“We Don’t Want Vigilante Justice”
Earlier this week we highlighted a self defense story out of Warren, Michigan. Warren, a close suburb of Detroit, has been plagued with increased violence that is spilling over from the greater Detroit area.
The shooting occurred when a responsibly armed citizen shot and injured a bank robber that was also armed has made headlines and promoted a response from Warren Mayor Jim Fouts.
The 63-year-old responded in kind by defending himself. It’s his Second Amendment right…. I don’t like whenever I hear there’s guns used in any kind of situation…But this had a relatively good outcome… We don’t want vigilante justice.”
Apparently, somewhere in the last few months, self defense has been re-categorized as “vigilante justice.” The man saved lives. He prevented a crime that involved a criminal with a firearm that pointed a gun at the 63-year-old. It is called self defense. Plain and simple.
If a women shoots and kills a perpetrator that is trying to sexually assault or harm her, do we label her as a “vigilante?” If a man shoots a burglar while his family is in the house, is he a “vigilante?” Since when did the Second Amendment Right, and further the natural, human right to self defense become vigilante justice?
Additionally, the criminal has a pretty interesting history. In 1989 he was convicted and served time for second degree murder and assault/bodily harm less than murder. That makes him a felon, and a serious one at that.
Do you think he obtained that firearm legally? Do you think that further gun control would have prevented this?
Or do you think that a responsibly armed citizen did what he had to do to protect his life and the lives of others from a violent criminal with a murder charge on his record?