Implications of the Walker's Point Murder

Headless thought a bit about the event, and lays out some logic.

There is a long-standing paradigm for armed robbery business transactions in the United States. If the victim hands over his money, wallet and other valuables without a fight or other resistance; the armed robber will not shoot him. This social contract serves both the victim's and the armed robber's interests. The victim escapes with his life for only the small cost of the valuables he carries. For the robber, this agreement helps speed the transaction and minimizes the risk of the victim resisting with deadly force.

The rules must be different where these perpetrators come from. Their rules go something like: the robber takes the money from the cooperative victim, then shoots him dead. If this becomes the norm in the U.S., suddenly we will have no reason to cooperate with the armed robber. Grab for the gun, stall for time, or run for your life, these are all logically preferable options to placidly handing over your cash and waiting to die.

And if, by chance, you have a loaded handgun on your person, blast the assailant before he knows it is coming.

Like in the Old West, a six-gun holstered on your hip provides for a fast draw

The logic is impeccable. If the rules have changed, then we should react accordingly.

That's why the Milwaukee Police Department is screaming "random...isolated" at the top of its collective lungs. The MPD cannot acknowledge that this modus operandi is common (and so far, it is not) for if it does, you can bet your tax rebate that S&W's will be selling like Packer tix for the championship game. Hot, heavy, and at a premium.

But then there's the Kozzie Park incident. Same MO, no fatality.

Hmmmmm.