in the immortal words of famed Gawker comment section poster Milton Berle’s Left Nut:
Good job, gun nuts.
Allow me to just add the required visual…
I don’t understand. There was a good guy with a gun. Isn’t that meant to solve everything?
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun [fleeing, probably unarmed, shoplifter and/or anyone in the vicinity] is a Good Guy™ with a gun and no concerns about consequences.
Non-Usian here. Suppose the Good Guy had successfully shot the fleeing alleged shoplifter in the back and killed him, would he have faced any legal repercussions?
it depends on the state but for broad swaths of the u.s., upward of 70% of the land mass, almost certainly not.
So, how many orders of magnitude difference between the value of whatever was being shoplifted and how much a trip to the hospital is “serious but stable condition” will end up costing?
I’m not betting on a just world outcome here; but tactical justice clerk ought to be taken for everything he has, probably more, by their colleague here.
It appears that the implied, but generally unspoken, assumption that the good guy with the gun is good with guns is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Other than being offered to join the local police department?
Or at least a commendation and a Punisher sticker for the store window.
But seriously, the mind reels. In Canada, Good Guy™ would be facing a long list of serious charges before he pulled the trigger, and many more if he fired. If he was unlucky enough to hit anyone, then the really serious charges would be laid. His actions don’t come anywhere near the definition of self defense.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
