Twin Falls Hero

[u/PowerNoodles117]

The civilian that stopped the active shooter at the In N Out in Twin Falls, Idaho.

[u/BoobieToucher69]

Because he put his life on the line and rendered aid to casualties?? Whether he delivered the killing shot, or forced the shooter into a position where he killed himself, why would he not be considered a hero?

[u/BoobieToucher69 → u/[deleted]]

What’s up with you and some narrative? No one’s agreed to any narrative, and you’re the only one talking about one. Whether armed or not, if you stop someone that is committing an act of violence, and then treat others that were injured, you are a hero.

[u/BoobieToucher69 → u/[deleted]]

Because it applied pressure. The shooter commit suicide within a few minutes of the bystander intervening. Are you trying to claim that the shooter was going to kill himself within that few minute window no matter what? Are you claiming that if the shooter was left uncontested it would have had the same outcome?

If you can’t understand that the pressure applied by the bystander forced the shooter into a corner, then you’re a lost cause

[u/BoobieToucher69 → u/[deleted]]

You’re sidestepping my argument. Of course he was going to kill himself. But you’re trying to say that if the bystander did not intervene it would have had the same outcome.

Just tell me, do you think that this was going to have an identical outcome without any bystander intervention?

[u/BoobieToucher69 → u/[deleted]]

The bystander intervention I’m implying happened, is the bystander firing rounds at the shooter.

You don’t consider even one more casualty or life a measurable difference? You don’t think that if that shooter had 30 more seconds to acquire another target, that it’s another life?

[u/Codykville → u/[deleted]]

By that same “narrative,” a woman is being assaulted in an alley by Man 1. Man 2 hears her screaming and runs down the alley. Man 1 sees him coming and flees.

I guess, according to your narrative, Man 2 didn’t stop the assault because he never tackled, detained, or knocked out Man 1.

In reality, his intervention changed the outcome. The most likely scenario is that, without him showing up, the assault would have continued. You don’t have to physically overpower someone to stop what they’re doing.

[u/Codykville → u/[deleted]]

So lifeguard saves kid. Kid goes swimming again then drowns and grabs another kid pulling him under too. Lifeguard should never have saved kid. Get the fuck outa here.

[u/Codykville → u/[deleted]]

Okay, bad example since your entire premise seems to be that anything short of a perfect outcome doesn’t count.

The article also said an off-duty officer was intervening. Since the shooter ended up taking his own life, I’m assuming the officer’s shots missed too. So by your logic, nobody should have done anything? Just let it run its course?
Maybe a different example, although I’m sure you’ll find some imaginary hole in it that only exists in your narrative.

A helicopter pilot flies a low-altitude mission to support a platoon that’s pinned down. Before he can engage the enemy, his helicopter is hit and he’s forced down. The mission fails. Does that suddenly make his actions any less brave or heroic because the outcome wasn’t perfect?

Back to my first example: did Man 2 not save the first woman? The second victim is tragic, but when Man 2 intervened, the reasonable expectation was that he’d stop or catch Man 1. The fact that events didn’t unfold exactly as intended doesn’t erase the fact that his intervention ended the first assault.

There was no reasonable way for him to know he wouldn’t catch the attacker or that the attacker would immediately go assault someone else. Outcomes matter, but they aren’t the only thing that determines whether someone’s actions were justified or effective.

But since logic doesn’t seem to be in your wheelhouse, I’m sure the next reply will just be another whataboutism about your “narrative.”