Chief Burguan said the two dead suspects were a man and a woman in “assault style clothing.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/2/active-shooter-reported-san-bernardino-20-victims/
<snip> During the banquet, "there was some type of dispute," and Farook left the gathering angrily, the chief said, and he returned with his wife and they opened fire.
http://graphics.latimes.com/san-bernardino-shooting/
Completely agree. He went towards trouble. Had he been inside the building at the time it would be a completely different situation.Good. He had no right to as he was no longer in danger of grievous bodily harm, an element of defense of self.
The risk of arming citizens against mass terrorism is of them being overwhelmed by the horror, their emotions and their need to do something active.
The elements of common law defense of self are four; be innocent of instigation, be in danger of bodily harm, use sufficient force to deliver oneself only from harm, and attempt to withdraw. Your statutory requirements may be greater or lesser, not having qualified immunity a citizen cannot afford to be wrong.
Completely agree. He went towards trouble. Had he been inside the building at the time it would be a completely different situation.
If you see someone carrying a long gun in an inappropriate location (like a holiday party), just be safe and open up on them before they open fire on you.
You have got to be kidding. Really?? :shocker::shocker::shocker:
How else would a good guy with a gun have stopped that shooting?
If you see someone carrying a long gun in an inappropriate location (like a holiday party), just be safe and open up on them before they open fire on you.
If you see someone carrying a long gun in an inappropriate location (like a holiday party), just be safe and open up on them before they open fire on you.
Indeed it is a serious rules violation.RULES VIOLATION---- (caps on purpose) and the quoted poster SHOULD no(sic) this for the length of time spent on this forum!