Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 10/08/2015 12:17:29 AM PDT by nickcarraway
You have to be an agent of govt or hired goon to stop a criminal now? Wow!
Obviously, she never had any training.
I just bought my first gun. I’ve had two lessons with a guy who is an Active Ranger. Learned a lot. Took me six weeks to get my license because the background check found some obscure arrest made of me when I was in college fifty years ago, when I was involved in some barroom fight where they hauled us all in... but all charges were dropped.
I would be in favor of all gun owners going through a certified course. If they have never shot a gun before.
Heil Obama!
no. but the law is clear when a ccw is within their legal rights to use their firearm. i know what they are around me. unless they were putting her life in grave danger or severe injury, she had no basis to do that. ccws do not carry to be police officers and have zero protections that cops have doing their duties.
Anyone carrying that engages a criminal should shoot and ask questions later. Sorry I strongly disagree with you!
Although the book “Tough Towns” does disclose an awful lot of times where the citizenry opened fire on bad guys. Usually they knew exactly who they were shooting at.
and please read more careful. your ‘question’ shows that is what you assume what i mean, and its an idiotic assumption.
So you revert to calling those who disagree with you idiots? Eh Mitch?
In the state of Washington, a regular person has greater leeway in the use of deadly force than a police officer. However, shooting at a fleeing felon is usually reserved for a violent felony, or hint of violence (like “give me the cash - I have a gun”).
Legislative recognition: “The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens’ permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers.” [1986 c 209 § 3.]
Of course, this woman may have heard something else perceived as a threat, and saw the guy reaching into his pocket, etc.
Armed vigilantes should expect to have their actions heavily scrutinized when they take the law into their own hands. Unless the police require their help, they’d better learn to keep it in their pants, especially untrained women.
This lady is probly in trouble legally.....
But I think she would not run and hide like the guys....:(
At Oregon community college.
My first thought is don’t believe anything the media says in any story involving a gun. I could be wrong, and I’ll wait and see.
Agreed... The taking of someone’s life is serious... Might want to be darn sure you have a serious reason. Shoplifting isn’t worth a mans life. Why would she even consider such a thing... In a parking lot... Moving target, o my.
Dumbass
This aint the movies.
A tire was hit, no one injured, from what i can tell. No crime here.
I applaud the woman for wanting to help the cops stop the thief but it was not a wise decision.
First, she didn’t know the seriousness of the crime committed. Second, by firing in a crowded parking lot there was no way to know where her bullets would land or hit. Third, she was in no personal danger. And fourth, she didn’t listen very hard to what the instructor and written information in here Conceal/carry said.
Not the brightest bulb in the box.
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.