Man Pretends to Surrender to Hostage Taker, Then Pulls Out His Gun. Expected Things Happen

I bet the hostage felt that one zip past his ear.
Risky shot, but good shot!

More context plz.

Brazil. Shooter was an off duty cop.

Nice shot. Could have been better.

Perp: So *that's* what lead tastes like!

Fake! Nobody could ever possibly use a gun in a responsible manner to thwart a crime.

You got me!

Oh, so the 'we can't trust the cops to protect us' narrative is no longer in play?

Why should we expect 24/7 protection unless the cops have psychic abilities?
Thus enabling the average citizen (or off duty cop in this case) to arm themselves makes sense.
Handle the problem at the lowest level in other words.

Best magic trick since nuJoker made that pencil disappear.

It's always great to see scumbags like that put down but damn, he almost killed the hostage. Missed him by a c-hair.

He's either very good, very lucky, or practices with hostage targets.

Good thing it was a cop. The average armed citizen would have hit and killed the hostage.
Also: a stupid move by the cop, one that I hope gets him a reprimand instead of a medal. You shouldn't risk people's live like that if there is no immediate risk of anyone being seriously injured. Although more context about that would be good before judging this.

I agree. Hostages have a reasonable chance of living. He acted out of line by not trusting the criminals.

This has about as much relevance to America's gun culture as what is happening in Ukraine does to Europe's. Life is cheap in Latin America. Kidnappings are common. It's a lucrative business. Murders are common. The off-duty cop acted appropriately for the time and place.

I first saw this a couple months ago, t was listed as having happened in Chicago.

I believe the motorcycle incident stopped by the off duty cop happened in Brazil.

This incident was even more unacceptable than its Brazilian counterpart.

Nice anecdotal evidence but there are huge problems using this sort of argument as a pro-gun argument.

The first problem is that most gun owners are selfish bastards and chickens. They have no reason to get involved in some random incident and unless yopu are friends or relatives of theirs they are more likely to walk away or secure themselves than to do anything to help you. Gun owners love to pretend to be heroic and tell us all how safe we would be with them around, but the reality is that most gun owners are people, and it is a fact that most people avoid getting involved in altercations that have nothing to do with them even when they could be safe and help someone. So no, it is not reasonable to use the argument that gun owners would make people safer because they are all good guys with a gun.

That brings me to my second point. Most of the time gun owners have opportunity to do bad things witrh their guns, and it is a very rare moment where they even have an opportunity to help someone in trouble. That gun is always available to a person, and we all know how hotheaded people can be and how people react improperly to situations. A gun is always there for a gun owner to use in an improper way due to fear, greed, lust, passion, hurt, joy, jealousy, rage, pain, and many other emotions and feelings that overwhelm people in the moment. If we cannot rely on cops to protect us in the moment because there are not enough of them around, how the hell are we going to rely on people with no training to be calm, cool, and make the right choice to help us out?

You are a weekend warrior. No please, do not shoot anywhere near my head trying to help me. I know what adrenaline does to perception and operation of something like a firearm. This was a cop with training to take a shot under distraction like that. Even then I really do not want them doing that. When that situation happens to you the first thing that happens is your brain turns you into a hyped up flappy squid. You are not rambo, you are a scared guy with a ton of perception altering drugs in your system. It is like handing a person in a massive psychadellic drug trip a gun and asking them to shoot the bad guy.

My final point is that in this situation the biggest threat to the hostage's life is the hero. Think about it. The hostage is not there to kill anyone. The hostage taker is actually not there to kill anyone because the purpose of having a hostage is to get something else. A murderer would simply shoot the victim, but a hostage taker needs the hostage which means there is a large motivation to keep the hostage alive for a time. The person who wants to kill someone is the guy who is pulling out his gun to shoot the hostage taker, and because that guy is not perfect, and the hostage is in front of the barrel of the gun, the good guy is actually the most dangerous guy in that situation tactically.

So sorry to the guntards, this is not a good argument for your dumb ass having a gun. Please do be aware I do support gun rights, but I do recognize some people are too stupid to own one.

^"Selfish bastards and chickens". Boy, try not to hurt yourself painting with that wide brush.

^He's a Master Troll.

^He? I thought it was a chick.

Unpossible. Girls mature faster than boys. If he was a chick, he'd have to be like three.

Why would a male person have a pink pony for an avatar?

Because they like pink ponies, and, well... FREEDOM!

I would have shot the hostage.

"What you going to do now without a hostage? WELL? WELL?"

I would have shot Tererun and removed a whole big pile o' stupid from the gene pool.

Yes. I use knives.

I use a leather jacket.

PETA would like to have a word with you.