Replies

As much as I am for self defense, and taking criminals off the street, in some cases permanently. The store employee had already disarmed the perp. He should've just kept the gun, got a good description of him and given both to the police. His life was no longer in danger, so there was no justification in shooting him. If he had just cornered him and held him for police that would've been sufficient.

Using deadly force is always a last resort, everyone who undergoes firearms training should know that. Chasing criminals down and shooting them gives the left the ammunition that they need for their endless tirades, accusing lawful gun owners of being self styled vigilantes.

16 posted on 10/12/2004 6:34:13 AM PDT by P8riot (A gun is just a substitute for a penis, so when attacked by a mugger one should pull out a..........)

Chasing down and shooting violent felons is something the police do all the time, and usually without facing criminal charges. I'm for the same laws applying to police as to citizens. The justification given when police do it, is that if a violent felon escapes, he places other people at risk, and an officer is thus authorized to use force to stop him. Armed robbery, btw, is a violent felony.

Screw the Left and what they think they think. One, well placed shot in the leg to Stop a Perc is not life threat response. Its more than, ALL or Nothing.