The AJC site has the story. After some dancing in the Graveyard Tavern, a popular East Atlanta night spot, a couple returned to their vehicle parked nearby. A man approached the passenger-side window. Atlanta police Detective Michael Willis describes the action.
Believing the man was going to beg for money, the passenger rolled down his window a few inches, Willis said. But he had a strange feeling about the man, so he grabbed his gun from the glove box and put it on his lap, Willis said.
He asked the stranger what he wanted, and noticed the man was reaching for his waistband or pockets, the detective said. Instinctively, the passenger shoved open his door, knocking the suspected robber back a few feet, Willis said. The woman started screaming.
The man got out of the truck and the suspected robber raised a weapon at him, Willis said. “When he saw that, he just started shooting,” the detective said.
The man shot the suspected robber five or six times, in the stomach and chest, Willis said. The robber did not fire any shots.
“He just got the jump on him,” Willis said of the victim. “He told me he fired until the guy was no longer a threat to him.”
This story bothers me a little bit. Mainly, why did it take five or six shots, all in the torso of the would-be robber? I would imagine the bumbling thief was no longer a threat after the second or third round. Officer Willis seems a bit quick to defend the shooter. Aren't the police supposed to be more suspicious than that?
But, assuming it happened exactly like that, I must admit it makes a beautiful argument for carrying a gun. I'm afraid it's a big assumption, though that it happened exactly like that. There must be cases among these defensive shootings in which it was really capital punishment meted out by a single citizen. One good guy killing one bad guy. If the bad guy was doing something bad, if he had a gun, the good guy easily gets away with it. The police help because it makes their job easier.
What do you think? Did this sound like a justified shooting to you?
Let's say the robber really did threaten to shoot the couple by raising a gun, and the man shot him in justified self defense, but kept shooting three or four times after the threat ended. Adrenalin was pumping, it happened fast. How bad is that? I say not so bad. It shouldn't even require the statement that "he fired until the guy was no longer a threat to him." The only question is was it justified to fire the first time. If the robber raised a gun, then yes it was justified.
Why is it that the main stream press so rarely runs a story like this? I'll bet it gets plenty of clicks. I don't think it's because these defensive gun stories aren't "sexy" enough. I say it's because they happen much less frequently then the violent, misuse-of-guns stories. That's why. Then when you remove all the defensive gun stories that are really murder, good guy killing bad guy, what's left? Not nearly as much as some people say.
What's your opinion? Do you think CNN has an axe to grind against the gun folks and for that reason suppresses these stories? That's been suggested around here, but I find it unconvincing.
What do you think?