Quote:
|
If you choose to act -- "forced into it" or not -- you will get called to account if you get it wrong.
|
Not by me, they won't. Not by me. If someone acts in defending their life against an aggressor, I refuse to even engage in the game of nit-picking "mistakes" made by the victim when the victim acted reasonably to protect his own life or the life of others.
That's one thing I see the gun-hating media and liberals doing constantly - blaming good guys for casualties when its clear that the bad guy perpetrator was the one who created an ultra-dangerous situation for personal gain.
If a bad guy gets shot down by 15 armed police officers, the cops get blamed because "100 rounds were fired at ....suspect". If an inocent gets caught in a cross-fire you never hear the media pin it on the bad guy.
So, here we have gun owners, and I hear the same kind of crap I hear from the media and liberal gun-haters. Same kind of analysis - talking about what the good guy "should have done", what he "could have done, how things would have been different if "he had more training / better training".
Yes, I object to this. I already know how a jurry selected by a high-profile defense attorney or a liberal judge or a gun-hating prosecutor is going to look at a man who unintentionally shot someone else while trying to defend his own life. I don't need any legal mumbo-jumbo warning about this. I feel it necessary to voice my objection to engaging in the same kind of nit-picking of good guys that the media and gun-banners do routinely.
Place blame where it belongs - with the guy(s) who initated the unprovoked, life-threatening and violent behavior toward others.