Posted on 08/26/2005 3:34:09 PM PDT by Luke Skyfreeper
Uh...Rosie was the spokesperson for K-Mart not WalMart.
He was such a nice man.
Perhaps because there are lots of Wal-Marts and few K-Marts nowdays (even counting the Sears stores.)
one more reason to avoid walmart.
This sounds very similar to an incident a few years ago. The one thing missing is the hysterical woman who "couldn't believe someone could just walk around with a gun like that."
Yes, the good sumaritan who stopped the crime with her gun was more of a concern to the hysterical woman than the knife wielding nutcase who was randomly stabbing people.
I'm taking notes.
Just in case somebody breaks into my house, I should know where to aim.
Now this is the kind of story that makes me have a warm heart. Thank-you for posting.
Thank you....but the wallmart is a little zipping around guy with a cowboy hat?
2 to the head he!!
I believe in slide lock---with a 9mm hi-cap!!!
15 in the mag and 1 in the pipe!!!
I don't know about that, but I found this interesting:
14-5172. Justifiable homicide; defense of another.1
Evidence has been presented that the defendant killed __________________ (name of victim) while defending another.
The killing was in defense of another if:
1. There was an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm4 to __________________2 as a result of __________________3; and
2. The defendant believed that __________________2 was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm from __________________ (name of victim) and killed __________________ (name of victim) to prevent the death or great bodily harm; and
3. The apparent danger to __________________2 would have caused a reasonable person in the same circumstances to act as the defendant did.
The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in defense of another. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in defense of another, you must find the defendant not guilty.
USE NOTE
1. For use when the defense theory is based upon: a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony; a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to do great bodily harm; or a defense of spouse or other member of the family, a necessary defense against any unlawful action. If this instruction is given, add to the essential elements instruction for the offense charged, "The defendant did not act in defense of another".
2. Give the name of the person in apparent danger, if known, and the relationship to defendant, if any. More than one person may be included.
3. Describe the unlawful act, felony or act which would result in death or some great bodily harm as established by the evidence. Give at least enough detail to put the act in the context of the evidence.
4. The definition of great bodily harm, UJI 14-131, must be given if not already given.
In other words, the cops knew and liked him. Bet you money, if it had just been some random Shmoe, they'd have put him through the ringer (and maybe even a GJ). He'd still have probably gotten off, but not without some heat applied...
For anyone who's thinking of carrying a firearm,
BE TRAINED, AND KNOW THE LAW. BOTH THE LAW AS REGARDS CARRYING, AND THE LAW AS REGARDS USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN YOUR STATE.
Also know EXACTLY how you should behave in order to behave properly and responsibly in a life-or-death situation. You just might find yourself in the middle of one, as this 72-year-old man did.
Know what's both proper and effective in stopping a violent attack.
In my opinion, "two to the head," for example, might well get you in trouble.
Two or three to center of mass, then reassess, seems far more likely to me to produce the desired results of stopping the attack, and of doing so in such a way that you are found to have acted responsibly.
In any event, be trained, know the law, know exactly what's considered proper in use of deadly force to manage a violent attack in your state, and know exactly what you should do and what actions you should take (and NOT take) when the attack has successfully been stopped.
And by the way, for sake of clarity, STOPPING THE VIOLENT ATTACK is the CLEAR purpose, NOT any notion of killing the attacker -- although (unfortunately for said attacker) the level of force required to stop such a violent attack often does result in a fatality for the perpetrator.
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.