Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Mar 30, 2007.
http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/loca ... 810?page=0
Shot an escaping felon in the back? Not good. Told the police he didn't mean to shoot him, but only to fire in his direction to frighten him? Double Not Good.
I think it "ought to" be legal to shoot a fleeing felon (serious violent felonies only) in the back, if that's the only way to keep him from escaping and thus endangering the whole community again.
But what "ought to be" and what legally "is" aren't always the same.
Should this guy, the taxi driver who was robbed, get his pistol licene back? If he lives in a "shall issue" state, I guess he's got a right to it being restored. A mere arrest doesn't disqualify him, and there's no reasonable probability that he'll ever be convicted of anything over this incident.
If it's a "may issue" situation, maybe he ought to have to go before a Board or judge to explain the difference between shooting in anger and shooting while in reasonable fear of one's life. If he seems to understand the law, I'd sign-off on restoring his permit.
Whatever happened to, "Police! Stop or I'll shoot!"
OK, I know.....
But I think it should be restored. Run from the cops, get your ass shot off. After a while, maybe, these young punks will stop running.
Same goes for people to try to elude cops in vehicles. Forget the spike strips and PIT manuevers, just shoot them. Again, after a while...
As for this guy. While I sorta agree with the Grand Jury and I'd probably vote not to indict, shooting the guy in the back was wrong. But, I wasn't there. Maybe, if I'd just been threatened with a knife and scared enough to wet my pants, I'd be in a shooting mood too.
I disagree with people who value human life over property. Especially if it's some scumbag thug who's too stupid or lazy to hold a job. It should be perfectly legal to shoot those bastids in order to prevent them from stealing stuff from others. Others who probably worked long and hard to acquire that particular stuff.
Once again, after a while, word will get out..........
There's your bias in the newspapers. The headline "vigilante" is a judgment by the editors. However, the grand jury has now decided that in fact the fellow was not a vigilante. Why can't the headline just read, "Grand jury declines to indict cabbie"
I look at it as the cabbie probably saved someone's life some time down the road. Have no sympathy for the robber. Too bad he's still breathing.
Tennessee v. Garner happened to it in 1985 . . .