In a situation where the honest citizen is discouraged from protecting himself/herself (along with other innocents) and is resigned to instead wait for the police to show up to “do their job,” criminals do indeed have much less fear of, and respect for, the average law-abiding citizen. In calculating the risks involved before perpetrating a crime, the risks are exponentially lower to the criminal if he can be assured that his potential victims are completely unarmed and defenseless.

Additionally, we all (including the criminals) know that the police can not be everywhere at once and the semi-intelligent criminal will at least case the surrounding area before perpetrating his planned crime to ensure there are no law enforcement officers in the vicinity. Remember, the police are, at best, minutes away from arriving — and all the time that it takes for you to go from being a living victim to a dead victim is but a precious split second.

“I’m qute certain that anyone in law enforcement feels they can do a better job of enforcing the law than a civilian. I would think that 100% of law enforcment would prefer that civilians not engage in a confrontation, but call them and allow them to do their job.” Left by busyfists on March 27th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

Anyone who defends themselves and innocent others from the harmful actions of a criminal is engaging in self-defense — not trying to take the law into his/her own hands for the sake of law enforcement. Protecting one’s self and others from harm is natural, instinctual, and, in a sane world, should be perfectly within one’s rights.

No one has suggested to forego calling the police. Yes, our police officers are the ones who can actually enforce the law and they provide an invaluable service to society. However, my most salient point-at-issue here is that I would much rather be proactive and defend my own life — and hopefully be alive when the officers arrive on the scene to do their job enforcing the law. I would not want to be dead just because I chose to simply be reactive and entrust the criminal with making the decision to spare my life. After all, anyone desperate and immoral enough to break the law just to gain a few bucks would have no qualms whatsoever with pulling the trigger.

Yes, there is always a risk involved. But you are taking a risk either way, whether you choose to be proactive or reactive. When you are proactive, you choose to take some responsibility for your own life. You are placing more faith in your own ability to make sound decisions rather than placing your faith in a criminal who has unequivocally demonstrated that he makes unsound decisions.

Tracy
(Forgot to fill in the Name & E-mail Address blanks)

I’m qute certain that anyone in law enforcement feels they can do a better job of enforcing the law than a civilian. I would think that 100% of law enforcment would prefer that civilians not engage in a confrontation, but call them and allow them to do their job.

Thank goodness for Tracy and her story of Ms. Hupp. Now here is an instance where the intent of the criminal is obvious and an armed confrontation was a prudent course of action (if only).

If you all would indulge me in two hypotheticals.

Let’s say the hero shot and killed the criminal in an exchange of fire, but in doing so one of the children that were crowding the location at the time was struck and killed by a stray bullet (be it the hero’s or the criminal’s). Was it the right move then?

Let’s say that the results are swapped and the criminal is wounded and the hero is shot and killed. Was this worth it? Would it have been worth it to the hero’s wife and children?

These are two very possible outcomes in this situation, and it could just have easily played out these ways as it did in reality.

“Bravery and stupidity go hand in hand.” – David Summers

I suspect, that the noble citizen got themselves a bit shot up because they tried the “Freeze” or “Drop It” line you see in the movies.

If you aren’t a cop, you don’t have to give the turd a chance to surrender. When in this situation you shoot first, shoot fast, and shoot to kill.

Included among the victims were both of Ms. Hupp’s parents. As a result of this tragedy, Ms. Hupp testified across the country in favor of concealed-handgun laws and was instrumental in having the laws changed.

Why some people seem to have so much faith in criminals by assuming that the robber would have just taken the money and gone on his merry way without shooting the clerk or any of the other innocent bystanders is beyond me. People are shot during armed robberies all the time without any type of provocation whatsoever — in spite of the fact that they were meek, unobtrusive, and followed the criminal’s orders to a “T”.