Man kills robber. Community divided.
- Thread starter ace_of_something
- Start date
For the people (including myself) who have brought up "Yeah, he should be charged with the concealed weapon thing", it's important to remember that sometimes, in law, common sense does not always prevail.
We did a mock trial in our law 12 class, and the case (It was based off a real case) was a boy who killed his foster father who beat him constantly and mentally abused him. The kid took his foster father's gun, and shot him dead while he was asleep.. Then the boy took 150 dollars out of his foster father's wallet, and left to try and find a new life for himself.
Anyway, he was charged with murder, and robbery, for taking the money. Every one of the jurors in both our mock trial, and the real one, sympathized with the kid, and decided to find him not guilty of the murder.. but we (and the original jury), found him guilty of the robbery.
The kid got 15 years for it. He may have gotten out, but the judge sentenced him to 15 years for stealing 150 bucks from his dead foster father's wallet, and there was precedent.. the judge wasn't just being a dick, that's what that charge is.. if you assault someone and steal their money, you go to jail hard.
Sometimes, a simple crime, when attached to a bigger crime, even if the original crime's grounds are spurious, can be a much bigger thing.. I doubt it will be here, but it's food for thought.
We did a mock trial in our law 12 class, and the case (It was based off a real case) was a boy who killed his foster father who beat him constantly and mentally abused him. The kid took his foster father's gun, and shot him dead while he was asleep.. Then the boy took 150 dollars out of his foster father's wallet, and left to try and find a new life for himself.
Anyway, he was charged with murder, and robbery, for taking the money. Every one of the jurors in both our mock trial, and the real one, sympathized with the kid, and decided to find him not guilty of the murder.. but we (and the original jury), found him guilty of the robbery.
The kid got 15 years for it. He may have gotten out, but the judge sentenced him to 15 years for stealing 150 bucks from his dead foster father's wallet, and there was precedent.. the judge wasn't just being a dick, that's what that charge is.. if you assault someone and steal their money, you go to jail hard.
Sometimes, a simple crime, when attached to a bigger crime, even if the original crime's grounds are spurious, can be a much bigger thing.. I doubt it will be here, but it's food for thought.
Let me see, someone runs into a shop weilding a shotgun and wearing a ski mask. To me that count as a life threatening situation and yes if I had gun I would shoot before shot at.
The guy should have come up with some epic quip like: Who's Spartacus now?
The guy should have come up with some epic quip like: Who's Spartacus now?
The only thing that the shooter did wrong was conceal his sidearm. I just don't like the idea of people hiding guns.
Other than that, he was perfectly justified in his shooting.
Other than that, he was perfectly justified in his shooting.
while i wouldnt go so far to say hero and i disagree with the fact he had a firearm in the first place he was completely in the right some one threatens you you do what ever is in your means to put him in the ground weather he is black white yellow or orange
and why moan at him for not giving him medical attention did he know what to do with bullet wounds ? they are pretty scary things and tackling the second offender is the logical first option because 1) the shot robber is pretty much dead 2) sending the second probably saved his life since hes probably going to do it again and will and might shoot someone himself
and for getting fined for not following the rules well that's just what happens when you don't follow the rules the shop owner may be nice and go halves if his lawyer does not get him off
and why moan at him for not giving him medical attention did he know what to do with bullet wounds ? they are pretty scary things and tackling the second offender is the logical first option because 1) the shot robber is pretty much dead 2) sending the second probably saved his life since hes probably going to do it again and will and might shoot someone himself
and for getting fined for not following the rules well that's just what happens when you don't follow the rules the shop owner may be nice and go halves if his lawyer does not get him off
Goddamn it escapist you ate my post.
In this region you have to get a permit to carry a gun on your person and it must be visable. Obvious exceptions apply: Schools, any business that says 'no guns allowed' you can't point it at people like a moron.
