Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71

Thread: Utah man shoots would be carjacker

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Nothern KY
    Posts
    201

    Utah man shoots would be carjacker

    Good guy successfully ends criminal's career.
    http://news.yahoo.com/police-man-sho...004403757.html
    OREM, Utah (AP) — A shopper with a concealed weapons permit shot and killed a man who was trying to carjack a woman Saturday outside a Utah grocery store, officers said.

  2. #2
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    This guy graduated the same high school as i, just a few years prior.

    Good on him.
    Last edited by J_dazzle23; 05-04-2015 at 07:49 AM.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Car jacking suspect killed by third party LAC

    It appears a fellow with a notable criminal record including prior car jackings tried his luck one too many times. According to the article on KSL, an LAC with a permit to carry heard screams from the female victim and intervened. When the carjacker lunged for the LAC's gun which was in hand (not sure whether low ready or pointed at carjacker), the LAC shot and the carjacker was fatally wounded.

    Over at UtahConcealedCarry, a member reports arriving at the scene after everything had happened, but while the parking lot was still cordoned off. He spoke to one of the investigators and it was the investigator's strong opinion this was a justified shoot.

    Full report at the link above. Excerpts:

    Quote Originally Posted by KSL
    Capt. Ned Jackson of the Orem Police Department said the man who shot the would-be carjacker had a weapon and a concealed weapons permit. He had stopped at the store to purchase food en route to a planned target shooting outing.

    ...

    The man who came to the aid of the woman was described only as 31 years old. He was parked near the woman in the parking lot and overheard her screams as the would-be carjacker pulled her out of her Mercedes SUV. He ran to her aid.

    "According to the citizen’s statement, the suspect starts to walk to the back of the car and lunges at him trying to grab the gun. The citizen shoots one round, shoots the suspect in the chest," he said. The shooting occurred about 11:20 a.m.
    ...

    Jackson said it did not appear that the man who was shot was armed but the case remained under investigation. All of the parties were interviewed at the Orem Police Department Saturday afternoon, Jackson said.

    Jackson said he did not anticipate that the shooter would face charges but the investigation is ongoing.
    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Is pointed example of application of Darwin's theory.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Jackson said it did not appear that the man who was shot was armed but the case remained under investigation. All of the parties were interviewed at the Orem Police Department Saturday afternoon, Jackson said.
    No, Lieutenant, the carjacker wasn't armed, but he was trying to arm himself by reaching for a gun--the gun in the citizen's hand.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    No, Lieutenant, the carjacker wasn't armed, but he was trying to arm himself by reaching for a gun--the gun in the citizen's hand.
    This is exactly the reason I wince anytime the armed/unarmed status of a non-cop shot by a cop is made the central point of such stories.

    The question shouldn't be whether the person/suspect/bad-guy/citizen was armed or not armed, but whether he poses an imminent, credible threat to the life or limb of an innocent person.

    A peaceful, LAC, OCing is clearly armed. But that should never justify getting shot by cops or anyone else.

    On the flip side, a couple of young, healthy males don't need any weapons beyond their hands to drag the proverbial 90 pound woman into the bushes.

    Pointing a gun at someone, or threatening them with a knife, or swinging a baseball bat or tire iron in anger against an innocent person makes obvious that an imminent, credible threat exists to life and limb. But that is far different than merely possessing any of these items in a peaceful, lawful manner.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    This is exactly the reason I wince anytime the armed/unarmed status of a non-cop shot by a cop is made the central point of such stories.

    The question shouldn't be whether the person/suspect/bad-guy/citizen was armed or not armed, but whether he poses an imminent, credible threat to the life or limb of an innocent person.
    SNIP
    +1

    The DRT guy from the sound of things was an imminent, credible threat and was justifiably neutralized. As always, information from the MSM leaves room for skepticism until all facts are in evidence.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Carjacker's Mother has allegedly said there was no need to kill her unarmed son!

    She is entitled to her opinion---- mine is if you take the chance to violate the law and attempt to carjack someone you gotta accept the consequences as they come!

    To his mother, I fully recognize that you don't like the death of your son, but look to the proximate cause of his attempting to carjack someone in the presence of someone else willing to step up and defend the victim!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    It's just property, nobody deserves to be killed over property.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    ........if you take the chance to violate the law and attempt to carjack someone you gotta accept the consequences as they come!

    someone else willing to step up and defend the victim!
    Yes/

    The man told police he went to assist the woman, and the 27-year-old male suspect lunged at him in an attempt to grab his gun.


    Let us review. Perp arrives in a stolen truck. Bad move #1 Perp pulls woman, screaming, out of her vehicle. Bad move #2. Capping it off,(no pun intended) he lunges at a Legally Armed Citizen and gets his ticket punched. I see this as a justified shoot.
    Yes, I would sleep well after that.
    Attachment 12506
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It's just property, nobody deserves to be killed over property.
    I'm assuming your statement is meant to be sarcasm? In my view theft of property is right up there with murder, rape, and assault. BTW the article mentioned that the victim was being assaulted.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Yes/

    The man told police he went to assist the woman, and the 27-year-old male suspect lunged at him in an attempt to grab his gun.


