Just took the time to read this thread, the new report, and watch the video on the site. I have come to a few conclusions:
1. IMO the father took appropriate action. People seem to forget that his son had a weapon pointed at him.
2. This incedent could have been avioded altogether if the two teens had not decieded to rob a Blockbuster for $250 and a copy of the Pam and Tommy Lee video.
3. This incedent only furthers my belief that not only should all states allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, they should encourage them to do so.
Regardless of the post-mortum feelings of the shooter, I would rather see two dead/wounded perps then a father and son over a few bucks. I see alot of intelligent arguments on this thread and alot of not so intelligent ones - but those who are trying to paint the father as a rouge bringer of equal and just force who takes the law into his own hands... you just sicken me. Had the son and father been shot this would have barely made the news, but somehow more controvery is warrented when the good guys come out on top - kinda scary country we live in, huh?
As for those who state that they know many LEO's who opposed citizens carrying weapons, I could probably cite the same amount who support it 100% as a supliment and aid to their own duties, so the point is irrelevant.
The only grip I have about most carry permit applicants is that in most states, they are not required to take any classroom instruction in the useage of their firearm and the laws surrounding the privlege they now have. My Penn. CWL took all of 24 hours to get. Trip to Courthouse, trip to PD, trip to Courthouse... $19 thank you very much have a nice day. I wish that all states would requre both a combat handgun class AND a class teaching the law with regard to usage of the weapon.
Either way Im now off course - in my view the father could have bent over and hoped for the best or defended himself and his son - given the situation I belive he took the appropriate action.
(By comparison, here in Pa we had a local who shot his naked, drunk neighbor who was attempting to enter his home 8 times with a 1911 ("Forty-Five" for you weapons challenged people). 3 times in the chest, 2 on the back, 3 in the back of te head. He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years in prison. The guy is a formor Marine and you should have seen the press try and label him as a psychotic war monger... liberals. The catch it that the neighbor was not armed and was shot on the front step.. not inside the house. What do you think would have happened had he shot only once? Perception is altered by details - this seems grusome by comparison, however I have yet to read/see WHERE he shot these kids. Regardless of the location, its publishing would sway public opinion. Isnt media fun?
