Not Enough

So we have this situation:  some asshole — who is on parole for an earlier shooting incident — decides to turn his shooty proclivity into industrial-strength mayhem.

Sounds good, dunnit?  Except for this:

[Our shootist] is seen on the sidewalk while firing several shots. He then darts behind and around a white car before running back on the sidewalk.
His frantic escape is then suddenly cut short by the courageous cop, who fires at one shot into the perp’s back.

Wait… the dickhead lets off a whole bunch of shots into a crowd, and the “courageous cop” only shoots him in the back once?

Whatever happened to “double-tap” or “I emptied my magazine into the asshole”?

Oh never mind, I just realized the problem.  It was a cop involved, and every cop (even in Tulsa, I bet) runs the risk of being charged with “using excessive force” (as if any force used against a mass shooter can be excessive) when trying to end a deadly situation.

Bah.  So the scrote was shot, but survived (I bet it was a police-issue 9mm bullet and not a manly .357 Mag or .45 ACP).  Now he’s going to have his hand smacked by our pussified legal system and sent home for tea with his mum.

Charming.

5 comments

  1. If he had ventilated the perp with a double tap, and killed him, he would have been sued by the perp’s family for excessive force. “He only WOUNDED 9 people, not killed them. Why did the cop have to KILL him???”.

    1. You left out the part about his momma complaining that the cop shot her choir boy in the back, when he was no longer a threat to the cop (I doubt the momma and her friends understand that the full name of “Self-Defense” is “Self-Defense and Defense of Others.” That her dear choir boy son was fleeing and still had his gun meant that he represented a deadly and imminent threat to the lives of people not yet identified. Also, “Self-Defense applies, even if the deadly threat is sent to the next world for more appropriate punishment.

Comments are closed.