Australian nanny state-ism?
Let’s see, we have …
1. A security guard licensed to carry a pistol, who is …
2. Supposed to protect US $21,000 at a hotel from …
3. An armed robber who who inflicts on her “ a fractured skull, a broken nose and left hand, and possible brain damage ,” so . . .
4. She shoots him (and there is no such thing as “shoot to wound” when your life is on the line), he dies, and . . . .
5. She is charged with murder.
Pretty soon I’m going to start sounding like Kim du Toit, if this keeps up. I’m glad that I live in a state where what should be the common-law right to self defense is written into the statutes.
Any Australian readers care to elucidate?