Quote:
Originally Posted by collie1228
Wait a minute. It's not enough to say "they didn't know that". The police report says witnesses say the deceased "reached into his pants", and the licensed good samaritan shot him. No one in the restaurant knew the gun was gone, so as far as they were thinking, they all could have been in grave danger.
|
Read what I was replying to. If Hudson had no gun in the restaurant (it has not been found) then the good guy with the gun did not save anyone from being shot. THAT is what I was replying to.
I'm still not sure how I feel about shooting someone because they *might* have a gun. This situation is a little different since Hudson appears to have been shooting while outside and was now inside and looking for someone to confront. Still, I would like the standard for use of deadly force to be higher than just thinking someone might be reaching for a gun, especially since it turns out there was no gun.
__________________
Why do people insist on making claims without looking them up first, do they really think no one will check? Proof by emphatic assertion rarely works.
Confirmation bias is real; I can find any number of articles that say so.
Victor, NY
Randallstown, MD
Yakima, WA
Stevensville, MD
Village of Hillsborough
|