cops took his gun, then he was robbed and killed..

Over the rhine is a very dangerous part of my community. Which I get to drive through at times, as I have customers in the area... (the riots a few years back were very interesting...)

Move. Also, the guy wasn't exactly a prince among men. Article states he was charged with illegally buying food stamp last year. Probably accepting them in trade for liquor or smokes would be my guess. Doesn't make it alright to pop a cap in his ass, but still he wasn't exactly on the road to sainthood.

How did I know this would be a free enterprise thread?

Nov 2007 he was robbed and the thief took $400 from him, (two weeks profits). He ran after the thief and fired shots at him unloading his handgun.   The police were outraged that he would try and do their job for them, so they took his gun.

Well... lets start with the fact that he shouldn't have shot at the guy as he ran away. You should never fire at someone unless they are a direct physical threat to yourself or someone else. Robbery is no reason to kill someone, especially when they are running away. I assume that you are a gun owner yourself, and thus, should know that.

 

We should just ban all weapons from the public.  Then crime would stop.

I agree that he shouldn't have shot down the street, (but this was over the rhine, where gunshots down the street literally happen every day...)

F.E. standard police procedure in ALL police departments is to impound any weapon used in connection to a crime, be it the criminal's weapon or the weapon used in defense. They do this not to put the owner of the firearm at any disadvantage or as a form of punishment, but rather for evidence and forensics reasons. If he hadn't fired when the assailant had already fled the premises, then he'd have still had his gun. The fact of the matter is that he discharged a firearm on public property and the police had to follow procedure. Ohio is a pretty decent state when it comes to gun laws, so are you telling me that he was so concerned about his safety but didn't go purchase a shotgun from the local Dick's sporting goods after his handgun was taken away?

We all gotta die sometime.  Quit your crying and move on.

FreeEnterprise wrote:   So now he is dead, because of thinking like this...

No, he is dead because someone shot him while robbing his store.

Reb Cpl wrote: agentwhale007 wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: Why do I get the feeling that nearly everyone who posts here saying "He shouldn't have shot at the guy" would have done exactly the same thing in the same situation. He didn't even shoot the guy. He shot at him while running. From the article: In November 2007, $400 was taken from his store. Nassar grabbed his gun and followed the thief out. He emptied the gun, shooting five shots and missing. That's five stray bullets going into a presumably urban Cincinnati area. I understand what you are saying, about you have to be there to understand it. I really do. But I also understand that if you do something like he did, the police are going to, and should, take your firearm away. I agree with you 100% Maybe my saying "We'd do exactly the same" is erroneous. Would the majority of us have done something SIMILAR? Quite possibly. I don't know as though we'd go tear assing through the streets of Cincinnati shooting at someone who tried to rob us, but a shot at the guy while you're still suffering a massive dose of adrenaline coupled with a dangerous cocktail of other emotions isn't too far outside the realms of reality for most people.

Running down the street shooting means shooting without aiming properly. That's a huge gun safety violation.

Yes, many of us would have done the same; but that doesn't mean:

That response cannot be trained out of us.
That it's still grounds for letting the guy get off scott free for doing something so reckless.