worth reading
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
-
TunnelRat
- Deceased
- Posts: 9710
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
- Location: Toledo
Re: worth reading
Petrofergov wrote:http://www.wbns10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4167880
wbns10tv wrote:A robber takes shots at a convenience store clerk, and the clerk shoots back. It happened this afternoon on Kimberly Parkway in Southeast Columbus.
TunnelRat
"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago
When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago
When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
-
dan_sayers
- Posts: 5283
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:15 am
- Location: Oregon, OH
I've been wanting to ask this anyways, so this is perhaps a good time. Is that legal? For example, say I'm carrying, I walk outside, when I catch somebody breaking into my car. As they flee, am I allowed to shoot them to interrupt their fleeing? Almost the same thing here considering he didn't open fire until it was already over with. Except that the bad guy supposedly shot first.
-
Petrovich
- *** Banned ***
- Posts: 4030
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm
Dude...go back and read the article again.dan_sayers wrote:I've been wanting to ask this anyways, so this is perhaps a good time. Is that legal? For example, say I'm carrying, I walk outside, when I catch somebody breaking into my car. As they flee, am I allowed to shoot them to interrupt their fleeing? Almost the same thing here considering he didn't open fire until it was already over with. Except that the bad guy supposedly shot first.
-
dan_sayers
- Posts: 5283
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:15 am
- Location: Oregon, OH
-
Petrovich
- *** Banned ***
- Posts: 4030
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm
-
Safety Guy
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:37 am
- Location: Columbus, OH
The defender didn't fire until he was trying to escape through the front door and was fired upon by the robber inside. Since he was there and it was his hide, his choice of continuing to try to run or shooting back seems reasonable to me. He may also have just noticed the suspicious accomplice outside. Why just run into another field of hostile fire?
Everything seems on the up and up here.
Karl
Everything seems on the up and up here.
Karl
I WANT VERMONT! (OR "ALASKA")
That's FIRST AMENDMENT CRUSADER PIGLET!
That's FIRST AMENDMENT CRUSADER PIGLET!
-
haspelbein
- Posts: 1891
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:12 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
I read the article in the Dispatch about this today: The cleark got the handgun after he thought the robber had left. However, the robber had gone into a back room of the store instead. Standing outside, the clerk only realized the robber was shooting at him upon also leaving the store. 9 shots were fired, none of them hit either the clerk or the robber.
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"
-
ballistic
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:06 am
worth reading
This article provides very sketchy information about this incident, so much so that I can't determine what really happened. I don't want to dissect Laura Cole's account in infinitesimal detail, but much more information is needed before we pass any verdict on Mr. Najeeb's actions. However, the line I really like is the closer: "Anyone with information should call Columbus Police," which I interpret as meaning the cops really don't have a thing to go on and are taking no action at present.