stagpanther
New member
I think it was a good call--risky--but a good call.
Here's why--the carrier saw a developing situation in which another person's life was clearly in imminent danger of serious injury or death. Regardless of the countless "what-if" scenarios of presumed innocence or guilt--the driver of the vehicle was showing a deliberate willingness to injure or kill the person on the hood. Even if somehow the woman "was guilty" and the driver was maybe escaping--it would still be a justified shoot IMO based on the evidence at hand. My guess is the carrier saw enough of the evolving situation to know who was right and wrong to help in his decision-making. That right to make that decision--it's what the second amendment is all about IMO.
Here's why--the carrier saw a developing situation in which another person's life was clearly in imminent danger of serious injury or death. Regardless of the countless "what-if" scenarios of presumed innocence or guilt--the driver of the vehicle was showing a deliberate willingness to injure or kill the person on the hood. Even if somehow the woman "was guilty" and the driver was maybe escaping--it would still be a justified shoot IMO based on the evidence at hand. My guess is the carrier saw enough of the evolving situation to know who was right and wrong to help in his decision-making. That right to make that decision--it's what the second amendment is all about IMO.