Maybe for the victims, but for all the onlookers too? There could be hundreds or thousands of armed people to each police officer ... if only MD would recognize the right to self defense. However, quite flatly they don't.
I think the police involved in this case are in the unenviable position of trying to find a very elusive target.
Again they could have the assitance of thousands of people to stop him, but they don't.
I'll cut the guy a break
I won't. The chief is in the position to advise people to defend themselves, but he doesn't - instead he grandstands for gun control, talking about "assault weapons" and "sniper rifles" etc, as if the type of gun makes any difference to the past - or future - dead and injured.
But I ask this: Why did he mention that they are defenseless? He enforces gun prohibitions there - he's partially responsible for the very fact of their defenselessness. As an executive official, he could order his officers to ignore gun violations - but he does not.
Maybe it's true the victims would still be dead even if they were armed. But then again, maybe not - and maybe not if onlookers were armed as well. But as it is, the only credible threat to this murderer is police officers - and they can't be everywhere at once.
She has been curiously silent during this crisis