Yeah, I actually think the review by police is a Good Thing; it's the
possible conclusion that makes me feel queasy, especially considering
the legal fine print in these situations.
After all, all the facts we know are from the newspaper's web site. So
we'll see what turns up. When the carjacker actually got shot will be
crucial to the police investigation's conclusion. Did the news report
get events in the right order? I have no idea.
IMO if you're going to carry, it's a good idea to know the relevant laws
*and* have $10k or so stashed for legal defense if you ever have to
draw. The first is simply being responsible, the second is being
prudent, because responsible sometimes isn't good enough anymore.
On Thursday, March 29, 2001, at 11:14 PM, Joseph S Barrera III wrote:
> And lo, Matt Jensen saith unto us:
>> I see what you're saying, but did you see this part:
>>
>> "The suspect tried to escape the gunfire by diving under the SUV, but
>> was
>> shot several times and died under the vehicle with his revolver a few
>> feet
>> away on the pavement."
>>
>> If the suspect was no longer a threat to the victim, he loses his
>> self-defense protection. I presume the relevant points would be:
>>
>> 1. how far away was the suspect's gun?
>> 2. how long after he dove under the SUV did the victim shoot him?
>> 3. how many times did he shoot him?
>> 4. did the victim reasonably know that the suspect no longer had his
>> gun?
>> etc.
>
> Throw in a "you don't look so bad, here have another" and you're toast.
>
> (I'm sure I didn't quote that right, but that's okay, Wayne will come
> to the rescue)
>
> - Joe
>
> Manic and depressed at the same time is a bad state to be in
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:15:14 PDT