DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Sigz on October 22, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
-
MINNEAPOLIS - Police are reminding the public that "vigilante justice" is very dangerous.
"You can injure yourself or other innocent bystanders," said Sgt. Steve McCarty of the Minneapolis Police Department.
The warning stems from an incident Thursday night. Police say a middle-aged woman was assaulted and robbed near a south Minneapolis Cub Foods. A witness, with a conceal and carry permit, saw the incident, chased the attacker, and fired off at least one shot killing the suspect.
On Friday evening, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner identified the dead man as 23-year-old Darren Evanovich of Minneapolis. Authorities say he died from multiple gunshot wounds.
"We do know guns were drawn from both parties," said Sgt. McCarty. "But we are still investigating exactly what happened."
Those critical details will determine whether or not the Good Samaritan in this case will be charged.
"A person has to reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger to justify this kind of force," says Marsh Halberg, a local defense attorney.
In greater detail, claiming "self-defense" will require the Good Samaritan to prove three elements; that he wasn't the aggressor, that he felt threatened, and that he was unable to retreat.
"If you have a permit to conceal and carry you can use it, but it all comes back to if it's reasonable," says Halberg. "If not, you're looking at homicide charges."
The witness in this case has not been arrested. Once the investigation is complete, the case will be passed on to the Hennepin County Attorney's Office.
-
That's stuff that most of us only dream of doing.
-
Gotta love the second amendment...
I'm kidding in case anyone thinks I'm actually being serious.
-
If I witnessed some woman being assaulted and robbed, I like to think I'd jump in and do something. I gotta admit, if there's two or more of them, the odds aren't good. One-on-one, maybe. If the guy pulls a gun, I'm outta there, but in this case the Samaritan had his own gun, so that would seem to indicate that he's the type of guy who'll take matters into his own hands. Or something.
In greater detail, claiming "self-defense" will require the Good Samaritan to prove three elements; that he wasn't the aggressor, that he felt threatened, and that he was unable to retreat.
This is where it will get interesting. We already know shots were fired on both sides, but can you prove that you had no choice but to shoot the other guy, multiple times?
-
If I witnessed some woman being assaulted and robbed, I like to think I'd jump in and do something. I gotta admit, if there's two or more of them, the odds aren't good. One-on-one, maybe. If the guy pulls a gun, I'm outta there, but in this case the Samaritan had his own gun, so that would seem to indicate that he's the type of guy who'll take matters into his own hands. Or something.
In greater detail, claiming "self-defense" will require the Good Samaritan to prove three elements; that he wasn't the aggressor, that he felt threatened, and that he was unable to retreat.
This is where it will get interesting. We already know shots were fired on both sides, but can you prove that you had no choice but to shoot the other guy, multiple times?
Not to mention that if he was chasing after the guy he presumably was able to retreat.
-
The unable to retreat part is bullshit. Not necessarily in theory, although I'm on the fence about it, but definitely in practice. It seems clear that the situation escalated, and at that point switching from an offensive to defensive posture is a recipe for getting shot in the back like an idiot. He acted reasonably in chasing the dead guy down. He acted reasonably brandishing his weapon in defense. To suggest that once he saw the bad guy pull a weapon he should have then turned an ran makes no sense.
I certainly hope the guy had the good sense to lawyer up before answering any questions.
-
How about we don't go around shooting other people? I like that wacky idea.
-
How about we don't go around shooting other people? I like that wacky idea.
It's a fine idea, but no matter what, there will always be some asshole somewhere who goes and decides to shoot people.
And if that's the case, I'd much rather the popluance be able to defend themselves from that asshole by bearing their own arms.
-
I think not. I know the dude was technically, "in the right" here, but seriously? It's a fucking purse. At most she lost a couple of credit cards and maybe 300 bucks if the robber was lucky. Now, instead of having an old lady with a black eye and a few hundred dollars poorer, we now have said old lady, one dead guy, and another who might go on trial for murder. Smooth.
-
How about we don't go around shooting other people? I like that wacky idea.
As long as we're being wacky, how about we don't go around robbing other people either?
Not that I think the shooter is necessarily justified by any means (lack of details notwithstanding...at the very least he could have shot to maim instead), but I can't honestly say I feel too much sympathy for a victim like this, even though I don't think he deserved to die.
-J
-
I think not. I know the dude was technically, "in the right" here, but seriously? It's a fucking purse. At most she lost a couple of credit cards and maybe 300 bucks if the robber was lucky. Now, instead of having an old lady with a black eye and a few hundred dollars poorer, we now have said old lady, one dead guy, and another who might go on trial for murder. Smooth.