    Let us review. Perp arrives in a stolen truck. Bad move #1 Perp pulls woman, screaming, out of her vehicle. Bad move #2. Capping it off,(no pun intended) he lunges at a Legally Armed Citizen and gets his ticket punched. I see this as a justified shoot.
    Yes, I would sleep well after that.
    Attachment 12506
    +1

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by OC Freedom View Post
    I'm assuming your statement is meant to be sarcasm? In my view theft of property is right up there with murder, rape, and assault. BTW the article mentioned that the victim was being assaulted.
    Tongue firmly planted in check. Not all assaults are created equal under the law. A armed assault would most likely justify lethal force. State laws vary and your state's law must be researched to be sure.

    Some members of OCDO have stated, repeatedly, that the theft of property is not justification to employ lethal force. In this incident it appears that the shooter may not be prosecuted.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It's just property, nobody deserves to be killed over property.
    Was he running away with the property at the time he was shot?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Was he running away with the property at the time he was shot?
    The ex-perp attacked the shooter. Thus the justification to ventilate the ex-perp. Why would a citizen not be a good witness. Cops would prefer, in UT it seems, that armed citizens be good witnesses first and intervene as only a very very last resort.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Tongue firmly planted in check. Not all assaults are created equal under the law. A armed assault would most likely justify lethal force. State laws vary and your state's law must be researched to be sure.

    Some members of OCDO have stated, repeatedly, that the theft of property is not justification to employ lethal force. In this incident it appears that the shooter may not be prosecuted.
    OC4ME, et al., while this this is a couple of years old I'm not locating anything more current on al gore's invention...http://ccwvslaw.org/item/888
    quote: Self-defense laws throughout the nation see crimes against persons differently than crimes against property. In most states, you can shoot someone committing a felony crime against your person. In no state may you shoot someone committing a crime against property.

    If someone commits a felony crime against your person in these jurisdictions, you may legally shoot them. Conversely, if you want to make a living by felony crimes against persons, these are not the safest states to ply your trade.

    Stand-your-ground: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia unquote

    ipse
    addendum:

    that said...and again for the record, i am one of the proponents who will not intervene during the theft of property from someone as i, nor those near and dear, are not facing death or serious bodily injury from the event!! (please understand my firearm will be out and at the ready, and seeking cover, but will not intervene!)

    invoking the death penalty for theft of property is not something i could live with.

    finally, if, as it sounds like, IMHO the defender screwed up their SA posture and got way to close to the situation, at that point that is their problem and the good samaritan deserves whatever judicial or civil consequences are forth coming.
    Last edited by solus; 05-05-2015 at 12:01 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It's just property, nobody deserves to be killed over property.
    Nope. It was a car jacking involving the assault of an innocent victim.

    In the moment, it seems it was the BG's lunging for the good-Samaritan's firearm that resulted in the carjacker getting shot.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Some members of OCDO have stated, repeatedly, that the theft of property is not justification to employ lethal force.
    That is the law in Utah.

    Most moral men tend to abide the same standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    In this incident it appears that the shooter may not be prosecuted.
    This shooting has almost nothing to do with theft of property. Carjacking is not merely theft of property, but assault on the owner/driver/occupant of the car. That assault justified the use of deadly force (pointing a gun).

    The carjacker's attempt to take the gun from the good guy was more than sufficient reason (legally under Utah law, and morally) to pull the trigger and end the threat.

    Barring something almost unimaginable coming to light odds of a prosecution or even any successful civil suit in Utah are approaching zero.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    It seems this same topic is being discussed over at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...d-be-carjacker which was posted prior to my post and that thread has more traffic as well.

    Perhaps the mods would be good enough merge the threads or lock this one.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    It seems this same topic is being discussed over at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...d-be-carjacker which was posted prior to my post and that thread has more traffic as well.

    Perhaps the mods would be good enough merge the threads or lock this one.

    Charles
    Merged.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    In MO, castle doctrine extends to your car (if you are in it) so an attempted car jacking (as opposed to auto theft) justifies lethal force just as if the BG was breaking into your home. But that obviously gets murky if you are not in the car and moreso if it is someone else's car being jacked. You can't shoot a guy breaking into your neighbor's house, but if you are in your neighbor's house invited you can shoot the BG as soon as he comes through the door. But in this case there appears to have been an assault occurring as well, now we are into imminent harm to another and defending that person and ... Whew.

    I don't bring up MO to conflate things with Utah, but since I am familiar it was easier for me to construct a brief potentially problematic circle of defense, especially of others. While this appears to have been a good shoot in UT from what I have read, certainly coming to the aid of others is fraught with even more potential legal pitfalls than just defending yourself and family. I write that not as a discouragement or incitement, just stating the facts.

