Officer takes cover as man with concealed carry permit fires at suspect

[barstoolguru]

The permit holder told police he was about to enter an AT&T store at 4756 W. Cal-Sag Road around noon on Saturday when he noticed the store was being robbed, Crestwood police said in a statement. The man stayed outside to prevent anyone from entering, police said, and after he saw the suspect leaving through a back door, entered the store and chased him.

police have decided not to file charges against an 86-year-old man who fired his weapon at an armed robbery suspect who was fleeing

86-year-old won't be charged in concealed carry shooting, prosecutors say - chicagotribune.com

[salvo]

talk about double standard he isn't being charged because he is old!! if someone younger would have tried to play cop there would be charges filed there was no longer a threat as the suspect was fleeing. like the old man that chased the pregnant girl down an alley and shot her to death to teach her bf a lesson.

[barstoolguru]

talk about double standard he isn't being charged because he is old!! if someone younger would have tried to play cop there would be charges filed there was no longer a threat as the suspect was fleeing. like the old man that chased the pregnant girl down an alley and shot her to death to teach her bf a lesson.

get your AARP card while they last

[salvo]

I cant wait to get old and play superhero lol

[salvo]

or vigilante I should say

[David2014]

Personally, I hope the PC pendulum is swinging back to the good guys. Up until the mid to late 60's it was OK to shoot a fleeing felon in the back. If you ordered them to stop or you'd shoot... and they kept running... they were bought & paid for! It helped thin the human herd of repeat offenders. When bad guys knew they could be shot in the back fleeing a crime...felony crime wasn't nearly as bad as it is today. Innocent people don't need to run when a cop or homeowner tells them to stop.

[LoboTBLMC]

I'm with David on this. The simple fact is that society is better off without criminals or at least fewer criminals. I'm not wholeheartedly in favor of vigilantism per se but I do believe there are times when a citizen can and should use deadly force to prevent the commission of a serious crime and/or the escape of a person who just committed a serious crime. For clarification; by serious crime, I am referring to any felony and any misdemeanor falling under the categories of assault or theft other than minor thefts of <$50.

[Amishman44]

get your AARP card while they last

Screw AARP...get your AMAC card...it's a much better choice (he he)!

[Amishman44]

Personally, I hope the PC pendulum is swinging back to the good guys. Up until the mid to late 60's it was OK to shoot a fleeing felon in the back. If you ordered them to stop or you'd shoot... and they kept running... they were bought & paid for! It helped thin the human herd of repeat offenders. When bad guys knew they could be shot in the back fleeing a crime...felony crime wasn't nearly as bad as it is today. Innocent people don't need to run when a cop or homeowner tells them to stop.

I'm not directly advocating shooing someone in the back...but I'll use this as a reference for another perspective. As a former high school teacher, kids naturally split up into various groups while in high school. You have those kids who will do anything, regardless of the consequences because they simply don't care what happens to them until after it happens. You also have those kids who will never do anything because they understand the consequences and make the wise choice to avoid the negatives in life. Then you have those in the middle...who, if they think they will not get caught and have negative consequences will go ahead and do a few stupid things for kicks or for payback or whatever. However, if you 'penalize' (read 'slam dunk') the first kid who does something stupid or wrong in your class...and the rest of them see / find out about it, you've quickly reigned in a majority of the issues in the classroom because the largest number of kids will want to avoid the consequences...especially if they see them handed out on 1 or 2 kids.

Example: In GA, the high school I was teaching at was being remodeled, so several classes were being held in classroom trailers parked outside the school building. Because we, as teachers, had to clean them (thank you lazy union custodians) we decided to have a 'no food or drinks' policy when in the classroom trailers. My 1st week on the job, I had a kid bring a Dr. Pepper into the classroom and pop the top on it (thinking he was conspicuous) but I heard it. I stopped and stared at him for a few seconds...then asked him if he had brought a drink into my classroom? He, of course, replied 'no'...so I had him bring it up and set it on my desk (I was simply going to hold it for him during classroom time.) When he got to the desk, he took a quick drink before he sat it down (MISTAKE!) When he got back to his seat and sat down, I was holding his drink...told him thanks for bringing my favorite drink for me...and proceeded to pound it right in front of him. He got pissed and said I owed him $.50 for the pop. I told him I believed it was a gift! Other kids said to him, 'Hey, coach warned us...you should have known better!' Point being...I never had a issue with food or drinks in my classroom again! The kids quickly figured out I was serious about what I had said...and after that incident, they believed me!

[NunquamNonParatus]

AARP=backing gun control, and they made millions promoting the lie of Obamacare