If guns were completely illegal, what you might have is a good Samaritan killed for trying to stop a robbery from happening, and the criminal get's away.
In greater detail, claiming "self-defense" will require the Good Samaritan to prove three elements; that he wasn't the aggressor, that he felt threatened, and that he was unable to retreat.
Shouldn't it be upon the state to prove that he was the aggressor, that he wasn't threatened, etc? Otherwise we're presuming guilt, and innocense must be proved, rather than him being innocent until proven guilty.
-
Was it actually necessary to go after the guy in the first place? I mean, I guess it mainly depends on whether he had actually stolen anything before he got away.
In greater detail, claiming "self-defense" will require the Good Samaritan to prove three elements; that he wasn't the aggressor, that he felt threatened, and that he was unable to retreat.
Shouldn't it be upon the state to prove that he was the aggressor, that he wasn't threatened, etc? Otherwise we're presuming guilt, and innocense must be proved, rather than him being innocent until proven guilty.
Is that actually the law though, or is it just the article's wording?
-
I think not. I know the dude was technically, "in the right" here, but seriously? It's a fucking purse. At most she lost a couple of credit cards and maybe 300 bucks if the robber was lucky. Now, instead of having an old lady with a black eye and a few hundred dollars poorer, we now have said old lady, one dead guy, and another who might go on trial for murder. Smooth.
If guns were completely illegal, what you might have is a good Samaritan killed for trying to stop a robbery from happening, and the criminal get's away.
What's the point in shooting at the dude? I mean, yes. He is infinitely a douche and had cosmic violence happened to pay him a visit, I would welcome it with open arms, but who is this dude to decide he is going to shoot somebody for robbing someone? Vigilantism is a shit system. Leave it to the cops, and if the robber got away, it was money. Not a life.
-
How about we don't go around shooting other people? I like that wacky idea.
As long as we're being wacky, how about we don't go around robbing other people either?
Not that I think the shooter is necessarily justified by any means (lack of details notwithstanding...at the very least he could have shot to maim instead), but I can't honestly say I feel too much sympathy for a victim like this, even though I don't think he deserved to die.
-J
I don't feel sympathy either. The point is, we as a society can't encourage this type of behavior as a whole. The vigilant was by all means just trying to help out, but he took it to an extreme that could have easily been handled in another manner.
-
In greater detail, claiming "self-defense" will require the Good Samaritan to prove three elements; that he wasn't the aggressor, that he felt threatened, and that he was unable to retreat.
Shouldn't it be upon the state to prove that he was the aggressor, that he wasn't threatened, etc? Otherwise we're presuming guilt, and innocense must be proved, rather than him being innocent until proven guilty.
Is that actually the law though, or is it just the article's wording?
Not entirely sure. I think the man goes to trial for murder, and it's up to his defense to prove it was self-defense?
I think not. I know the dude was technically, "in the right" here, but seriously? It's a fucking purse. At most she lost a couple of credit cards and maybe 300 bucks if the robber was lucky. Now, instead of having an old lady with a black eye and a few hundred dollars poorer, we now have said old lady, one dead guy, and another who might go on trial for murder. Smooth.
If guns were completely illegal, what you might have is a good Samaritan killed for trying to stop a robbery from happening, and the criminal get's away.
What's the point in shooting at the dude? I mean, yes. He is infinitely a douche and had cosmic violence happened to pay him a visit, I would welcome it with open arms, but who is this dude to decide he is going to shoot somebody for robbing someone? Vigilantism is a shit system. Leave it to the cops, and if the robber got away, it was money. Not a life.
I wouldn't have chased after the guy, but I hardly think someone else is wrong for trying to stop something unjust. As J points out, you can't just let injustice happen, and let someone else handle the problem.
If someone was chasing you, and you had a gun, and you just robbed someone, you just might shoot someone.
-
I don't have a problem with stopping injustice. I have a problem with taking it unto yourself to deem who can live and who can die...and for what reasons. I might just accept this incident if he shot him in the foot or shoulder or any other non fatal area. I'd still be displeased with the gun usage and vigilantism, but the amount of "utility," if you want to call it that, is greater than the outcome if he had gotten away. However, you are aware that what this man thought to himself and said something along the lines of, "Hey, I'm going to take it unto myself to decide this man shall die because he committed a crime, and in doing so, I too shall commit a crime. However, my crime is justified because he committed his crime first," and proceeded to shoot and kill the robber. We can't let that mindset manifest.
