Instead of handing his things over, the elderly man pulled out a gun and shot the robber in the head and chest. He was pronounced dead at the scene. https://t.co/rGgjpmFQdk
— FOX 5 Atlanta (@FOX5Atlanta) November 7, 2021
An elderly man with a concealed carry license shot and killed a robber in Chicago on Saturday afternoon, police said.
The 77-year-old was in a garage on East 89th near MLK in West Chesterfield around 12:30 p.m. when the robber drove up.
The robber pulled out a gun and demanded the elderly man’s stuff, police said.
Instead of handing his things over, the elderly man pulled out a gun and shot the robber in the head and chest, police said. He was pronounced dead at the scene. On Sunday, he was identified as Bernard Peterson.
I bet that punk thought the old man would be an easy target.
Right until he got suddenly onset lead poisoning.
Old dude made a head canoe out of that thug.
Criminals like easy targets. Don’t be easy.
I can’t recommend drawing on a drawn weapon very often, but it worked this time
The standard answer is “just give the robber what he wants”. The trouble is that the robber may well decide to kill you anyway, either because that’s what he does for fun, or because he wants no witnesses. So drawing your own weapon in an attempt to defend yourself is the best answer given that very real possibility.
This is why I mock ‘proportionate response’ ceaselessly.
It’s asking me to magically determine if a lawbreaker — remember, he’s not there selling donuts! — will be content with just my wallet and phone, or if he wants my shoes and my life (to say nothing of family members, etc).
So yeah. Default response should be to kill their asses stone dead.
That’s not right.
The legitimate response to any threat of violence (with or without weapon) is deadly force. The goal of that force is to stop the threat. Killing the person is NOT the goal, though it is a perfectly acceptable outcome.
I would like to hear whoever voted this down to explain why he thinks I said something incorrect.
To me, stopping the threat is the same as proportional response, only do enough to stop the threat, f that. Deadly force is exactly that, someone attacks me, I will make every effort to kill him/her. As far as I’m concerned, attack me, you lose the right to life, much less the right to live in civil society.
Ok, thanks. While I sympathize with that notion, using it in practice may well get you convicted of murder. Our friendly hosts have repeatedly published examples. For example, get robbed, defend yourself, good. The robber runs off, you pursue and shoot again, bad mistake.
Do not throw the pursuit crap in here, it has nothing to do with the conversation. In Texas, as long as the perp is facing me, I can do anything I think is necessary, or I want, to him.
Deflection is not nice.
Neutralize the threat.
Murum Aries Attigit: the ram has touched the wall.
It refers to the roman army concept of not allowing any mercy or surrender to the occupants of a fortification once the battering ram begins the assault on the city walls.
Medieval Europe, the law of war was once a breech is made in a wall, the defenders either surrender or everyone dies.
Which is why the sack of Jerusalem occurred during the 1st Crusade. Crusaders punched a big farking hole in the wall, the defenders didn’t surrender, everyone given the sword.
The actual law of war was: Surrounded location surrenders before hole in wall, basically the defenders pay ransom, give some hostages. Bang a hole in the wall, those that decided not to surrender go to the sword, more ransom, more hostages. Don’t give up, everyone dies. It’s what allowed medieval wars to not be as bloody and destructive as they could have been (contrary to what, of course, you see in the movies.)
Seemed appropriate given the topic.
https://youtu.be/2WTgq0w_hKs
A bit off-topic, but, if possible, stay multiple blocks away from any street named after the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. All respect due to the man himself, but.
I’ve never seen an MLK street, avenue, boulevard, way, etc., that was in a good part of town.
Not in a civilized area, much less good part of town.
Ditto Malcolm X.
Not that I am an expert, but, it seems to me that Malcolm’s teachings were in favor of self reliance and non reliance upon others.
Kinda opposite day, with regard to what the subject neighborhoods seem to be about.
And areas with streets named after Cesar Chavez are kind of sketchy, too.
Most comment have been about proportional response
I have a differnt question
WHO was this old man in the city of Chicago to legally obtain a concealed carry permit ?
Asking for the law abiding people in Chicago
Grain of salt: Heard he was a retired firefighter.
How did this old dude get a firearms permit in Chicago? I can hear the family now ” he dindu noffin”, he was a good boy, he was playing, ” and the out of touch media lapping it up. I figure Kim Foxx will charge the old guy, you can’t off shooting her core voter bloc.you know.
@Joe and @mrgarabaldi:
I predict that if we find out more about the old man, we’ll discover one of two things (maybe both):
1. He got his carry permit after “shall-issue” was enacted state-wide but before Chicago and/or Cook County imposed their extra restrictions, or
2. He’s not from Chicago; he’s from a more gun-friendly district down-state and just happened to be in Chicago with his Illinois permit.
Archer
NOVEMBER 8, 2021 AT 2:43 PM
ARRRRRGGGHHHH !!!
All of Illinois has conceal carry including Cook County and the city of Chicago.
But is the entire state “must issue”? In “may issue” places, only the rich and connected get permits.
Illinois is a “Shall Issue” state
Thanks to another old man named McDonald, Chicago and Illinois now have SHALL Issue Carry Permits. They still have their FOiD Card requirements too.
https://handgunlaw.us/states/illinois.pdf
RIP Mr. McDonald You and Alan Gura fought for everyone’s rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago