This story has a good ending but offers several insights.
1: The press once again fawns over a LEO or agent of the state.
Were the patron a permit holder you would've seen more inflammatory language like "took the law into his own hands" and "risked the lives of the other bar patrons". Instead we have:
Nowhere does the article attributed to Philadelphia Newspapers mention risk to the other patrons. No mention is made what the off-duty officers were doing in the bar, whether or not they were drinking (alcohol) which may have impaired their judgment."As the gunman reached down to pick it up, the officer slowly withdrew his weapon, Evers said. The officer fired several shots at the thugs, hitting one, later identified by police as Joseph Orr, 20. The men ran from the bar with $1,000 from the register and a wallet containing one of the officers' badge and identification.
2) None of the patrons were interviewed/qouted by the press in the story… nor the Tavern staff - why is that? Once again, apply the scene to a permit holder and the standard by which we are treated by the press and they would be interviewing everyone under the sun - "Did you know the bar patrons had guns?" "Do you allow people to drink with guns?" etc. Yet we see none of these tough questions.
One glaring example of how a situation can go really wrong in seconds and all the good choices are gone.
I don't doubt that the shooting was justified. Nor do I question that the officers han the obligation to intervene. However, rather if you read the report in context it leaves several unanswered questions. Questions that would have been asked were the shooter a permit holder not an officer.
I applaud the officers -- but condemn The Philadelphia Daily News and the rest of the MSM and the Philadelphia PD brass who flaunt the State's Must Issue Law.