-
How about we don't go around shooting other people? I like that wacky idea.
If only we were all like Steven Seagal then our hand could be lethal weapons.
-
I get what numbers is saying. A robbery turned into a homocide, because someone who's been waiting for the chance to play hero all his life finally got it.
-
Oh we all know but under extreme duress people act differently than normal. that's where the courts come in.
-
I don't have a problem with stopping injustice. I have a problem with taking it unto yourself to deem who can live and who can die...and for what reasons. I might just accept this incident if he shot him in the foot or shoulder or any other non fatal area. I'd still be displeased with the gun usage and vigilantism, but the amount of "utility," if you want to call it that, is greater than the outcome if he had gotten away. However, you are aware that what this man thought to himself and said something along the lines of, "Hey, I'm going to take it unto myself to decide this man shall die because he committed a crime, and in doing so, I too shall commit a crime. However, my crime is justified because he committed his crime first," and proceeded to shoot and kill the robber. We can't let that mindset manifest.
There's no reason to assume the bold part is true, there is no indication that the vigilante chased after the man with the intent to kill him. If self-defense is applicable here, then it was the criminal who elevated the situation to a point where he ended up dying, not the vigilante. Meanwhile, it's ridiculous to assume or expect that said person could easily get a non-lethal shot off, or if it was a purely, "holy shit I'm getting shot at," and he respond by shooting back, incidentally killing the other person. This is a far cry from the kind of situation you describe, and something which has not be ascertained as true.
There is no reason to imagine that the mindset you are describing was at play. I mean, if it was the guys intent to kill the guy from the get go, why give chase? He had the gun, he could easily have shot him immediately. That's not what the person did, so please quit making it out as if he is.
I get what numbers is saying. A robbery turned into a homocide, because someone who's been waiting for the chance to play hero all his life finally got it.
Homicide implies it was an intentional killing, and that doesn't seem to be true. Why not blame the robber for having the gun? Or for committing the crime? Both of those can equally be said to have caused the event, because without those incidents, the man wouldn't have chased down the guy, or had reason to respond with his gun in self-defense.
-
OK, so ammend my statement. A robbery turned into manslaughter, because someone who's been waiting for the chance to play hero all his life finally got it.
-
A few things here:
1. Yes, I jumped to a conclusion, and I shouldn't have. Once more information is given, I will reassert my opinion based on said new information.
2. As of right now, with my lack of info, I believe the vigilant should not have ran after the robber in the first place. It was reckless and the possible positive outcomes did not outweigh the possible negative ones.
3. Blaming the vigilant's actions on the actions of the robber is weak. Ever hear of the term, "don't fight fire with fire" or "turn the other cheek?" Whether the intent to kill was there or not, the vigilant did not need to start chasing after the robber.
I would also like to point out that, after rereading the article, it would be safe to possibly believe the vigilant ran after the robber, gun in hand, and when the robber found this to be true, he also pulled his out. If this is in fact the case, my entire last couple of posts stand. We shall see.
-
OK, so ammend my statement. A robbery turned into manslaughter, because someone who's been waiting for the chance to play hero all his life finally got it.
It's impossible to tell what the consequences of our actions are going to be, not in the broad sense. Yes, I can control the typing of my fingers right now, the direct consequence of these actions are quite obvious. But what about some long-term effects? What if, because I am typing instead of going down town right now, I don't get run over by a car?
Just to bring it back to what I mean by bringing this up, is that I think it's wrong to cast blame on the guy for his good intentions of stopping a purse robbery. He couldn't predict the future, he had no idea that the robber would have a gun, and it's baseless to assume that the guy ran after the robber because he himself had a gun.
3. Blaming the vigilant's actions on the actions of the robber is weak. Ever hear of the term, "don't fight fire with fire" or "turn the other cheek?" Whether the intent to kill was there or not, the vigilant did not need to start chasing after the robber.
I guess I just firmly believe intent, and I don't think it's beneficial to cast blame on someone for something they didn't intend. It's a noble intention to run after a robberer; do we really want to shun people who have a desire for justice an good? Why does devoting your life to doing something good mean that, when you chase after a criminal, you are suddenly in the right? The uniform does all that?
-
Just to bring it back to what I mean by bringing this up, is that I think it's wrong to cast blame on the guy for his good intentions of stopping a purse robbery. He couldn't predict the future, he had no idea that the robber would have a gun, and it's baseless to assume that the guy ran after the robber because he himself had a gun.
