About 23-24 years ago, in Bristol, I woke up in the middle of the night, and, assuming that the usual reason was why I had woken up, headed for the loo ('bathroom' in American) at the top of the stairs. I was stark naked.
TMI, Roger. With all due respect.
They had stolen the usual stuff: stereo, TV. But a naked man with a sword in his hand clearly got their attention, and distracted them from their attempts to smoke, on the premises, Tibetan incense! Hence the smell...
Tibetan incense, eh? I take it they got into your private stash.
In California it wouldn't have been an air pistol or sword, but equally, I don't think I'd have shot fleeing thieves in the back, at least fatally, if they'd refused to stop (a warning shot might have persuaded them).
As an enthusiastic gun owner and a proponent of personal concealed carry, I can only say that I also would not shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. I will defend my life and the lives of my family with deadly force if necessary. However, I am neither bloodthirsty nor stupid. A fleeing criminal represents no threat to my life at that time. Nor would I have fired a 'warning shot' as there is no telling where it might come down, and we do have sufficient population density that 'stray bullet deaths' are rare but do happen here.
Property can be replaced; that is why I have insurance. In any case, it is not worth my life, and any confrontation between a criminal and a homeowner is a much higher risk than simply letting the fleeing criminal go. I am death-averse and aware of risk.
On the other hand, if someone were to break into my house and I discovered them whilst they were in the act of invading, deadly force would be an option I would consider using. I have no desire to shoot anyone, and somehow I have managed to avoid it as a civilian (military requirements being somewhat different), but I also have no aversion to it. I value human life, but ultimately, I value mine and my families most of all. If I feel the choice is between me and thee, I choose me.
As a British copper said, when explaining why he abandoned the chase for a speeding motorist, "Yes, they were breaking the law, but it wasn't anything that they or I deserved to die for. "
As a former LEO, I can only say that the debate in the USA is ongoing over pursuit policies. Some departments have no-pursuit policies and some do not. Some have some regulated approaches to pursuits based on the perceived risk to the public and approval from supervisors at the time.
Police departments have faced public outrage and lawsuits for a) abandoning pursuits and b) continuing pursuits. A department is sued (and settles) when a police car chases a carjacker through town and the carjacker runs over and kills a pedestrian. Another department is sued (and settles) when they abandon a pursuit as 'too dangerous to the public' and the criminal is later apprehended at home after he kills his family. There seems to be no
'right answer' that will meet with public approval. Every debate I've ever seen on the subject simply devolves into people taking one side or the other and refusing to accept that there is ever a situation where the opposite approach makes sense. End result: the police lose no matter what they do.
