"Frankly, I would never advise anyone to give chase to a thug who was armed following the crime. First, the law does not support this action; you must be in fear of your own safety. Chasing the miscreant down after he has fled clearly will not constitute that scenario. Second, you can get yourself killed and from a liability standpoint you can open up a legal nightmare if you hit an innocent bystander when you fire on the thug. In several of the incidents mentioned in the story the shopkeeper did chase down the thug and fire on them. It is ill-advised, but if I were a potential juror in such a case, I could understand the high stress and emotion of the moment and would not be inclined to find the merchant guilty for fighting back, even after chasing the thug down."
Highlighted area is incorrect.
And I fervently wish people would stop declaring that the ass-backwards laws of their states are universal. There are you know, states that allow for the use of deadly force without your own personal safety being an equation at all, so it'd behoove those wishing to pass along important information to at least stop to see if said information is correct. It absolutely ruins the credibility of anyone trying to make a point when the facts are askew, askance, and atwitter.
Also, even in communist-run locations one is permitted to be engaged in what is commonly called a "running gun battle".
This can be where an assailant flees, stops and turns to shoot, flees again, seeks cover and/or concealment, and the good guy or gal adapts and overcomes.
Giving up just because a goblin has shown his back is a good way to die.
No comments:
Post a Comment