|
When you think about it, that would have been an event that caused high anxiety - particularly because of the proximity of one's wife and children.
I certainly don't envy the victim - Marshall.
One reason that I don't envy him is that it would certainly seem to me (in the calm of retrospection) that he was never in imminent danger of losing his life (or the lives of his family).
He was facing an angry crowd of teenagers, yes, but none of them apparently had or brandished or even displayed a firearm, a stick, a golf club, a ball bat, or any weapon at all, as far as I can tell.
I'm not a guy blessed with a great deal of ability to predict the future, but I supect that had Marshall pulled out a pistol and killed 4 or 5 of the unarmed teenagers a couple things would have happened. First, the rest likely would have run away. Second, Marshall would have more to fear from the survivors than he has now to fear from them (assuming they get away with the assault). And third, Marshall would find himself in a world of crap as he would be facing not just hospital bills but lawyer bills, court appearances, and possibly jail time and a felony record, after the 4 or 5 unarmed teenagers are buried and then promptly made into Saints in the media. Marshall would lose not only his job and his savings accounts, but possibly his home, his freedom, and any future potential to get a job where a felony record would not impact his employability.
Because, as far as I can see, at no time was Marshall legally justified in killing a half-dozen or so of the unarmed teenagers.
Like Glenn and Pete have said, if you want to carry dressed for war, more power to you.
If you don't want to, thats your choice too.
But I don't think that packing a pistol and two spare magazines necessarily prepares you to deal with an angry mob; and if they are unarmed and you open up on them - absent any clear and present threat to your existence of that of your loved ones - you will eventually understand why that was a bad idea.
IMHO. YMMV.
|