“A shame, but not surprising - he was shooting after they were retreating. CCW 101 is you shoot to stop the threat, and as they were falling over one another to get away the threat had already been stopped. Hopefully that decision doesn’t bankrupt him.”
So you are all for letting criminal get away to victimize others another day?
That's true. If you go chasing the perps, at least here in the Peoples Rep of CT, the cops now consider YOU the threat. It sucks and the laws are most certainly written for the bad guys, but that's the law here.
So you are all for letting criminal get away to victimize others another day?
At what point would you break off the pursuit and let the police or courts take over? In this case, the guy didn't leave the scene and give chase so I would think he'll be ok.
Even in the best of circumstances, in the most righteous of shoots, you can expect to lose your life savings clearing your name.
No, I'm for good people staying out of trouble with the law and not being bankrupted by legal fees. You, as a non-police-officer, can be justified to shoot if you are in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death - and that does not usually include shooting at a fleeing criminal. CRS 18-1-704(2)(a).
George Zimmerman fired only a single shot at someone who was on top of him, pounding his head into the pavement, and look what he's being put through, for God's sake!!
Why anyone, anywhere, would suggest that a good, honest person should ever even think of shooting at a robber who's tripping over himself to get away is just... beyond me.
You asked a stupid question, so I'll ask one of my own: Are you all for letting a good honest gun owner get put through a legal meat grinder and have his financial and personal life destroyed by a vicious vindictive prosecutor, all because in the heat of the moment he remembered your FR posts and didn't want to let the robber "get away," and kept shooting after the law says he should have stopped?