Is it equally baseless to assume that when the guy shot the robber he had run down, he had a pretty good idea that the robber might die?
-
Yeah, I mean, if you think about it, any time you shoot a gun, the possibility of someone dying is there. So, we must ask ourselves, what holds more worth, the life of a robber or some money? Despite the fact that the robber is scum, I still say his life holds more worth.
-
How about this:
Guy sees woman getting assaulted and robbed.
Thug runs off with purse.
Woman looks basically okay. Guy chases thug.
Thug turns around, pulls out gun.
Guy also pulls out gun.
Both fire. Multiple times. Thug goes down.
Guy was not "the aggressor" IMO, not if the thug pulled his piece out first.
Guy definitely felt threatened at that point.
Guy definitely did not have opportunity to "retreat" at that point.
I vote self defense.
-
I don't have a problem with stopping injustice. I have a problem with taking it unto yourself to deem who can live and who can die...and for what reasons. I might just accept this incident if he shot him in the foot or shoulder or any other non fatal area. I'd still be displeased with the gun usage and vigilantism, but the amount of "utility," if you want to call it that, is greater than the outcome if he had gotten away. However, you are aware that what this man thought to himself and said something along the lines of, "Hey, I'm going to take it unto myself to decide this man shall die because he committed a crime, and in doing so, I too shall commit a crime. However, my crime is justified because he committed his crime first," and proceeded to shoot and kill the robber. We can't let that mindset manifest.
Woefully incorrect. What the man took it upon himself to decide was whether or not to stop this guy from shooting at him. Killing him was not part of the equation, nor was the fact that he had previously committed a crime.
Previously he had decided to try and capture a mugger or to reclaim a woman's property; we don't know which. There's no reason to assume that he intended to kill the guy before it became a matter or self defense. The vigilantism and the shooting were two completely different matters.
As for winging the guy, that's nonsense. You shoot to stop somebody from trying to kill you. It so happens that the surest way to stop somebody is to turn their lights out. If you're forced to determine which one of you gets to see their mother again, you don't start from the bottom and work your way up.
-
What the man took it upon himself to decide was whether or not to stop this guy from shooting at him. Killing him was not part of the equation, nor was the fact that he had previously committed a crime.
Do we actually know who drew the gun first?
-
That's gonna be the big question. If I was the guy, I'm gonna swear the thug drew first.
As has been said, the burden of proof should be on the state to prove the guy did not shoot in self-defense. Presume innocence, not guilt. Bummer that the only other person there is dead now, but whattaya gonna do?
-
Leave it to the cops, and if the robber got away, it was money. Not a life.
Cops are just people too. Having a badge and publicly owned weapon do not change your perception of what's right or wrong or when to "do the right thing". I mean how many cops have been put on trial for shooting someone?
-
How about we don't go around shooting other people? I like that wacky idea.
It's a fine idea, but no matter what, there will always be some asshole somewhere who goes and decides to shoot people.
And if that's the case, I'd much rather the popluance be able to defend themselves from that asshole by bearing their own arms.
I hate to completely derail this thread, much less with this, but the same argument is used to defend nuclear proliferation.
-
Yeah, the entire concept of 'shooting to stop' is ridiculous. You shoot at someone, you're shooting to kill, even if you don't actually want to. Besides maybe DEVGRU, no one is really a good enough shot to make that (on purpose) in reality.
Just to bring it back to what I mean by bringing this up, is that I think it's wrong to cast blame on the guy for his good intentions of stopping a purse robbery.
But where does that end? He stopped the robbery when the guy ran away, not when he chased him down the street with a gun.
-
Leave it to the cops, and if the robber got away, it was money. Not a life.
Cops are just people too. Having a badge and publicly owned weapon do not change your perception of what's right or wrong or when to "do the right thing". I mean how many cops have been put on trial for shooting someone?
This is a good point. But, I want to add, it's a really big deal when cops kill someone today, too. So even if they guy who shot was a cop, people would probably be just as curious as to whether it was justified or not.
-
He stopped the robbery when the guy ran away, not when he chased him down the street with a gun.
It says the woman was robbed. That means the robber got away with the purse, therefore the guy did not stop the robbery at all. He was a bystander who was in a position to do something, so he did; he chased the thug who'd taken the purse.
Yes, he had a gun, and he also had a permit to carry it. Many people do. Is the average person who lawfully carries a concealed weapon specifically looking for opportunities to use it, or is he just someone who's not afraid to carry one and nowadays it's not a bad idea? And which category does this guy fall into?