    I'm glad this guy helped the lady. If it were my mother or wife I would be extremely grateful. It is also another good example for us to use as a mental scenario as to what we would do and how, if anything.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    My SC CWP instructor taught the four elements of common law self-defense and to kill a carjacker when his hand breaks the plane of the window. Then one is reasonable fear of harm, innocent of instigation, seatbelted has no opportunity to withdraw and used the effective force at hand.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    My SC CWP instructor taught the four elements of common law self-defense and to kill a carjacker when his hand breaks the plane of the window. Then one is reasonable fear of harm, innocent of instigation, seatbelted has no opportunity to withdraw and used the effective force at hand.
    That's what I was taught here in MO too.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  24. #24
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    nightmare, et al., your perceptions are valid regarding defending oneself or those you hold dear, but remember the shooter was not the individual being carjacked.

    the victim, please remember the alleged assailant at this time is the deceased victim, WAS NOT ARMED!!!

    lunging is not quite a definitive term but i would classify it as the police/news buzz word to justify the murder of someone attempting theft of a vehicle.

    as previously stated...would any of you who maintain a viable SA gotten close enough in the defense of someone from simple assault (i lack the objective evidence of great bodily harm to vehicle's owner) where the unarmed assailant could have lunged at you to make a difference in the outcome of the fracas?

    therefore, if the good Samaritan had maintained appropriate SA, then hypothetically, just pointing a firearm at the assailant should have been quite appropriate in affected a citizen's arrest and nobody would have died for the attempted theft of a vehicle.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    nightmare, et al., your perceptions are valid regarding defending oneself or those you hold dear, but remember the shooter was not the individual being carjacked.

    the victim, please remember the alleged assailant at this time is the deceased victim, WAS NOT ARMED!!!
    The first victim is the woman who was assaulted as part of the attempted carjacking. Given disparity of size (carjacker was of Samoan descent and victim was typical anglo female) the good guy was legally justified in using deadly force to intervene. There is risk if the victim isn't innocent, but in this case that risk did not materialize.

    The second victim is the good guy who intervened. The carjacker attempted to assault him and/or gain control of his firearm. That also justified the use of deadly force.

    The deceased is not a "victim" except of his own very poor choices and criminal conduct.

    And whether he was "armed" or not is irrelevant. The question is whether he presented an imminent, credible threat to the life and limb of an innocent party at the moment deadly force was used against him.

    Stop buying into the gun grabber rhetoric of focusing on whether the large, strong male was armed or not. Large, strong men don't need weapons to injure, rape, maim, or kill large segments of society. That is why guns in the hands of potential victims are such a good thing. But the benefits of guns in the hands of LACs will be dramatically reduced if any use of a gun by an LAC, against a violent criminal using "only" his hands, is criminalized.

    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    lunging is not quite a definitive term but i would classify it as the police/news buzz word to justify the murder of someone attempting theft of a vehicle.
    Your definition would be grossly at odds with the circumstances here.

    I don't care whether the carjacker jumped, lunged, or sauntered toward the good guy. Advancing on me when I have lawfully and reasonably drawn down on you and ordered you to stop your assault of a woman 1/4 your size will get the bad guy shot.

    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    as previously stated...would any of you who maintain a viable SA gotten close enough in the defense of someone from simple assault (i lack the objective evidence of great bodily harm to vehicle's owner) where the unarmed assailant could have lunged at you to make a difference in the outcome of the fracas?
    You are in material error regarding Utah law.

    Aggravated assault is defined in URS 76-5-103 as an assault using either a dangerous weapon OR "other means or force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury."

    Disparity of size and terrified screams for help, along with reasonable man observations are quite sufficient to establish a reasonable belief of aggravated assault taking place.

    Furthermore, URS 76-2-402 clearly authorizes deadly force in defense of self or an innocent third party to prevent the commission of a forcible felony including (per (4 a, b, c)) robbery and burglary of a vehicle when occupied at the time of the crime.

    Carjacking is defined as an aggravated robbery which is a first degree felony. See URS 76-3-302.


    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    therefore, if the good Samaritan had maintained appropriate SA, then hypothetically, just pointing a firearm at the assailant should have been quite appropriate in affected a citizen's arrest and nobody would have died for the attempted theft of a vehicle.
    Nobody died as a result of an attempted theft of a vehicle, including the real victim (driver of the car) because a good Samaritan, LAC gun owner intervened.

    The bad guy died because he attempted to assault or disarm the good guy rather than complying or even turning tail and running away. Whether the good guy was 10 feet away, or 40 feet away, the bad guy can choose to charge the good guy. In this case, the decision to do so was fatal for the bad guy.

    You and his mother may mourn his death and claim it wasn't justified or needed.

    Sensible folks see it quite differently even if we mourn the long string of criminal choices that victimized multiple innocent people and lead to the bad guy's death.

    Odds of the good Samaritan facing any criminal or civil court issues over this shooting are rapidly approaching zero.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 05-05-2015 at 08:50 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •