Those in favor of civilian disarmament mischaracterize “stand your ground laws” as “shoot first” laws. As if it’s OK to shoot someone if you think it’s OK, regardless of how credible or imminent the threat of death of grievous bodily harm. As if your decision isn’t subject to prosecutorial and/or legal review. There’s at least one gun owner who shared this view [story via columbiatrubune.com]. . .
The 20-year-old man [Karl] Henson is accused of shooting met Henson in the 1500 block of Riva Ridge Court at about 5:15 p.m. Monday to purchase an iPhone 7 from Henson. Henson said the man looked at his phone before he ran off around a duplex with the phone still in hand, Stevens wrote.
Hanson chased the man and fired seven shots at him, Stevens wrote. Police looked for the injured man, who was hit in his left heel, but did not find him until a private vehicle took him to University Hospital for treatment.
D’oh! You can’t shoot someone unless they pose an imminent credible threat of grievous bodily harm or death.
Double d’oh, actually, as Mr. Hanson thought Missouri’s new “stand your ground” statute —Senate Bill 656 — allowed this ballistic response to a fleeing felon.
Henson said “the only reason I thought it was OK to shoot at him while he was running away was because of what happened with the new year with the gun law change,” Officer Spirit Stevens wrote in a probable cause statement.
Mr. Henson’s ballistic solution to his iPhone 7 theft highlights the need to know your state’s laws regarding the use of deadly force.
For example, if he’d been in Texas, at night, and reasonably believed a thief would escape with his property, Mr. Henson could have deployed deadly force. Not that you should, but you can.
Anyway, at least Henson knew enough to STFU after a DGU.
[Officer] Stevens found Henson’s gun in his car, two shell casings beside a duplex and an unspent round in the area. Henson later declined to speak with a detective after he was advised of his rights to an attorney and to remain silent.