ransom wrote:
N Sperlo wrote:
ransom wrote:
Seems like the "jerking at the trigger" is being taken to mean attempting to pull it.
I'll grant you, I don't know much about guns. But is it really so hard to pull the trigger that dude had time after seeing the jerking to get his own gun out and fire before numbnutz-the-super-criminal actually succeeded in pulling the trigger?
Or is it possible that the jerking motion was brandishing rather than attempting to shoot?
I don't care if hes holding it with his foot. Anyone points a gun at me, I will kill them. If he was seen jerking the trigger, I think the victim waited too long.
That's not the point I was making. This isn't about what to do if you're holding a gun and they're holding a gun. This is about the decision to hold a gun after agreeing not to.
My point is that it's being suggested that the only reason he lived is that he was carrying a gun and that it's a good thing he was able to start shooting first.
My point is that if they guy had been jerking at the trigger with intent to pull it, he would have shot before the employee could get his gun out. It looks to me like it's somewhere between possible and probable that this would have been one of those apparently more common cases where the robbers wanted to grab stuff and leave.
To say that it's the gun that saved him, you have to believe that the gunman was yanking on the trigger and was too inept to actually pull it.
Maybe he had the safety on? Maybe you're right, and he was trying to shoot. I don't know, but I'm not convinced that the gun saved anybody, and I'm not at all convinced that he was justified in carrying it without telling his employer or coworkers.
People seem to be very aggravated about the employer/law taking away his liberty to make the decision about how to handle this situation. But by carrying a weapon, he overrode the decisions of his coworkers to handle this situation via the non-escalation policy. He took away their liberty to make that decision for themselves.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm being blunt with my point of view.
I have gone through scenarios in my head many times over. If a gun is pointed at me or someone I care for, I will shoot. I don't care about the position of the safety or weather or not its loaded, because if I wait long enough to find out, It is too late. You don't have time to look that close. When the bad guy pulls a gun, I pull mine and aim for a kill, because he may do the same to me or someone else. I know that if the gun is unloaded or on safe, I am still in the right and I have no problem taking someone down for that.
Even if you override the decisions of others, it is your decision to make.
He was justified by law. Policy is not justification, it is broken or not broken. He broke policy.
I agree that companies must have policies to protect themselves. I would have don the same IF I DECIDED TO CARRY AT WORK.
EDIT: the following link used to be fun, but apparently never gives you an answer...
