I'll probably get creamed for it, but I have to ask the wisdom of engaging after the initial encounter a man who is armed with a gun while your wife is close.
I'm not arm-chair quarterbacking so much as I'm glad the opportunity came up to think about it.
The crook's leaving. You demand he stop. He turns fast and fires. A gun fight breaks out. Your wife gets hit. Or, you go down, and your wife is open for revenge.
Unless she says, "Gimme the carbine, honey! I'll take his right flank!"
I think I'll make it my policy to get the heck out of dodge if I've got somebody with me. Heck, even if I don't, I think the most I'll do is follow at a distance, birddogging for the police. It just doesn't make sense to me to1)risk having to shootanother human beingunless I really, really, have to; 2) risk a wrongful prosecution; 3) risk a civil suit fromhis family.
There is the moral issue of letting an armed predator free to prey and possible injure or kill another person; but I'm wondering if I'm morally obligated to risk myself. I can hear the press howling "vigilante" already. Toss in an anti-gun prosecutor, or an unsypathetic or swayed jury, orsensational press. Hmmmmm. Tough call.
Then there isthe wholesituational awareness question. Withalertness andany luck, I'll be flooring the accelerator beforehe initiatesaggression.