Byron said;
This will only be a bad notch in CCW holders' belts in the mind of people who are antis already.
I disagree. The average person doesn't care much about CCW. In fact most of the average people get their knowledge of firearms and their use from Hollywood. I bet I have someone ask me every couple of months how they can get their Illinois Concealed Carry Permit. Some of them even argue that they can get one, even if I tell them there is no such thing in Illinois; "I'm sure a judge would write me a letter if I was threatened." Where do they get such a notion, from the entertainment industry that has had everyone from Bogart to Don Johnson telling the hard nosed cop; "Just wait a minute, I have a permit for that".
For most people concealed carry is totally off the radr until it comes up in the news. If you think I want Larry Trent, Director of the Illinois State Police all over the media pointing to this case as a reason why Illinois citizens shouldn't carry firearms you're wrong.
Many women will place themselves in the place of the purse snatcher's victim. So will their loved ones. The more rational among them will thank God for this. I think we could actually wind up with more support for CCW through actions such as this.
Again, I'm afraid I disagree. Many of the victims I deal with have the mindset that it couldn't possibly have happened to them. Most people aren't like those of us here on THR. I think we sometimes get a rather narrow view of how people think because we don't deal with a lot of people who are from outside our immediate circle of friends, family and co-workers. I'm sure that when you worked in the ER you had regular customers who just seemed to always be getting themselves into bad situations. Let me tell you, a lot of crime victims fall into this catogory too. I've currently got a case going on a bunch of motor vehicle burglarys where I work. Cell phones, wallets, jewelry (no guns yet), and you know what, not one of those vehicles was locked. Not a single one. And the attitude among the victims all seems to be, I sure didn't see a need to lock up my stuff. Now we can all argue that in a perfect world, no one should need to lock up their stuff. Unfortunately we don't live in such a perfect world.
A case like this may be just the thing that turns undecided people against CCW. Especially the way it will be spun. It's my experience that while people will trust themselves and their immediate circle with firearms or even nuclear weapons, they won't trust people they don't know.
I have long held that the laws need to be changed as related to the lawful use of lethal force. As far as I'm concerned, the purse snatcher not only got what he deserved; he got what he was begging for.
Well then lets lobby to get the laws changed. During our lifetimes it once was legal to shoot at fleeing criminals. It's not any longer. I'm not sure how any laws that were passed would stand up to
Tennesee v Garner which pretty much started us down the road to putting further restrictions on shooting fleeing criminals.
If there's one person on the jury who feels as I do; the man will never be convicted.
That's exactly who the should make the statement, the jury should send a message by refusing to convict.
The state of NC should give him a public service medal and tell all the other thieves they can expect the same.
Well we know that that's not going to happen.
jsalcedo asked;
Can't armed bank guards shoot bank robbers in the back that are making of with bundles of cash?
Not here. Deadly force is deadly force and the law spells out the conditions in which it is permissable. Illinois has pretty liberal laws on the use of force to defend yourself and your property, passed in 2004 and signed by our anti-gun governor, believe it or not. But you can't shoot to prevent the escape of a criminal unless you can articulate that your use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the criminal from killing or causing great bodily harm to another. That's a pretty hard case to make if the criminal is running away.
carebear said;
The question will resolve itself around the force used to do the apprehending, which will probably be found to be legally excessive. Still, if the guy had hurled a baseball bat (easily deadly force as well) with only the intention and effect of stopping his flight, there'd be no question about him being a "vigilante" it'd be flat-out hail the hero time.
Agreed, but the article doesn't mention that the purse snatcher used any force to effect his escape.
Why are we, of all people, demonizing the gun too? Negative political effects?
I'm not demonizing the gun, I'm demonizing the cheering of what will most likely be an unlawful use of force. We don't have Alaska/Vermont carry here in Illinois, so yes, I am worried about the negative political effects. Still a battle to be fought here. Just because I am personally covered under HR 218, doesn't mean that I don't want to see everyone have the same rights I do.
I think that no matter how much our own personal feelings about the purse snatcher getting what he deserved figure into things, we need to look at the big picture. Firing several rounds at a fleeing purse snatcher isn't legal nor do I believe it was a responsible use of the firearm.
There are people on this board who would be calling for the death penalty if a police officer had shot the purse snatcher. I see no difference between the two. If it is wrong for the state (a police officer) to shoot then it is wrong for a private citizen.
Jeff
now