The officer regained his feet and backpedaled as the assault continued. He backpedaled across an intersection of 2 four-lane streets, firing 8 more shots. He backed into a gas station, still pursued until the assailant tripped in some landscape plants and fell to the ground. This ended the event as the assailant was unable to regain his feet. He died there. He had 10 bullet wounds, two in his arms and hands, the rest in upper torso and head. [Wheel gun, 1 reload; .38Spec +P] The officer’s left elbow was broken. There were several choices for the pathologist to choose from to determine “the” fatal round. The moral to this story is that some people refuse to die; and some do not know they are dead. There is not a correct number of rounds to fire.

I trust some here know “the dream”.

“we knows”

We knew what happened in Minneapolis(?) and what that perp died from. That video probablly did lead to a conviction, or was that another case of “we knows?”

The good Samaritan somehow knew that the perp did not have another weapon and he knew that the perp was down and out for the count.

He knew this how???
How was he to know the perp was not playing dead or not wounded “enough” such that he could pull out another weapon and shoot dead the good Samaritan??

After the fact , all is known.
During the heat of action, nothing is known for sure. And making assumptions in real time , if wrong, can get the good guy placed into a body bag.

How often have we heard of instances where police officers – more than one – basically unload their guns on a perp. and kill him.
Should the police be limited to no more than 3 shots? Is anything in excess of that grounds for murder?? And cops are trained (though probably not enough) in these sorts of life and death decisions.

If a perp commits a crime, he should expect to be killed; whether or not he is armed. Too bad for the perp.
If perps knew this, we would not be seeing fast becoming routine “legal” thefts (under $900) in SF or somewhat similar events in NYC where robberies (or worse) are for all intents and purposes, legal.

The individual(s) that should be arrested are the judges and DA’s that intentionally and purposefully allow criminals – REPEATEDLY – to walk free.

Who thinks that if repeat felons began violently targeting the loved ones of these DAs or judges, that the “lets release the felons” policies would be continued?

I don’t buy the no-danger point. The robber did not look as if this were his day job. Erratic and unpredictable. We are not required to explain to anyone how it would make no logical sense for him to spin and shoot, and therefore he certainly wouldn’t.
Cops are exonerated when they shoot somebody who is pulling up his pants. The dread waistband reach. This dude was armed and in control of whatever nutcase idea occurred to him.

I have no idea what that sentence means, but miguel’s link to Althouse’s post turned up a lot of good commentary on Paul Auster, why he’s advocating gun control aka banning, and the history of the public perception of the Second Amendment in law and society.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/01/paul-auster-purveys-notion-that-black.html?showComment=1673795523906#c7483942658227038392

Tina Trent said…
A few more facts about Auster: during his presidency of PEN, he turned the institution into a political lobby for famous murderers, especially race rioters, race terrorists, and pedophiles (the run of the mill need not apply). They especially endorsed cops killers and those who brutally attacked multiple women. He handed out honors and scholarships to Weathermen killers, BLA killers, and brutal rapists. Auster himself always had a thing for literary pedophiles. Under him, the organization celebrated Mumia, Susan Rosenberg, Polanski, Benjamin La Guer, Kathy Boudin, Marilyn Buck, and judge-murdering tenured professor Angela Davis. Under him, PEN usually successfully lobbied for and funded the release of murderers, terrorists, and rapists.

He substantially elevated, reinforced and celebrated the social mores that killed his son and murdered his granddaughter, and on their backs, he was richly rewarded for never outgrowing popular academic terroristic nihilism. And since Auster brought up the issue of race, the unhappy fact is that if we removed black killers from our gun crime stats they would barely be different from the Northern European countries he wishes we were more like (at least before they began importing masses of woman-hating minority immigrants).

He is the gun.

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/01/paul-auster-purveys-notion-that-black.html?showComment=1673813380436#c6125128323235398097

Hassayamper said…
Lefties really should not even attempt to provide learned commentary on Second Amendment law. They are almost wholly ignorant of the Founding Fathers’ motivations for the Second Amendment, the textual analysis of its language, the jurisprudence on this issue since the Amendment was passed, or the statistical, demographic, and criminological realities fueling their simplistic calls for gun control.

Readering offers a typical example of this ignorance when he says: “The prevailing legal interpretation of the Second Amendment was that the right belonged to militias, not individuals. Change began in eighties.”

When honest and thoughtful leftist commentators study the issue, like Alan Dershowitz, Sanford Levinson, or Laurence Tribe, they typically come to a very different conclusion. The Second Amendment has always protected the right of the broad mass of the people, from whom the militia is drawn, to be armed.

The best explanation of the archaic language used in the Amendment is offered by rephrasing it in terms of another object that is in common use and ownership by the public: the book. Just as with guns, dictators frequently attack books that threaten their tyrannical rule as by pretending to care about their ill effects on public safety and order.

The language of the Second Amendment reads,

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Let’s suppose it read instead,

A well educated Electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books shall not be infringed.

This sentence is semantically identical to the actual Second Amendment in every way. Would the likes of Readering seriously argue that a dictator would be allowed by this language to ban books for everyone outside the electorate, i.e. people who had never bothered registering to vote, or foreign tourists, or children who are too young to vote, or resident aliens who had not yet achieved citizenship?

Or worse, would they say that if the government just stopped registering people to vote, thereby abolishing the electorate, that they would then be constitutionally justified in banning books for everyone? Because that is exactly what the evil leftist enemies of humanity argue every day when they tell us with a straight face that the Second Amendment applies only to militias of the sort that existed in Revolutionary times, and that they were all abolished when the National Guard was set up, and therefore the government can ban any gun they don’t like.

There can be no compromise with this sort of enemy. They are no longer our countrymen. They are a greater threat to our liberty than Putin, Xi, the drug cartels, and all the terrorists who ever lived, put together and squared. Constant vigorous resistance to their wicked plans to enslave us must be carried out by any means necessary. It starts with teaching your children from a young age to hate the Left– righteous hatred of monstrous evil being a great and noble moral imperative– and by teaching them how to shoot.

I don’t subscribe to his advice on teaching children (or adults) to hate any person or even group of people, but it is appropriate to oppose whatever evil those persons are perpetrating, and to oppose the ideology that propels that evil.

AND teach them how to shoot.

The dangerous part about it has always been that far too many people take it upon themselves to decide who needs killing.
For today’s progressive-climatista-enviro-socialists that includes most of the planet’s normal people, but especially the Deplorables.

(Someone needs to make a Western about The Magnificent Deplorables.)