Skip to comments.Orlando victim turns gun on 4 robbers
Posted on 01/18/2008 5:45:09 AM PST by Brilliant
click here to read article
“After the robbers took his items, Olofson stood up, drew his Springfield XD sub-compact 9 mm handgun “and fired two rounds toward male #1 with the silver handgun, possibly striking him,” the report states. “Males #2, #3, and #4 then ran southeast . . . and male #1 ran northeast . . .””
So when will this guy be arrested for shooting the bad guys?
Damn...dark....not a really true ‘good’ story. Should’a been 4 perp corpses left on the ground with yet another message to the thugs from the CC crowd.
Well, and he wasn’t in possesion of his cary permit, either...
Once again, the victim will become the felon.
Sounds to me like it would be shooting AT the bad guys.
Springfield XD sub-compact 9 mm handgun
I got one of them.
So I seems you’ve swallowed the Drive-by’s BS and are anti 2nd amendment.
Or am I wrong.
Bang & Olofson?
This is FL, not NJ.
No way he'll be charged.
Heheheheh... that was a good one.
The wallet contained an Iraq Embassy badge, an Army contractor's ID card,
Jeeze ... how'd you come up with that one?
I reside in Florida, I have a CCP, shoot, clean & polish my weapons 'till the finish is off.
The article simply showed that Florida (among other states) has a law of self-protection, unlike some communist states that make you run away and hope that scum suckers like those four (in the original article) don't do you in.
The NYT clearly searched high and low trying to find some cases where the right to self-defense could be discredited.
They found three, and each of three is singularly unconvincing despite the extreme spin they put on them.
In the one case you have a cabdriver confronted by an unruly drunk, in another you have a prostitute who killed a guy who left behind a note expressing his intentions to commit murder suicide, and in the third case you have the guy who got shot claiming that he was only screaming at his neighbor and that he didn't put his foot in the door.
That's literally the best they could come up with after scouring a state of 16 million people for their attempted hatchet job.
I would point out that normally the NYT would be rushing to the defense of a hack cab driver and a street prostitute and attacking a guy who was generating so much garbage into our environment - but because firearms figured into the story the normal heroes are villains and the normal villains are heroes.
"The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them."
To me, the article implied both with the prostitute thing and the garbage bag debacle that people are getting away with senseless shootings because of CCW and pro-victim laws.
I did say ‘if I’m wrong’ and you answered accordingly. So I take back the stuff about you....but still have a question about the purpose the article, you post, was written, ie what spin it was trying to convey.
See post #16 ... for the “rest of the story”.
Yup. It's a license to kill people who break into my home instead of "retreating".
Sounds good to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.