SFCRetired
Regular Member
The incident with the senior citizen shooting the two thugs in Florida brought several things to my mind:
1. In a situation like his, what is the likelihood of a civil suit being filed against him by either the perp he shot or one of the other customers? I'm not familiar with Florida law, but I am pretty sure Alabama law would preclude the perp filing a civil suit. My basis for asking about the possibility of another customer suing is someone deciding that their hearing and/or emotional state was disturbed by the event.
2. We've all read stories of justified shoots in other states where the LAC got raked over the legal coals by the local prosecutor. The thought occurs to me that this is one of the tactics to make the individual citizen more dependent upon the government. Which leads to #3.
3. If citizens can be discouraged from providing for their own defense, this provides an excuse for even bigger government, more taxes, and less freedom. It also provides a rationale for removing firearms from private ownership, "You don't need this to defend yourself. We now have enough police to defend you without you taking matters into your own hands."
Am I just a fuzzy-thinking old man or does anyone else think these thoughts have any merit?
1. In a situation like his, what is the likelihood of a civil suit being filed against him by either the perp he shot or one of the other customers? I'm not familiar with Florida law, but I am pretty sure Alabama law would preclude the perp filing a civil suit. My basis for asking about the possibility of another customer suing is someone deciding that their hearing and/or emotional state was disturbed by the event.
2. We've all read stories of justified shoots in other states where the LAC got raked over the legal coals by the local prosecutor. The thought occurs to me that this is one of the tactics to make the individual citizen more dependent upon the government. Which leads to #3.
3. If citizens can be discouraged from providing for their own defense, this provides an excuse for even bigger government, more taxes, and less freedom. It also provides a rationale for removing firearms from private ownership, "You don't need this to defend yourself. We now have enough police to defend you without you taking matters into your own hands."
Am I just a fuzzy-thinking old man or does anyone else think these thoughts have any merit?