Should you help?

[Sim G]

Chuck, they don't. The vast majority of those who defend themselves or others, detain or arrest offenders or assist in any of the above, are treated accordingly. With respect, praise and gratitude.

I'm not doubting that some have been arrested on suspicion of offences and in relatively few cases, some will be charged and even one or two may end up being convicted, but that will be because of how and in what circumstances they have applied the law. And that is exactly the same for police officers.

And the words are effecting or assisting....

[Chuck]

OK sim..clearer now.

[Oddbod]

The difficulty with this scenario is perception.



I find it hard to believe that anyone 'carrying' (let alone trained law enforcement) could have prevented poor Lee's death.

#RIP

There is of course the deterrent factor.

[SevenSixTwo]

When in history has anyone with a handgun successfully defended against being run over by a car?

Generally though; an armed society is a polite society.

[Blu]

SevenSixTwo,

When in history has anyone with a handgun successfully defended against being run over by a car?

On two occasions I have witnessed a car being driven at Police Officers being stopped by fire from duty pistols. On the one occasion the driver was killed by a round penetrating the windscreen and then him. On the second occasion the shots forced the driver to swerve and hit a parked car. The where how's and when I won't go into on a public forum.

Generally though; an armed society is a polite society.

Writing as someone who lives in such a society I have to say not necessarily.zzzzom

Blu

[SevenSixTwo]

Were said Police officers on 'alert' and expecting to be driven at? Lee clearly wasn't so a firearm wouldn't have saved him.

[Blu]

Were said Police officers on 'alert' and expecting to be driven at? Lee clearly wasn't so a firearm wouldn't have saved him.

On alert yes as most Police Officers are when on duty, expecting to be driven at, no but then there is always that possibility. You are more than likely correct about Lee but I was merely answering your question of "When in history has anyone with a handgun successfully defended against being run over by a car?" nothing more.

Blu

[Chuck]

It might be fair to assume that Lee was in fact not anticipating any threat, especially one of this nature. He may well have been day dreaming with his ipod plugged in to his ears for all we know (condition white where it could take 4-6 seconds to realise something is wrong).

It is academic whether a gun would have saved him or not for the simple reason neither he or anyone else is allowed one. We have NO choice (other than we break the law) to be unarmed, which is wrong IMO.

I am sure plenty of people who have had cars driven at them deliberately were aware of it before being hit. And some who were not:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hit-run-driver ... ml#mTx8zXD

This was just a cowardly attack by deranged individuals - and by definition "you cannot win them all".

If being armed made you 100% safe then no soldiers would die in battle. Guns just give you a better chance - all things being equal.

Anyway, colour codes explained:

http://teddytactical.com/SharpenBladeAr ... reness.htm