Dirty Pool

4
584
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It used to be considered bad form to shoot a man in the back. Today, it’s policy. Well, policy for armed government workers – who uniquely are empowered to shoot people in the back. Here’s an example:

A Nashville, TN man was running away from an armed government worker. The armed government worker was apparently unable to catch up to the fleeing man and so stopped, aimed – and shot him dead.

In the back.

The man  was reportedly carrying a gun but not even the armed government worker is claiming that the man pointed it at him or even looked back at him. He was fleeing while armed – and that is enough, apparently, to justify summary execution.

This is interesting on several levels.

First, there is no pretense of “officer safety” – the usual justification given for summary execution. In other words, this ratchets things up. Apparently, trying to get away is sufficient justification for summary execution.

Which brings up the second interesting thing.

If you are not an armed government worker – and even if you have a permit to carry a gun – in most states, you commit a felony if you shoot a person who is trying to get away from you.

Even in “stand your ground” states.

You are only permitted to use deadly force if confronted. And in some states, you also have an obligation to attempt to get away from the threat and may only resort to lethal force if you cannot get away.

The TN armed government worker may have been legally (and even morally) justified in chasing this man, who reportedly was a car theft suspect. But shooting him in the back – capital punishment – just because he was “getting away” is a bit much and sets a scary precedent.

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos magnets are free to those who send in $20 or more. My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If you find it useful, consider contributing a couple of bucks!  

 

 

 

 

 

Share Button

4 COMMENTS

  1. Government employees are a very special class. That’s what collective societies are about, creating all sorts of special classes of people.

    The reason to use such force to stop him would be the recovery of property or prevent a person from causing harm to another. A car thief isn’t running away on foot with someone’s car and isn’t likely posing a danger to anyone. So it’s a bit hard to justify shooting him except as revenge or summary punishment. And it’s that punishment that cops are interested in since often in auto theft they destroy the car to get the thief. That is they have no interest in recovering the property.

  2. Nothing worse than a slave with a gun, nevermind running away from an armed gunvermint worker too!

    gun+vermin+mint (cuz they print & control the money)

    I’m starting to think they’re actually “trained” to shoot anyone with a gun. 😐 So much for permits. Just having to get permission to carry a gun … oh lord … sickening. Seems to me the only solution is very simple — to proactively build a better foundation to this country/society by having huge civics groups in every county and merc groups to back it up. Until then, gunvermints keep getting more ABSOLUTE POWER and we all know what that does (corrupts & attracts the worst)

    In the meantime, make sure to pay your “shared responsibility” portion to the Oblahblah Don’tCare scam which will forward it directly to the Tezla fake car company.

    • Morning, Crazy Harry!

      I have a CHP and carry. Will I be shot to death by a “hero” who “feared for his safety” because he saw I was armed when he pulled me over for not wearing a seatbelt?

      It seems the only safe thing to do – for us – is to assume an I surrender position, with our hands in the air and not flinch or speak or do anything that a “hero” could claim “made him feel “unsafe.”

      Because there is no longer any meaningful legal impediment restraining these “heroes” from summarily executing us in the streets.

      • Indeed. Thanks for the reply. Keep up the good fight. At least we good people are moving forward and have a bright future to look forward to.

LEAVE A REPLY