NO press, NO meeting.
I'd think I'd meet in private, if I really thought it would help the victim.
NO press, NO way, however.....
I hope, that I'll never have to make that choice...
i got to go with no press no meeting
I applaud Mr. Moore's actions. :congrats: :congrats: :congrats:
I'd meet her in private. No press coverage, no publicity.
In Utah, there is nothing in state statute that prohibits permit holders from being in a bar with a concealed firearm. However, it is illegal to be intoxicated and in possession of a firearm. The level of intoxication that is considered illegal is held to the same standard as when driving a car. I guess it varies in every state.
Though, to be fair, the M-H doesn't take it that far. The article questions the Florida law that presumes any moving vehicle to be of lethal threat regardless of circumstances, as opposed to a law like New York's, which requires the vehicle to be a lethal danger to others before being seen as such (ie, mere movement isn't sufficient).
I would probably privately meet with the victim if (s)he requested it. I'd obviously want to know where they stood and whether there would be any legal or civil issues first. Wouldn't want to meet a person who was gonna sue me and thought I'd made a mistake saving their life! :blink:
In this case, it sounded like she wasn't the type to press charges or sue.
The media at large?? NEVER! :nono:
I would meet with the lady , with my lawyer , and in a private setting . This is more for my benifit than hers tho , I would like to know what sort of person i killed someone to protect . The press can deal with police reports , and whateaver else my lawyer says .. I have no intrest in any type interview, but will listen to the mouthpiece if he deems it necessairy for me to go public due to the politics of the local prossicuting office , and the incident ( not to raise racisim but i am white , and that fact can make a difference in the press unless countered )
Is it not possible to make a strong, positive statement on behalf of CCW by meeting with her?
I'm on the fence. I mean, we're not necessarily trained and practiced at making public statements or acting as public relations agents... There's the possibility of us putting our foot in our mouth.
On the subject of whether a cop should fire at an advancing vehicle:
I once had a letter to the editor published in the local paper on this very topic.
What I expressed was a bit of annoyance that it seemed that the cops (in this area) had recently taken to doing this quite a bit, and I challenged the efficacy of the practice.
What is the goal, when firing at a vehicle? To hit the driver? The car is a danger if the driver is trying to run someone (the cop or others) down. If the cop does hit the driver and incapacitate or kill him, the car does not cease to be a danger. It is still 4,000 lbs. of momentum, and now it is not being steered, so who knows what or who it will hit if the cop succeeds in hitting the driver.
In my letter, I said that it's not as though enough shots are going to make the car explode and dematerialize like what happens in video games when you get to a "boss" level. In the cases to which I was referring in my letter, cops had fired a lot of rounds, some of which could have endangered others in nearby buildings, etc., and for what goal? It seems as though many times cops are using the act of someone driving to run them down as an excuse to trigger their right to execute the driver. Even a deliberate act like someone shooting at another person does not give the victim the right to execute the perpetrator. In the cases I referenced, the car was passing by the cop. What justifies continuing to shoot at the driver? A desire to see the car go rolling away not under a driver's control?
I doubt I would want to meet with her. I would want to put it all behind me. I would however like to meet with the District Attourney that took a year to rule it a justifiable use of self defense on her behalf. That should not have taken so long.