Posted on 07/17/2012 12:21:07 PM PDT by marktwain
I don’t agree the threat was over...most invasions involve 4 people...I think the threat isn’t over until the room is secured and you have checked the back door as well.
Just because they are retreating doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to draw you into someone else’s fire or trying to regroup.
I don’t agree the threat was over...most invasions involve 4 people...I think the threat isn’t over until the room is secured and you have checked the back door as well.
Just because they are retreating doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to draw you into someone elses fire or trying to regroup.
If Obama had two sons they could look like those two criminals.
I've also done run-n-gun/3-gun shoots for fun. It's not rocket surgery, but it does take practice.
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?
“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).”
What about the Tennessee vs. Garner decision?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
“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.”
To prevent other people from being victimized by the robbers. You might want to perpetuate crime by letting the criminal{s) get away but most people don’t.
Why hasn’t the prosecuting attorney charged this man for shooting these punks as they are running out of the place of business?
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.