Reply #106: Like I said, you have made your position clear

[one-eyed fat man]

You refuse to answer the question, however.

Were the Good Samaritans in these instances foolhardy for trying to help?

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8413723&cmp=twi-kabc-article-8413723

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/passers_by_let_good_sam_die_5SGkf5XDP5ooudVuEd8fbI

The second is especially egregious as apparently the woman who was being assaulted didn't bother to call the police to summon aid for the man who likely saved her life. Of all the people who walked past with a cell phone the only ones who used their phone only did to take pictures of the dying man. The one guy you think is reaching down to help the man turns out to be a more typical New Yorker, he just rifles through the man's pockets.

Was the Good Samaritan who chased after a thief whom he witnessed pistol whip an elderly woman and take her purse a "vigilante" in you view?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_B0XHuSt28tjaVFIPVW23YI

Actually, you want it both ways. If a permit holder only defends himself he is craven; if he intervenes to save an innocent, he is a bloodthirsty vigilante. Were that real life and it's decisions were as simple as you.

Hide and turn up the TV.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke