The Sorry State of Today's Journalism

[Garandman]

^^This. He had plenty of opportunity to shoot the tires (and even then he would be in trouble for endangering the public). Maybe the forums he reads they talk about shooting people as if it's "OK" even desirable. The gun should have come out only if it seemed the other guy had one. It's a bad deal.

More specifically, he followed them in his own car and called 911. They were promptly caught.

The article makes reference to some similar crimes, not sure if they were robbed before or they hit other shops.

Did anyone else find it amusing their getaway car as a VW Jetta?

 

[Bird]

Amazingly, all the public awareness and several of the people being killed did NOT seem to stop, or even slow down the rate of hold ups.

I don't remember the statistics, but I think it DID slow the rate of hold ups. At least we know those shot and killed didn't commit anymore hold ups. I guess that program was dropped when a young officer was killed. I believe it was December, 1968. The store clerk said the hijacker marched him at gun point into the storeroom where the officer was. He said the officer had stood his shotgun in the corner and was standing there with his pistol in his hand. The clerk said that he said (to the officer), "Shoot him!" The officer said (to the hijacker), "Drop your gun." And the hijacker said (to the officer), "You're kiddin!" and shot and killed the officer.

I do remember, before that time, when I was doing that job, the old lieutenant told everyone, "If you feel the need to call out to a hijacker, Police, drop your gun, you're under arrest, or whatever, you can do that, but you need to know it doesn't work the way it does in the movies. The hijacker is going to turn and shoot, so you better be ready. There's no requirement in the law to give a hijacker a warning before shooting him."

pulling the trigger while pointing at another human is HIGHLY likely to result in life changing events

Almost for certain. Many good officers leave law enforcement shortly after shooting someone, even when they were completely right in the killing. Others may stay in law enforcement, but with great changes.

Only one officer in my command shot anyone. There were numerous witnesses, including the dead man's wife, and ALL agreed that the officer had no choice but to shoot or be shot. It was a top notch young officer, friendly, always cheerful, outgoing, married to a beautiful little school teacher, had a pre-school age son. He did stay with the department, and eventually was promoted to the rank of sergeant, but he changed to a quiet, subdued personality, and was divorced.

 

[Garandman]

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime.

A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

PS - except this happened in North Carolina:

Law of Self Defense ? NC 14?51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

 

[smstonypoint]

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

The shooting in question occurred in NC.

Steve

 

[texasjohn]

Many good officers leave law enforcement shortly after shooting someone, even when they were completely right in the killing. Others may stay in law enforcement, but with great changes.

Only one officer in my command shot anyone. There were numerous witnesses, including the dead man's wife, and ALL agreed that the officer had no choice but to shoot or be shot. It was a top notch young officer, friendly, always cheerful, outgoing, married to a beautiful little school teacher, had a pre-school age son. He did stay with the department, and eventually was promoted to the rank of sergeant, but he changed to a quiet, subdued personality, and was divorced.

agreed, It always disturbs me greatly when someone posts with the attitude of "just shoot them, it doesn't matter, they are scum and you'll have no problems afterward and be legally protected." It reveals an irresponsible thought process. I worry that a gullible reader will believe it. Bravado has no place holding a trigger.

 

[jlgurr]

agreed, It always disturbs me greatly when someone posts with the attitude of "just shoot them, it doesn't matter, they are scum and you'll have no problems afterward and be legally protected." It reveals an irresponsible thought process. I worry that a gullible reader will believe it. Bravado has no place holding a trigger.

The person with that shoot 'em attitude is more dangerous than most common thieves, IMO.

Sent from my iPhone using TractorByNet

 

[Sodo]

Agreed too TJ, can you imagine if just five of the people who post that stuff on forums went out and shot someone over the next few months? Public would be in an uproar, and all the calm rational folks have to fight like h*** to enjoy their hobby, what a waste of energy.

I think when folks post that stuff on forums ---- they should be admonished for it, politely but firmly (and rationally) by other members. They are doing a disservice to gun owners (and their fellow citizens) by making people afraid of gun owners. And possibly firing up those who are a little 'on the edge" for a tragedy.

Ten years ago I stopped outside the home of an old (retired) boss, and ---declined--- to knock on his door. I know it was his house, recognized his jeep. Sad, I know he would have enjoyed my visit but I was recalling that he mentioned often about having guns "for protection from someone coming to his door". He's probably passed away by now.

 

[Parkanzky]

The person with that shoot 'em attitude is more dangerous than most common thieves, IMO.

Sent from my iPhone using TractorByNet

Right. About half the responses to this thread make me question my positions on gun rights.

Instead of hoping never to be in a position where they are forced to use deadly force, too many seem really eager to mete out justice.

 

[RSKY]

I have stated on here several times, there is nothing I own worth dying for or killing someone for. I will run away from any thief trying to rob me.

But if you threaten one of my family I will do whatever possible to protect them. Including using deadly force.

Killing somebody over a chainsaw........??? No way!

 

[houstonscott]

I have stated on here several times, there is nothing I own worth dying for or killing someone for. I will run away from any thief trying to rob me. But if you threaten one of my family I will do whatever possible to protect them. Including using deadly force. Killing somebody over a chainsaw........??? No way!

Everyone crosses their own Rubicon at a different place. HS