since9
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Robbers, victem exchange gunfire outside apartments
First, I'm glad the police said the victim will not face charges for firing his weapon. He was, after all, a victim of armed robbery.
Here's what's wrong:
1. The reporter left out several key details which are readily available on the March 26, 2010, 12:55 AM police blotter.
1a. One key detail was that the victem was approached from behind. If the victim was armed, and approached from the front, he may have been able to draw and fire before being robbed.
1b. "The victem was able to arm himself with a gun." From where? His waistband? His holster? His car? His apartment?
1c. The police blotter simply said "shots were exchanged." It says nothing about who fired first shot.
2. The reporter said the victem returned fire as the suspects were fleeing. Personally, if someone's fleeing, I'll simply duck behind a car, as the last thing I want is an embroiled civil suit if I'd managed to kill, or worse, permanently injure them.
3. The victim missed! If you're going to carry a firearm, learn how to hit your target, even under severe duress! I'll never "shoot to kill," as that's yet another invitation to a civil lawsuit, if not a criminal one, as that indicates intent. If the use of deadly force is authorize, however, "shooting to hit" is perfectly acceptable. "My intent was to stop the illegal and deadly onslaught" is perfectly acceptable.
4. The victim let the suspects get the drop on him. Not a lot we can do about this, as cities aren't bone quiet. Pay attention. Know who and what is around you. Key your eyes on the shadows.
Just some pet peeves, here.
It's strengthened my resolve to open carry, though, for several reasons:
1. It's a deterrant.
2. I can respond at least a second faster - possibly up to five if my jacket zipper sticks.
It's also strengthened my resolve to make dang sure if I'm ever acosted/assaulted while walking around at night, I will NOT hesitate to use deadly force to defend myself, and I will NOT miss my target!
Robbers, victem exchange gunfire outside apartments
First, I'm glad the police said the victim will not face charges for firing his weapon. He was, after all, a victim of armed robbery.
Here's what's wrong:
1. The reporter left out several key details which are readily available on the March 26, 2010, 12:55 AM police blotter.
1a. One key detail was that the victem was approached from behind. If the victim was armed, and approached from the front, he may have been able to draw and fire before being robbed.
1b. "The victem was able to arm himself with a gun." From where? His waistband? His holster? His car? His apartment?
1c. The police blotter simply said "shots were exchanged." It says nothing about who fired first shot.
2. The reporter said the victem returned fire as the suspects were fleeing. Personally, if someone's fleeing, I'll simply duck behind a car, as the last thing I want is an embroiled civil suit if I'd managed to kill, or worse, permanently injure them.
3. The victim missed! If you're going to carry a firearm, learn how to hit your target, even under severe duress! I'll never "shoot to kill," as that's yet another invitation to a civil lawsuit, if not a criminal one, as that indicates intent. If the use of deadly force is authorize, however, "shooting to hit" is perfectly acceptable. "My intent was to stop the illegal and deadly onslaught" is perfectly acceptable.
4. The victim let the suspects get the drop on him. Not a lot we can do about this, as cities aren't bone quiet. Pay attention. Know who and what is around you. Key your eyes on the shadows.
Just some pet peeves, here.
It's strengthened my resolve to open carry, though, for several reasons:
1. It's a deterrant.
2. I can respond at least a second faster - possibly up to five if my jacket zipper sticks.
It's also strengthened my resolve to make dang sure if I'm ever acosted/assaulted while walking around at night, I will NOT hesitate to use deadly force to defend myself, and I will NOT miss my target!