James Ott could have shot him, and investigating sheriff’s deputies wondered why he hadn’t.
After all, James had been assaulted in his own home by a stranger. He was bleeding copiously from wounds to the head. He had been carrying a handgun. The man’s death would have meant nothing to the police and perhaps very little to the community. But Ott didn’t kill him when he could have very easily, legally — perhaps even morally — done so, and therein lies the story … or part of it.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/deadly-blows-one-mans-story-of-survival/
Personally I think the victim should have pulled the trigger. Unfortunately people think they are doing the right thing by not pulling the trigger but this will allow this evil person to do the same thing or worse again! Unfortunately they go to jail for a short while and then get turned loose on the public again. People like that need to be stopped.
Keep in mind, when we’re defending ourselves, our goal is always to stop the threat. Our intent isn’t to kill, it’s to save our life and the lives of our loved ones from imminent, unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm.
We do not know what the other person might or might not do in the future. When the threat stops, we must stop shooting. If we don’t need to pull the trigger, we shouldn’t.
Just saying, the man was already viciously attacked and the attacker was still armed. I think he risked his own safety
I understand why ott didn’t shoot, especially with his faith he lived by! I respect that.
I understand why uscca also gives the advise not to shoot as well! Liability big time with suspect leaving.
I also agree, that shooting suspect after 2nd blow to head should have been conducted. In my 40+ yrs as Leo, my instinct would tell me this suspect will return or will hurt/kill someone else if he leaves alive. That would cause me some serious guilt trips when I had the chance to stop him .