Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by D Fo, Apr 24, 2012.
It would depend what race the guy was.
No, the murderer is the one who cost the clerk his life in that scenario and no mere human being can ascertain what another will do before the fact unless the actor announces his intention prior to the act.
One of the problems we face in our society is the shifting of moral and legal responsibility onto those who don't bear that responsibility. And under the scenario I presented I may suffer guilt after-the-fact for not being clairvoyant and preventing the murder but I am in no way the one morally responsible who "cost" the clerk his/her life.
What would my responsibility be (without knowing the robber's intentions) should I fire at the perp and his weapon discharge a deadly round into the clerk? Talk about after-the-fact guilt ... ! To say nothing about the possible legal/financial responsibility should both the victim and the perp (and who knows, maybe even the authorities) decide I acted negligently.
Here you go!
What to do during a robbery -
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcR6uX-mgUg"]Best Defense 8 - YouTube[/ame]
Even further than that, even if the law states you COULD take action, should you? I think calling 911 and being a good witness would be the most prudent course of action unless the robber starts blasting. Then I think you could probably be safe to shoot back.
If nothing else it probably is the prudent financial course of action.
Here I agree with that - in the shootings in which the lines are clear between who is the good guy and who is the felon an attorney is not necessary. My problem is that in more than a few shootings it seems to me the lines are not clear.
At the risk if being tacky, I am quite certain that Zimmerman thought his shooting was rather clear cut. My guess though is that if he could reset the clock he probably would not have offered much to the police without his attorney present. (Of course if he could turn the clock back, I am guessing he might have turned it back a bit further than that.)
It's not my intention to get in a pissing match with you on this, but I have to refute a few of your statements.
First:Your suggestion that anyone with a CCP is trying to be "Mr. Crimefighter" is absurd. It is the exception to the rule. Most people with any semblance of conscience would at least consider the use of lethal force if the life of someone other than themself is being threatened. It's a matter of conscience, as well as a matter of possessing the ability to act accordingly. Not everyone can and that is understandable. Vigilante? Nah. Vigilant? Yes, definitely.
Second: Is it really a consideration that someone, who acts to protect the life of someone who is being threatened, be concerned because the neighbors perception is that you are whacked? Really? I mean, I for one, would not give two ****s about what someone says about me if I was fortunate enough to help a fellow citizen in need under the threat of death or bodily harm. If that were the case, many of us law abiding citizens who have a CCP would never have gotten one in the first place because we would have been too concerned with what liberal neighbor, Miss Jones says about us.
When you have a scenario posed here, anyone with a gun thinks they are qualified to answer. You may be "armed", but that is the the lowest level on the scale.
You have people posting who are at different stages in their lives. When I was 20 something I'd say blast away. 20 years later...that may not be the BEST choice.
It's the "can vs have to". I CAN shoot a lot of crooks, but do I HAVE to? If you are in a "HAVE to" scenario there won't be much thought involved if you have trained your brain to tell the difference between the two.
car ownership does not mean competent driver
guitar owner does not mean musician
gun owner does not mean you have a clue