Posted on 05/09/2009 5:36:40 AM PDT by marktwain
You never know how a bullet will behave once it cuts into sheet-metal or contacts the pavement. Even a well aimed shot into the rear rim could make it’s way back into the passenger compartment.
They tried to run the guy down! Should he have just stood there?
I don’t see how you could hit a tire if the vehicle was coming straight at you. Must have been looking at a profile.
I can see a car coming at me and act rationally [move out of it's way].
No, he should have moved out of the way. As I understand it he shot the back tires so the car had already passed him so he was safe. Again, as others here have pointed out, bullets do strange things and he could have killed a passerby.
In other words, he was not in danger at the time of the shooting.
No it isn't. In most jurisdictions firing at an occupied vehicle under almost any circumstances is usually a bad idea unless it is obvious that the occupants of the vehicle are using the vehicle as a weapon to do you bodily harm. The article isn't clear whether the shooter was under that kind of attack or was acting as a vigilante, but since he apparently isn't being charged with anything the cops must be convinced that he was deliberately endangered by the thieves' using their vehicle as a weapon. Fortunately for the shooter, TX is a pro-gun state in which a majority of sensible lawmakers and LEOs look favorably on private citizens using firearms in self defense.
That would not have been the case in some other states, NJ or CA for two examples, where law enforcement personnel and prosecutors are generally opposed to private individuals taking the law into their own hands, even in self defense. I'm not saying I agree with that kind of anti-self defense policy, in fact I vehemently disagree, but it's a fact of life in many jurisdictions and we have to live with it or face the very serious consequences.
Sounds like a remake of “Raising Arizona”.
Life is full of risks....
Possibly not, but I don’t think it would make much difference here in Florida. Don’t know about Texas. Either way, he’d not likely be prosecuted, unless he had no license to carry. Maybe one of the witnesses or officers threw that detail into the story in order to protect the guy from prosecution, though.
Not sure how safe it is to shoot at a tire from close range. There’s gotta be some kind of kick back from that. Sounds like he wasn’t that close, but then it’s kinda hard to believe some of the details of this story. If you were betting the farm on shooting out a tire, you’d probably want to get a good shot at it.
I'd rather my life or my loved ones' lives didn't end because of a Rambo out in the middle of a parking lot going after the Pop Tart gang.
Yeah, the car probable didn't have reverse too.
Yep a person that tries to run over folks, certainly would dodge my wife and kids with a shopping buggy in a similar situation.
If you're referring to my previous post, I only pointed out that in many other jurisdictions the shooter would likely be in more serious trouble than the shoplifters. I am not personally opposed to private citizens using deadly force to apprehend a fleeing criminal as long as an innocent bystander(s) are not endangered by his/her action.
However, most LEOs and prosecutors are opposed to intervention in a criminal act by a private citizen unless it is crystal clear that the armed citizen was in danger of death or bodily harm, and a legally armed citizen who believes he is doing a good thing for society by using deadly force in the kind of situation the shooter in this incident saw taking place often ends up being in deper trouble with the law than the fleeing criminal.
IOW, I was not taking about the way things SHOULD be in my first reply, I was talking about the way things actually are.
yeah, don’t you wish people would read the article (and not just the misleading headline) before commenting.
Moreover, the police have NO legally enforceable duty to protect ANYONE. That's a fact that most citizens are unaware of. The primary duty of the police is to draw white lines around the bodies of dead citizens and collect evidence in an attempt to solve crimes and apprehend criminals after the fact. Crime prevention is an afterthought.
If you want protection in real time, you'll just have to provide it yourself.
My concealed carry instructor put it best. He said, "I would love to have an armed police officer everywhere I go to protect me from the bad guys. But at my age a police officer is just too heavy to carry. That's why I carry a concealed weapon instead."
All it takes is for good people to do nothing...
Congrats to the shooter for being willing to take the risk to make this a better place.
Time to upgrade, .40 or .45?
I agree. That was not a smart move.
Murphy’s Law comes to mind.
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.