[Secret Agent Man]

They did.

None were in danger of permanent injury or death.

They engaged and were active participants against others who did not steal from them or were threatening their lives.

They were shooting at vehicles that were not trying to run anyone down. Not to neutralize a life threatening threat.

This is not ccw behavior any court will endorse. The laws are very narrow for ccw people to actually lasfully use their weapons.

I am not saying I think its right, I am merely saying what the legal situation is.

[Mr. Lucky]

Except they intentionally ran over one of the citizens, which made them dangerous fleeing felons.

[flamberge]

I am not saying I think its right, I am merely saying what the legal situation is.

A lot of people no longer care what the legal situation is.

The "authorities" had best tread very carefully.

[_Jim]

re: “They engaged and were active participants against others who did not steal from them or were threatening their lives.”

(1) HOW do you think things worked before poh-leece?

Poh-leece, ya know, are a relatively “new” invention considering how long mankind has been around ...

(2)Perps like that represent a threat to the entire community, not just the shop they just ‘stole’ from.

[unread]

"They were shooting at vehicles that were not trying to run anyone down."

What...even cars have constitutional rights now.??
There was a time when thieves were hanged for for their dirty deeds... The loss of a precious commodity could be the difference between life and death...

[SandwicheGuy]

I am not saying I think its right, I am merely saying what the legal situation is.

men made the law, men can change the law. Then there is jury nullification.

[pierrem15]

Not enough information in report to make a judgment: the report states one person who confronted the thieves was struck by the car. If the shooters were behind him, they may have had a justified fear of death or grievous bodily injury.

Can't tell from the report.