News Forum - Guard who shot sword-wielding customer charged with murder

[Thaiger]

After intervening in a scuffle between a man and a woman outside a Phuket Town bar, the man grabbed a sword and a security guard shot him once in the chest, killing him. Now the guard is being charged with murder in the incident. The altercation took place in the early hours of Monday morning when a man was fighting with a woman outside of a karaoke bar and the security guard stepped in to try to resolve the issue. The enraged man went to his white pickup truck in the parking lot and grabbed a sword from his car. […]

The story Guard who shot sword-wielding customer charged with murder as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[gazmo16]

Like most police forces they go for the big charge and it will be reduced down to self defence.

With the information at hand who wouldn't have done the same thing as the security guard faced with that situation ?

[Janneman]

' opening fire in public without permission.' 

So the guard has a legal gun but needs permission to fire it in public? 

Apart from that, he could have aimed for a leg. 

[ronnie666]

Sad is just self defense and to protect others.. Injustice served... no trust in the legal system....

[brian60221]

22 minutes ago, Janneman said:

Apart from that, he could have aimed for a leg. 

This is a common misconception, usually held by people who have not been trained to use firearms. The one and only reason that you shoot someone is because you intend to kill them. Now, if you shoot them and they stop being a threat and then happen not to die, that's OK. But you point your gun at them and pull the trigger because you intend to kill them.

[Dmitrii]

On 8/3/2022 at 3:00 AM, brian60221 said:

This is a common misconception, usually held by people who have not been trained to use firearms. The one and only reason that you shoot someone is because you intend to kill them. Now, if you shoot them and they stop being a threat and then happen not to die, that's OK. But you point your gun at them and pull the trigger because you intend to kill them.

I think it largely depends on the shooter's training level.

If the shooter is good enough to confidently target a limb, he may fire to stop the culprit without killing him.

But if the shooter is barely trained and not confident in his aim then he would likely target the middle if the offender's body, just to be sure

[joseph]

Having taken and completed conceal and carry class. You are instructed to aim at the largest target. Center of chest. Not the head, leg or heart but the center of the chest.

[longwood50]

On 8/3/2022 at 12:34 PM, Janneman said:

Apart from that, he could have aimed for a leg. 

Have you ever fired a handgun?  Having a bullet actually hit its target as large as a man's chest is extremely challenging unless you are extremely close and even more daunting if the man is moving.   Movies and TV very falsely portray that it is easy to hit a small moving target. 

One way or another, if the security guard had not shot and either he or the woman were killed or injured by the sword wielding man would there now be questions why he did not act sooner or more forcefully. 

I don't know if there is video evidence of what occured but if you have a crazed person wielding a sword there is precious little time to make a decision as to how severe the threat is.  They don't have the benefit of contemplating appropriate actions for hours or minutes.  They are under pressure and it is a split second decision.  

[Tim_Melb]

16 hours ago, Dmitrii said:

I think it largely depends on the shooter's training level.

If the shooter is good enough to confidently target a limb, he may fire to stop the culprit without killing him.

But if the shooter is barely trained and not confident in his aim then he would likely target the middle if the offender's body, just to be sure

No you are completely wrong. Your comment just shows you have no knowledge or understanding of the use of hand guns. Handguns are notoriously inaccurate the further away you are from the target the more unlikely you are to hit it when training in the use of hand guns in law enforcement, protection or military use you are trained to aim for the centre of the chest this provides you with the highest chance of hitting your target. It's not a Western movie or a Hollywood movie. Although modern pistols have become more accurate over the years it's not like pistol target shooting either. You never aim for arms or legs you aim for the point that gives you the highest possibility of immobilising the target as that is what you are trying to do. There are no exceptions to this. A well trained officer etc will exercise maximum restraint before making the decision to use lethal force to stop a perpetrator but if the situation escalates to the point where they must take action to immobilise the target to protect their own life or the lives of others around them then the target is the centre of the chest every time. 

[TorontoJeff]

He should have shot him in the toe.

[longwood50]

On 8/5/2022 at 1:27 PM, Tim_Melb said:

I think it largely depends on the shooter's training level.

You are wrong as someone who has fired thousands of rounds competitively.   

I would tell you the average person would be lucky to hit a target at 25 yards that is stationery.  A skilled shooter might be able to get a grouping within 6".  Again, that is a stationery target and under no duress.  

A handgun is accurate for a very short distance and the shorter the barrel the more inaccurate it becomes.  Add to that stress and a moving target, unless the person was very close, even hitting body mass is quite a feat. 

[Tim_Melb]

18 hours ago, longwood50 said:

You are wrong as someone who has fired thousands of rounds competitively.   

I would tell you the average person would be lucky to hit a target at 25 yards that is stationery.  A skilled shooter might be able to get a grouping within 6".  Again, that is a stationery target and under no duress.  

A handgun is accurate for a very short distance and the shorter the barrel the more inaccurate it becomes.  Add to that stress and a moving target, unless the person was very close, even hitting body mass is quite a feat. 

I don't know what you think you are saying or doing by quoting my quote from another poster and attributing it to me and then attacking me when I have only said basically the same things as you are saying. Quite frankly you are making a fool of yourself. 

[longwood50]

3 hours ago, Tim_Melb said:

I don't know what you think you are saying or doing by quoting my quote from another poster and attributing it to me and then attacking me when I have only said basically the same things as you are saying. Quite frankly you are making a fool of yourself

No what you said was " I think it largely depends on the shooter's training level."   

What I am saying is that irrespective of ones training level you would not be able to "shoot only for a leg" on a moving target and be reasonably certain of hitting it.   An expert can hit a 6" grouping 6 inches is about the width of a human leg.  And that 6" is on a stationery target and not under any duress. 

To hit just a leg on a person who is approaching another with a sword would be far more an act of "luck" than of skill.  

[Tim_Melb]

23 hours ago, longwood50 said:

No what you said was " I think it largely depends on the shooter's training level."   

No I never said that I quoted another member "Dimitrii" saying that, try reading the posts properly before attacking people that are making the same point that you are. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Tim_Melb
Added Dimitrii's name

[garyknrd]

Man, Alcohol will make you do some stupid Shi$$.