Screams do not make a crime. Hell, we have some inner-city type girls that walk down the middle of the street screaming their lungs out on a regular basis around here. Running into a tree with a vehicle, or running down an electrical box or telephone box with a vehicle, is a misdemeanor offense. Would it be prudent to draw down on someone stealing a newspaper because they have the potential to rob a bank? What "could" have happened is pure conjecture. I hope this guy isn't going to pin his defense on that premise.

I'm sorry but in my opinion drawing down on someone because they "potentially" were about to (fill in your own nonsense here) is not wise. To bring up some imaginary child with crushed legs seems to be just as specious an argument as the anti's demands to ban guns because of the "children".

Fair enough, except that you're totally wrong.

The law says that deadly force may be used when an individual "reasonably believes" that it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

That's why it's legal to shoot someone with a fake or unloaded gun, if you honestly and reasonably believe that it is loaded and real.

It sounds like Mr. Rose reasonably believed that the idiot driver had just run down someone, and was about to continue the carnage.

That his belief turned out not to be the case is not necessarily a nail in his legal coffin, if a prosecutor or jury decides that it was reasonable to believe that under the circumstances.

I might be wrong, but I believe that "reasonable" is stretched pretty thin in this case.

Let's hope it goes well for Mr. Rose. I suspect it might not, however.

Rose would have a stronger case if he had shot 5 of the 6 [!@*%$!#] at ValleyFair the evening of July 4th - Just my opinion.

I don't believe any of them have been witnessed with one in their mouth as of yet. That might change if they are convicted.

That is rather trusting of someone you don't know.

Everyone can say what they want because after all, were all entitled to our opinion for better or worse. Personally i don't think this merits drawing a firearm. I wasn't there so i don't know the exact circumstances BUT from what i've read i sure as hell wouldn't have pulled my gun. I hope he isn't charged but he is already going to feed the anti's more ammunition and he more solidifies the notion that were gun toting cowboys. We are not the police, we should not try and be them!! We are not allowed by law to use our firearm UNLESS we are in immediate danger (which that statement could be argued), but if your telling me in that situation that you would draw your gun preparing for 10k plus in lawyer fees right away, you have too much money.

We, or another. If he thought the crazy-ass driver who crashed into the park was about to run over a kid, he was justified.

Why throw him under a bus for a split second decision to attempt to save the lives of a bunch of children? ANY self defense situation is going to be a split second decision, whether it's right or wrong.

Probably related to this occurrence, the Rochester PB will be having a big article this weekend asking if the "conceal and carry law is working"... I can already guess what their opinion will be.

Maybe they should read John R Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime.

With all due respect, if there was a child about to be run over, I would imagine Mr. Rose would have to demonstrate proof of that. I did not see in any of the published reports that there were hoards of children, clinging to each other in fear, to the front or rear of the driver's vehicle. There was property damage but no mention of imminent danger to any persons.

You(all of us) have had days to mull this over. This guy had seconds, at most, to decide what to do about a wild driver who crashed into a park full of children, and was, to his perception, about to run over kids again, in an effort to get away.

No disrespect, but throwing someone under a bus for trying to do what's right, with a split second decision, after monday-morning-quarterbacking for a few days, isn't right.

How many times do we(collectively) say, "If only a permit holder had been there"? How did everyone react when the permit holder in Colorado saved countless lives in the church? Or the permit holder in Nevada who stopped the mass-shooting in a bar? Everybody makes a fast decision based on very little data, and a flash of perceivable events. Hopefully, the decision is right.

Apparently, to satisfy many posters here, you have to allow the assailant to injure or kill the first victim so that you have a "body" to back up your reasonable perception of imminent threat of death or GBH.

Well, yeah, but . . .

Several days later is not only time enough for armchair quarterbacking of this kind of stuff -- which, speaking personally, is the only kind of involvement I ever want to have with that kind of scary stuff* -- but it's also more than enough time to spin out a carefully-constructed excuse.

Which doesn't mean that I'm saying the guy's lying. I dunno. Really.

But assume, just for the sake of argument, that the story that we've gotten is pretty much what happened. That it really, truly looked like a drunk driver had squashed somebody -- although nobody got squashed -- and was about to drive off and maybe squash somebody else. And assume, further, that after some extensive discussion by a good criminal defense attorney with the city attorney -- it's a gross misdemeanor, the city will handle it -- the city attorney decides to drop the charges, and further assume that the county attorney doesn't decide to file felony charges against the guy . . .

And, at this point, that's the best that can happen to the guy.

So, assuming all that, the poor guy is out several thousand dollars, will have gone through -- minimum -- weeks of worrying about being prosecuted, and will, in the days of Google, follow him for the rest of his life.

Now, given that it works out that well -- and it might -- how good, in retrospect, does his action look vs. grabbing his nearby friends/loved ones (if there were any around), and dragging them behind the nearest solid object, like a tree?



_______________________
*Not only is Murphy not my friend, he hates me.

In both those times that are referred in this post there were victims already and there was no other choice, this particular case in discussion, there was no definite victims.

How did the permit holder know the guy was drunk? He could've had medical problems (seizure behind the wheel, heart attack) there a millions of reasons not to draw your weapon but a couple reasons too.

We could all talk about what we would've done in that situation (kind of like being on a airplane of 9/11, you always hear everyone say, man i would've....) So i can't speculate what i would've done, but based on what i've heard, I truly would've found it hard to do what he did in his position, BUT again like i said we can all say what we would've done.