I still say it's entirely possible that the guy chased the robber because it he witnessed the robbery and felt he had to do something, and he would have done it whether or not he was packing. The fact that he was packing didn't even come into play until the thug pulled out his own piece. Saying he "chased him down the street with a gun" may be technically correct, but we don't know if he was waving the thing around yelling "stop or I'll shoot!" or what. The woman's testimony is going to be big.
Yes, it's possible that the guy has a vigilante thing going on, and is out there fighting crime, packing heat and looking for shit to stir up. But it seems like people would have heard more about him if that was the case.
-
Do we actually know who drew the gun first?
Greedo
sorry couldn't resist :3
-
How about this:
Guy sees woman getting assaulted and robbed.
Thug runs off with purse.
Woman looks basically okay. Guy chases thug.
Thug turns around, pulls out gun.
Guy also pulls out gun.
Both fire. Multiple times. Thug goes down.
Guy was not "the aggressor" IMO, not if the thug pulled his piece out first.
Guy definitely felt threatened at that point.
Guy definitely did not have opportunity to "retreat" at that point.
I vote self defense.
This. There is a guy dead because he was a deadbeat punk who robbed someone.
-
Deadbeat punk or not, the reasons why it's not OK to shoot a deadbeat punk in the back while he's running away are probably the same reasons why we don't send deadbeat punks to deathrow when they do get caught.
Again, I'm not pretending to know what happened, who drew first, etc...
-
Pretty much what PC said. My theory hold just as much weight as anyone else's and until we know more, we can't really go anywhere.
-
Deadbeat punk or not, the reasons why it's not OK to shoot a deadbeat punk in the back while he's running away are probably the same reasons why we don't send deadbeat punks to deathrow when they do get caught.
Again, I'm not pretending to know what happened, who drew first, etc...
You certainly are implying to know what happened.
The punk was a criminal, and the other guy had a legal permit to carry & conceal his weapon. He is innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not talking morality, or whether it is ever morally right to kill someone. I am simply talking about the law.
-
If you want to talk law, odds are, the dude acted within the confines of the law. If you want to talk right, wrong, morality, what should be law, etc...there is a distinct possibility this dude is just as much of a jackass as the thief.
-
I wouldn't be so sure, as far as the law is concerned. The use of deadly force against criminal suspects definitely needs its reasons. All this legally depends on is whether or not the robber was still posing a real threat to the guy's life or others.
Completely circumstantial. We'll have to wait for more.
Morally, AFAIC, if the robber pulled the gun, shooting was justified. Maybe going after the guy wasn't the best course of action, but certainly not a punishable one in that case.
If the so-called vigilante pulled the gun first and/or fired the first shot, there is definitely blame to lay on him for the way things went down. I don't see any justification for weighing the odds of even a criminal's life and a woman's purse and choosing to save the purse.
-
Just to bring it back to what I mean by bringing this up, is that I think it's wrong to cast blame on the guy for his good intentions of stopping a purse robbery. He couldn't predict the future, he had no idea that the robber would have a gun, and it's baseless to assume that the guy ran after the robber because he himself had a gun.
Is it equally baseless to assume that when the guy shot the robber he had run down, he had a pretty good idea that the robber might die?
It's baseless to assume that the guy "ran him down" in order to shoot him. What you're describing is full out murder, and there is absolutely no reason to think that was the guys intent, or that's what actually went on.
Deadbeat punk or not, the reasons why it's not OK to shoot a deadbeat punk in the back while he's running away are probably the same reasons why we don't send deadbeat punks to deathrow when they do get caught.
Again, I'm not pretending to know what happened, who drew first, etc...
You're not pretending to know what happened, but you jut so happen to know that the guy was shot in the back while running away? I'm sorry, but there is no reason to think that's the case (for one, the thief shot back, so you're already off base).
Basically, you two are creating up a possible scenario, blaming the guy for that possible scenario, ignoring the circumstances on the ground, and assigning him guilt. It's completely without merit, and thankfully I doubt any court in the country would accept such reasoning.
And ya, I can imagine scenarios where the vigilante is at fault. But he's innocent until proven guilty.
-
Deadbeat punk or not, the reasons why it's not OK to shoot a deadbeat punk in the back while he's running away are probably the same reasons why we don't send deadbeat punks to deathrow when they do get caught.
Again, I'm not pretending to know what happened, who drew first, etc...
You certainly are implying to know what happened.
