To: TurboZamboni
Well, once they were running away there was no need to keep shooting and he MAY get into trouble with a jury about that- but not if I was sitting on it
17 posted on
07/17/2012 1:57:15 PM PDT by
Mr. K
(fat-fingers+small laptop keyboard+bad eyesight=many typos)
To: Mr. K
Well, once they were running away there was no need to keep shooting and he MAY get into trouble with a jury about that- but not if I was sitting on itI believe the "neutralize the threat" doctrine is pretty defensible in any but the most aggressively anti-gun states.
45 posted on
07/18/2012 7:38:20 AM PDT by
papertyger
("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
To: Mr. K
not at all.
through the use of a weapon they had possed a direct threat to him and others. hindsight is 20/20.
it also helps that police are taught to shoot even if the perp drops the gun and run aways for the same “present a threat” to the public issue.
47 posted on
07/18/2012 3:30:15 PM PDT by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson