“We simply ask that anybody who might want to criticize Sgt. Perry’s actions, picture themselves trapped in a car as a masked stranger raises an assault rifle in their direction and reflect upon what they might have done if faced with the split-second decision faced by Sgt. Perry that evening.”
The most important part of the statement [by Sgt. Daniel Perry’s defense attorney] is one we all often have a problem heeding in such situations: “We urge the public to allow the police to conduct a full investigation.”
It’s a request that’s both difficult and important with which to comply. It’s challenging to avoid speculation, such as I’m doing here. There are more facts to be discerned. And, for prosecutors, difficult decisions to be made.
But among the possibilities is that in this tragic case, under our gun and self-defense laws, we had two law-abiding citizens, availing themselves of their rights, who had the legal right to attempt to kill each other.
One succeeded. And might both still be alive if one or the other hadn’t chosen to exercise his right to carry a firearm that night?
If Perry faces no charges, one side is going to be left very angry. It’ll be the side motivated to the July 25 protest by deeply held beliefs that our laws are not equitably enforced.
And that could lead to a new reason to protest the actions, or in this case inactions, of law enforcement.
It’s a fit topic for debate and protest. But next time, at the next protest, how about if everybody voluntarily forfeits their right to bear arms and leaves the guns at home and everybody just shouts at each other?
– Ken Herman in Two men, two guns, one death