No more than anyone else in this thread. I think I've been fairly honest, like in the post you quoted, that how I imagined this went down is just one possibility out of many.
-
Making absolutely no assumptions about anything here, what I know about cases like this (based on the personal experience of a family member) is that most lawyers will tell you that "self defense" is easier to maintain if you did NOT shoot someone in the back. We don't know where the alleged robber was shot here, since there are not a lot of details provided in the OP, so really everything is just speculation at this point.
-
If I witnessed some woman being assaulted and robbed, I like to think I'd jump in and do something. I gotta admit, if there's two or more of them, the odds aren't good. One-on-one, maybe. If the guy pulls a gun, I'm outta there, but in this case the Samaritan had his own gun, so that would seem to indicate that he's the type of guy who'll take matters into his own hands.
So clearly I can't choose the wine in front of me.
-
:rollin
-
If I witnessed some woman being assaulted and robbed, I like to think I'd jump in and do something. I gotta admit, if there's two or more of them, the odds aren't good. One-on-one, maybe. If the guy pulls a gun, I'm outta there, but in this case the Samaritan had his own gun, so that would seem to indicate that he's the type of guy who'll take matters into his own hands.
So clearly I can't choose the wine in front of me.
I love you.
-
:biggrin:
-
If I witnessed some woman being assaulted and robbed, I like to think I'd jump in and do something. I gotta admit, if there's two or more of them, the odds aren't good. One-on-one, maybe. If the guy pulls a gun, I'm outta there, but in this case the Samaritan had his own gun, so that would seem to indicate that he's the type of guy who'll take matters into his own hands.
So clearly I can't choose the wine in front of me.
:clap: :clap:
Brilliant post Herr Bosk
-
If the robber drew the gun first, then the witness is in the right here. If the witness drew first, he should be facing homicide charges.
-
If the robber drew the gun first, then the witness is in the right here. If the witness drew first, he should be facing homicide charges.
Is it murder if the "good samaritan" pulled out his gun, told the bad guy to freeze and wait for the police, but was forced to shoot when the bad guy pulled his gun and started shooting? It's more about who shot first than who drew first IMO.
-
If the Samaritan draws first then says "freeze" and tries to get the guy to wait for the cops, and the robber then pulls out a gun, I'd say the Samaritan is in the clear to fire off a round or 2 to subdue the robber.
-
The conceal carry class I took the instructor and lawyer who trained and taught us the law really talked at length to us about a 'third' party involvment scenario like this. If you were to happen upon a situation like described. It is really very touchy and not as clear cut as per say my wife and I were walking down the street and a man approached me....demanded my money or my wifes purse. I'm not trusting a thug/thief that once I hand it over he's not going to kill us just to eliminate witnesses so it's pretty easy for me to say that I would make every effort to exercise the rights given to me.
But a third party entry like this was taught to us to be handled in a very careful manner and you simply had to be utterly convinced your life was in danger as well. A last ditch resort so to speak. As has been menioned, the details of this particular case are scarce but They went over multiple cases of similar scenarios where the conceal carry permit holder and shooter was convicted due to the 'vigilante' atmosphere and circumstance to them.
-
That makes perfect sense. I would presume that they don't just grant permits to anyone who applies; there must be some kind of process, including a course such as the one you took. If civilians are going to be out there carrying firearms, as is our Constitutional right, they should at the very least know that it's not carte blanche. There are definitely laws governing how it all works.
And that's exactly why I predicted that if there are no other witnesses to the shooting part of this little episode, the Samaritan will claim that he had no choice, there was no time, etc. We will probably never know what really happened, but I'm pretty sure the guy isn't just going to say he shot down the thug in cold blood.
-
That makes perfect sense. I would presume that they don't just grant permits to anyone who applies; there must be some kind of process, including a course such as the one you took. If civilians are going to be out there carrying firearms, as is our Constitutional right, they should at the very least know that it's not carte blanche. There are definitely laws governing how it all works.
I can only speak for the course I participated in, but, it was very informative and really impressed upon me how drawing your firearm in public should be the very last resort. Again, you have to be fearing for your life or families life/safety.
I have known of and had heard of people not being granted thier permit due to something in thier past. I know there is both a State and Federal background check and you have to have a pretty clean record. And by that I mean no felonies. It has been my experience that those of us who go through the procedure and take the time and spend the money to aquire the permit really aren't the individuals people should be worried or concerned about.
-
Two phrases come to mind after reading this thread:
"When seconds matter most, the police are just a few minutes away."
"I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6."