Cosmoline
Member
I think the OP may have heard of the recent CONVICTION to 80 years of the scum who shot the off duty MP:
http://www.adn.com/2011/02/11/1697548/man-sentenced-to-80-years-for.html
The incident took place by the Woodshed in Anchorage back in 2008. The soldier, who was not involved with the party of drunk scum, approached them after one fired a weapon in the air. He tried to get them to knock it off, but got shot for his troubles. The shooter has a long track record, as does most of his worthless family.
http://www.adn.com/2008/12/01/608370/shooting-victim-was-army-mp.html
As noted, the disarming rule went into place several years prior to the 2008 incident. It's uncertain whether a sidearm would have made any difference here, since the victim was not trying to use deadly force. His approach probably would have been fine if he'd been dealing with inebriated soldiers firing weapons in the air. But these were not the sort of people you try to reason with!
As far as whether deadly force would have been justified, it's tough to tell from the facts. You're only obliged to flee if you can do so with complete personal safety. That's out the window after the rounds have already started flying. Yet clearly he had no business approaching them. He either needed to defend himself or get out of there. Figuring out exactly what's going on is very difficult. These animals are always reaching into their baggy pants, flashing their hands around and generally making it difficult to see what they're up to. Plus they tend to roam in packs as was the case here. Not a good situation to approach or to shoot into unless you absolutely have to. Better to make a guarded retreat and call in authorities. Or an airstrike!
http://www.adn.com/2011/02/11/1697548/man-sentenced-to-80-years-for.html
The incident took place by the Woodshed in Anchorage back in 2008. The soldier, who was not involved with the party of drunk scum, approached them after one fired a weapon in the air. He tried to get them to knock it off, but got shot for his troubles. The shooter has a long track record, as does most of his worthless family.
http://www.adn.com/2008/12/01/608370/shooting-victim-was-army-mp.html
As noted, the disarming rule went into place several years prior to the 2008 incident. It's uncertain whether a sidearm would have made any difference here, since the victim was not trying to use deadly force. His approach probably would have been fine if he'd been dealing with inebriated soldiers firing weapons in the air. But these were not the sort of people you try to reason with!
As far as whether deadly force would have been justified, it's tough to tell from the facts. You're only obliged to flee if you can do so with complete personal safety. That's out the window after the rounds have already started flying. Yet clearly he had no business approaching them. He either needed to defend himself or get out of there. Figuring out exactly what's going on is very difficult. These animals are always reaching into their baggy pants, flashing their hands around and generally making it difficult to see what they're up to. Plus they tend to roam in packs as was the case here. Not a good situation to approach or to shoot into unless you absolutely have to. Better to make a guarded retreat and call in authorities. Or an airstrike!
Last edited:
