This is an interesting case:
‘Good Samaritan’ arrested with gun
Guy had good intent, but took it beyond his legal protections it would seem.
1. He sees an assault.
2. He stops to help but assailant flees.
3. Victim of assault is ok.
This is the good part. Good job done, pat on the back. But he goes on to flub:
4. Jumps in car.
5. Chases down attacker.
6. Pulls firearm to hold attacker for police.
Results:
7. Police arrive to find young man pointing gun at older man.
8. Attacker walks from scene and faces mistomeaner.
9. Gun owner arrested and facing felony charges.
Things to ponder:
What would you have done?
When do you go towards a good, but perhaps leave legal behind?
Good reading,
Techres
P.S. Yes the article is slanted, the gun owner likely unfairly treated, etc. This thread is about what is, not what should be. The law falls under the "is" category. If your comments go to "what should be" then they will miss the point.
‘Good Samaritan’ arrested with gun
Guy had good intent, but took it beyond his legal protections it would seem.
1. He sees an assault.
2. He stops to help but assailant flees.
3. Victim of assault is ok.
This is the good part. Good job done, pat on the back. But he goes on to flub:
4. Jumps in car.
5. Chases down attacker.
6. Pulls firearm to hold attacker for police.
Results:
7. Police arrive to find young man pointing gun at older man.
8. Attacker walks from scene and faces mistomeaner.
9. Gun owner arrested and facing felony charges.
Things to ponder:
What would you have done?
When do you go towards a good, but perhaps leave legal behind?
Good reading,
Techres
P.S. Yes the article is slanted, the gun owner likely unfairly treated, etc. This thread is about what is, not what should be. The law falls under the "is" category. If your comments go to "what should be" then they will miss the point.