Over on her site, Tam has a post about how there are sometimes when the justification for violence is clearly justifiable. Her example is the recent case in Texas where a father, responding his sons claim that someone had taken his daughter then found a man in the act of molesting his 4-year old girl. In his efforts to try and protect his daughter he beat the man to death.
Tam's excellent point is that there are sometimes you find someone doing something indefensible. I don't need to know the graphic details, but catching someone in the act of causing irreparable harm to you daughter is about as clear cut as a case gets. The only negative with this story(well, other than it having to happen in the first place) is that you can only kill the bastard once.
On the other side of the 'should I get involved, and how' fence is something that happened earlier this week in Yakima.
Guy 1 and Guy 2 are arguing about a cell phone. Guy 2 pulls out his gun and puts two rounds into Guy 1. Guy 3, who happens to be at Safeway, hears the shots, and pulls his own legally concealed pistol to intervene. Guy 2 then departs before the police get there.
The version of the article I linked too has more details than the original version that I read yesterday, and, the slant on the article does its best to put a heroic slant on the actions of Guy 3, Andrew Schilperoort. Rather than just pulling into the parking lot and hearing shots, this version says that Andrew saw Guy 2 getting ready to finish his Mozambique drill before he decided to intervene.
I just don't know. Obviously, in this case, Guy 1 laying on the ground thinks Andrew is a Hero. 18 year old Giselle, interviewed for the story, thinks Andrew is Hero. I think Andrew was a very brave guy...I'm just not 100% sure I would do the same thing.
Things worked out as good as they could have. There were some many other ways this could have gone, approaching a charged situation where there have already been shots fired with your gun out isn't always going to have a calming influence. In this case, Andrew saved a guys life. He could have been stopping someone who was about to go on 'shooting spree'. He also could have been stepping into a situation where Guy 1 had a knife/gun of his own that he couldn't see. He could have ended up dead.
Because he engaged with words, and not bullets of his own, I don't think Andrew will have to face charges. Like I said, the article puts a very positive slant on things, and this is Eastern Washington and not Massachusetts.
I also know that if Andrew had chose to draw his pistol, and observe the situation from behind some cover, rather than step right into the middle of it...I wouldn't have faulted him for that either.
No comments:
Post a Comment