Paramedics and Firefighters are among my readership. Law enforcement are among my readership. I know how uncomplicated and straightforward it is to answer for the public how a trained professional charged with the mission of saving lives reconciles the use of lethal force. It is because both save lives.  

Gun owners are following the Bryan Stow beating story. Gun owner paramedics, firefighters and law enforcement possess the added insight of personal safety preparedness, training and what a citizen can do in facing grave danger.  

Bryan Stow faced grave danger, and we have the witnesses to prove it. There is also testimony that Bryan was stalked for a moment or so, even followed by his assailants by some reports, certainly targeted. If you're targeted for only a few seconds, you're targeted.  

And now, here is the part that illuminates the whole scenario in how they may have the wrong suspect: "There's an issue about whether or not he even had any knowledge that (the gun) was inside this residence," lawyer J. Christopher Smith said after the hearing. "The fight's not over."

Begging your pardon, Counsellor, but the fight was over the moment the thugs left the parking lot. As I say often, crime is not fought by chasing it, crime is fought by facing it. In keeping score in this case, Thugs 1, Bryan Stow 0. 

Put another way, Crime 1, Los Angeles, 0. 

By the time someone is beaten, the fight is over. We have unfinished business in detection, apprehension, administration of justice and other, but the fight was long over the minute Bryan fell to the ground.  

Major cities need to stop putting citizens in the position of having to wait for police. The reason I mention gun owner readership among EMS and LEO's is because we all know that police have no duty to protect individuals. This is no defect in law enforcement's charter, and it's not their fault: it is simply not their duty.  

Major cities need to recognize that a citizen has not only the right of self-defense, but the authority to stop a violent act. It is this authority which we grant police, or they would not be able to operate at all. Since we retain the original authority, why vex this by not affirming open carry or concealed carry of sidearms?   

Eight months ago, I suggested that Bryan Stow's Paramedic School develop an Alumni Association resolution to assist his family. Paramedics have days off, they work 24-hours in many cases, and they are a brotherhood and sisterhood of each other's. My suggestion was that one day a month, an alumnus would volunteer to run errands for the family, drive them to the doctor, go grocery shopping etc. etc so that five days a week, the family has a chauffeur or personal companion at all times. The volunteers should be near the home and do these all on their own time off and on their own tank of gas.  

Meanwhile, for every single beating, the fight is generally over in seconds. The problem with a disarmed community is that the officials who disarm you do not have to live with the consequences of their folly. The very idea that 'the fight's not over' reflects a very poor grasp of what taxpayers have to live with. It probably refers to administration of justice, but that's not the same fight: it's a new fight.  

It's time for California lawmakers to stop usurping our authority to stop violence in the absence of first responders. It's predatory and contributes to the crisis. It's time to give taxpayers a fighting chance so that there simply be a lot fewer fights at all because the thugs would know it.  

For more, go to Responsible Citizens Of California and South Bay Open Carry.