resulting in fatality happened a few years ago close enough to where I live that we heard the shots (.38) while walking our dogs. When the same yahoos buried their slain fellow some weeks later we were not terribly concerned (despite the armed police presence in our neighborhood and the sniper team set up in our neighbors home right next door.

          • Your lack of competence reflects on no one except yourself.

          • Brucehenry

            Pithy as usual

          • Stupid and craven, as usual.

          • Brucehenry

            Cowardly juvenile name-calling, as usual.

          • Not to mention that there is no Constitutionally protected “right” to operate a motor vehicle.

          • Scalia

            Yes, quite correct. That’s why I called it a privilege. 🙂

        • retired military

          “EDIT: I don’t know what the answer is. I know that guns can’t be taken from their owners, and shouldn’t be. You tell me.”
          Well enforcing the gun laws that are on the books is a start. I would say mandatory sentences for people who use guns in the commission of a crime is also a good start.

  • JWH

    Honestly … I think this guy could have made the situation worse if he had fired his gun. But by threatening to use his gun (rather than actually using it), he kept the situation under control. I’m not worried about guys like this getting hold of firearms. I’m worried about people who might be to quick on the trigger and don’t keep a cool head in situations like this.

    • Scalia

      Many, many instances of firearm self-defense do not result in a shooting. The mere presence of a gun will defuse many situations.

      That said, simply walking away (if one can) is better than brandishing a firearm. I once had a woman cut me off in a parking lot. I had to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting her. She did it intentionally because when I hit my horn, she instantly flipped me off. That angered me more, so I hit my horn again. She got out of her car and wanted to take me on! I told her she nearly caused an accident and she said I could kiss her you-know-what. I had my .45 strapped to my hip (concealed–not that I would have needed it to take care of her), but I thought, “This is getting out of hand.” I simply rolled up my window and drove off.

  • Hank_M

    “For the first time since 1871, Texans are permitted to openly carry their firearms. Beginning January 1, Texas joined the majority of the country by allowing open carry..”

    “We do not have anything interesting to report. Two calls so far, no issues. We have no concerns and we have had no problems.”

    Sheriff Dee Anderson adds:

    “I said before this became law that I thought it was going to be much ado about nothing, but I didn’t know it was going to be this much nothing.”

  • Criminals are going to find ways to get guns — always have, always will. So the more citizens that can arm themselves, it seems the better for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens. Sure accidents will happen, just like accidents happen with cars because there are bad drivers. But having more citizens enjoying their second amendment rights, not less, is the answer.