Sorry, but the facts of the thread are that the old gentleman didn't offer to "blow them away". Nor did the amount of gasoline ever be truly reported as $5.00. The fact that he followed them at unsafe speeds was also in the initial, and incorrect, information.
Debate is debate. Nobody in this thread advocated automatic use of lethal force. The point was made that, not too long ago, people were hung for stealing horses, and rock salt from a distance was used to discourage trespassers. All without hysteria about the "possibility of injury," and interference by the local DA.
Much of the thread was spent with posters attempting to use their local laws to interpret what was happening. As an LEO, you know that this only causes confusion.
As an ex-cop living in MA, the land of the liberals, I gotta say that, after reading some of these replies, I now know what the anti-gunners are talking about...some of you people should not own guns. Anyone, especially a cop, who thinks it's OK for a citizen to "blow someone away" for $5.00 should not have a gun. Take the gun out of the picture - I sure as hell would not want to be driving on the same road as Elmer Fudd chasing a bad guy at 70 MPH for $5.00. Elmer, back to your still.
That entire paragraph is insulting. It's your opinion, only. Taking into consideration that you're an ex-cop, and not a "retired" cop, maybe your attitude is why it's "ex".
Now, wasn't that insulting to you? Yet, it's essentially the same manner in which you speak to the posters here.
As a citizen of MA, you are absolutely correct that you witness "bending reality to fit your opinion". Look at your first paragragh, you've almost got it. Teddy, back to your Martini.