Quote:
Originally Posted by ficke
Well, we do know the unarmed shopper did not fire the first shot, since he was well, unarmed.
We do know the first shot was fired by the robber to stop what ever the unarmed shopper was doing.
Taking a knife to a gun fight is stupid but this shopper did not even have a knife?? So what ever he was doing was beyond stupid to me, and he paid for that bad decision with his life.
So the shooting was started by the robber and that robbers deadly shooting was stopped by the CCL holder. Now maybe that robber would not have shot again, there is no way to know and apparently that CCL holder did not want to take that chance and find out by letting him go after watching the robber shoot and kill someone.
So, to answer "Stomachmonkey" question yes, I do think it was a poor decision and it was irresponsible of the robber to start a running gun fight. But he did pay for his bad decision with his life.
Not a video game, no reset.
|
Not arguing your point. The robber that shot the unarmed bystander was shot by the CCL holder. The robber that later shot others was the
second robber.
The first robber did not die. The second robber has been caught. I have not found any information that the CCL shot at the fleeing robber.
The unarmed victim would have died anyway, given his actions. The unanswerable question is, if the first robber had
not been shot, would the second robber have fired as he fled, wounding four other people?
Don't PARF this comment as it's just an observation. The CCL was carrying in
violation of the policy of the Mall. There are four wounded people as the result of the fleeing robber's actions. The unanswerable question I posted could be grounds for civil cases against the CCL. Hopefully not, but one never knows.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/24/texas-mall-shooting-shopper-couldnt-carry-gun/96982144/