concealed carrier intervenes at lunchtime

[ignerntbend]

Thanks, Dave. I guess I should have excluded the phrase "as written", and just stuck with "explained and discussed" on OSA (in the past).

 

[Hawgman]

Had he blown a hole through her because she hesitated and went on to kill more people everyone on here would be calling her a dumba$$.

 

[Hawgman]

And if the threat ceases to press his threat? If he surrenders, or otherwise makes it clear that he's going to be compliant?

I really hope you're never called upon to fire in anger, or that if you are, your posts don't get into the hands of the prosecutor and/or plaintiff's attorney.

It's not firing in anger. It's employing deadly force to stop a threat to your life when someone else has first employed deadly force.

 

[ignerntbend]

You see what I mean...?

 

[Cowcatcher]

You see what I mean...?

I do. I guess it just boils down to having to make a judgement call because there really can't be a "script" for these things. It appears the ladies judgement in this case worked out.

 

[ignerntbend]

Agreed, Cowcatcher. But just because common sense has prevailed, doesn't mean that some people aren't pissed about it.

 

[Dave70968]

It's not firing in anger. It's employing deadly force to stop a threat to your life when someone else has first employed deadly force.

English
Verb
fire in anger

1. (military, idiomatic) To fire a weapon with the intent of causing damage or harm to an opponent (as opposed to a warning shot or a practice shot).
   The Napier of Magdala Battery never fired a shot in anger: it never engaged in combat.

Usage notes

• Despite the use of the word anger, the phrase is not intended to describe the emotional state of the firer.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fire_in_anger , referencing the BBC World Service at http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1837_aae/page22.shtml

 

[Dave70968]

Thanks, Dave. I guess I should have excluded the phrase "as written", and just stuck with "explained and discussed" on OSA (in the past).

Actually, I'm kinda glad you sent me back to the statutes; I didn't realize it had changed just a couple of weeks ago (for the better, IMHO). Never a bad thing to review the state of the law.

 

[druryj]

I do. I guess it just boils down to having to make a judgement call because there really can't be a "script" for these things. It appears the ladies judgement in this case worked out.

Well said. None of us was there, so none of us can really gauge the severity/level of the threat. Were the actions of the doofus really threatening enough to justify shooting him? One person may feel that deadly force was necessary, and shoot him, and another person may feel they can (most certainly) (possibly) (maybe) stop the threat without having to shoot.

Things are not often black and white.

 

[Tanis143]

The idiot had his firearm out, but wasn't pointed at the lady (nor anyone else according to the story). When the lady drew on the guy she had the choice to fire or give the doofus a chance to back off. If she was aimed at CM it would be very easy to fire before he swung and acquired a target on her, especially if she has practiced firing. Was she too scared? Or better trained? We don't know. It was her judgement call to make and it worked out. Would she have been justified in the shot if she had taken it? Yes, as the guy was presenting an imminent threat to life and/or bodily harm. We may never know why she didn't take the shot.