Here is the Story.

Here is Mamamotezz's take on it:

This is so much crap.
IF he was involved in a traffic incident,
IF a group of irate individuals had surrounded his vehicle,
IF he felt his safety and his child's safety were compromised,
IF he believed that the rock eluded to in this sniveler's piece was
only the trigger item to what could have been an escalating situation,
IF he felt he had no recourse but to pull the gun,
then he did exactly the right thing.

He pulled it before the other person was able to throw the rock and hit
the car, potentially entering it and hurting his child, also
potentially inciting the rest of this angry group into joining in.

Given the limited information in this editorial piece, common actually,
since no one wants the facts to get in the way of an opinion, I still
find no fault in the actions of this driver. Had I angered a group of
unknown people and felt threatened by their bahaviors, I would have done
exactly the same. '

Tell Reginald Denny it was only a rock and only meant to damage his
truck.
*************************************************************
I can only say that I agree with Mama. The editorialist tried the GFW tactic of saying it "wasn't politeness engendered by the weapon, it was fear" Well Exxxxcuuuuuse me! Obviousman is apparently a newspaper editor in Salt Lake City. use of a weapon in self defense is SUPPOSED to engender fear in the possible recipients of lethal action, and to stop escalation to the point where that force is required; thats the non-lethal purpose of a weapon.

I suppose that Mr. Schanze could have just waited until the crowd got really ugly before doing anything....but by his actions, he forstalled any escalation in the incident, and no one was hurt or any further property damaged.

The last sentence in the opinion is particularly telling:
"Some people, who carry large sums of money or have specific reasons to feel endangered, may be safer if they are armed.
The rest of us are not. "

Just HOW in HELL does this man presume to inform us that "we'd be safer if we didn't have the means to defend ourselves when we feel threatened"?!?
It's hard to tell if Mr. Schanze was legally justified from the meager facts in the story, but the fact remains that, in HIS mind at least, HE felt threatened enough to warrent exposing his weapon, AND he didn't USE deadly force, he merely showed himself capable of doing so, should the situation come to justify it, and in the process, defused the situation. I say give the guy a slap on the back and a "well done".

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:29 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.