Has a rampaging nut been killed/stopped by armed civilians

With apologies to the OP for continuing the hijack, but…

For anyone who’s curious, the other place is a forum to be found here…http://p086.ezboard.com/bnads. It’s a public forum, so I’m not sure what the coy reference is for?

As for kimdutoit, as per the request at the other forum, how about actually saying which of the several hundred articles in that blog you’re referring to?

Not what you were looking for, but it halfway fits:
The LAPD borrowed AR-15s from a civilian gun store to end the Hollywood bank robbery/shootout in 1997.

Here are some examples. This is from a Newsmax article by Neil Boortz, so you won’t want to cite it as a primary reference, but it contains enough names and dates that you should be able to Google the source articles.

From the cite:

This is the incident I was thinking of. According to Boortz, a Lexis-Nexus search for the 30 days following the shooting showed a total of 687 articles. Only 19 of those articles mentioned Myrick. Only 10 of those said that Myrick used a gun to stop the attack.

Continuing:

Except that he wasn’t stopped. He’d finished his massacree-ing and was on his way home.

How do you know he was finished?

That’s the problem with these types of questions - it’s impossible to know what a person would have done had he not been shot.

Yeah.
George III.

[size = small] sorry, couldn’t resist. Just glad someone did.

Is that legal? Shooting him can be argued as preventing possible further deaths, but running him over with the car seems like asking to be sued.

Deadly force to prevent a murder is legal. Cars or guns are both deadly force. I guess the question is whether or not jumping on him and hand-cuffing him would have been safe and reasonable.