To get the permit you pay a fee and they do a background check. You must also show proof that you've taken some sort of gun safety course (most of them total to be about 4-6 hours long over 2 or 3 days) You must register all firearms you own. (You'd be surprised how many guys do this with outstanding warrents and than get arrested)
To get a Concealed permit. You must do all of the above and in addition take a proficency test, pay an even larger fee and have a pretty much spotless record. It also must be renewed more frequently.
Even police officers must apply for these like everyone else if they want to carry their sidearm off duty. (though nearly all get it pretty easily)
In this region you have to get a permit to carry a gun on your person and it must be visable. Obvious exceptions apply: Schools, any business that says 'no guns allowed' you can't point it at people like a moron.
To get the permit you pay a fee and they do a background check. You must also show proof that you've taken some sort of gun safety course (most of them total to be about 4-6 hours long over 2 or 3 days) You must register all firearms you own. (You'd be surprised how many guys do this with outstanding warrents and than get arrested)
To get a Concealed permit. You must do all of the above and in addition take a proficency test, pay an even larger fee and have a pretty much spotless record. It also must be renewed more frequently.
Even police officers must apply for these like everyone else if they want to carry their sidearm off duty. (though nearly all get it pretty easily)
Sounds like a bit of a media beat-up to me. Media in the US seems to always jump on anything with lightning speed that could be potentially perceived by somebody as a race issue, it's as if they're obsessed with race for some reason. Guess they figure it bring ratings or whatever. Both parties were breaking the law but I think if charged a court would decide that the man used reasonable defensive force given that he had no reason to assume that a guy with a shotgun wouldn't unload it on an innocent person. Better to not have the court case and save legal fees I think. I couldn't care if the robber or the shooter had skin that was black, white or pink with purple polka-dots.ace_of_something said:
Firing is fine - lawful defence. Four bullets may be excessive, but not necessarily. In an ideal situation he would have grabbed the robber and called an ambulance, but it is quite possible he would still have been a threat. It's not a pretty situation, and I despise people owning guns generally, but I've no problem with the result here.
The guy was wearing a sky-mask and pointing shotguns at people - he could have been skinned alive by one of the patrons and I wouldn't care; you threaten people's lives and they have a habit of reacting badly - death is risk you take in armed robbery. Fuck that guy.
Im sure an incident in your neighborhood will cause very mixed feelings, especially if its LOCALS who got shot. This might be pot stirring, theres always mumblings after a shooting. It also depends WHERE the man who got shot collapsed. It says outside the store, so did he SEE him collapse and die on the street? and if so, how did he prevent medical treatment. It appears he was busy with someone else.
Kind of iffy, but he didnt do anything really that wrong. Shooting people with shotguns is A-OK, but if he just STARED at the guy dying (lol im trying to give the worst possible scenario) then yeah, he made a major boo boo.
Kind of iffy, but he didnt do anything really that wrong. Shooting people with shotguns is A-OK, but if he just STARED at the guy dying (lol im trying to give the worst possible scenario) then yeah, he made a major boo boo.
If someone is pointing at weapon someone else, race doesn't factor into the equation anymore. You have the right to fire at anyone stupid enough to pull a firearm with intent to commit villainous acts. Loaded or not, when you point a gun at anyone you should be prepared to accept the consequences. I am black and anyone screaming racism has no grasp of reality.
^This. When my dad (who is a retired police officer) taught me how to shoot that was one of the first things he told me: never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them, and if you are forced to, shoot to kill. Don't try and injure them, that can just make things worse.Syon said:
So yeah, I would agree that the man was within his rights to defend himself and others. Yes it's certainly sad that lives were lost, but it's also sad that those men decided to rob a store with saw-off shotguns.
They were wearing sky masks and wielding shotguns... What the fuck else do you need to put two between their eyes? I'm sorry, maybe they were just shopping right? Maybe they just didn't have wallets and kept their money in their FUCKING SHOTGUNS... Or fairy dust...
These people make me sick... What, should he have waited for them to shot someone dead before pulling out his gun? And even then he should go check if the robber's weapons were loaded and only fire warning shots!
I wish THEY had been shot. Fucking wastes of DNA. Someone pulls out a gun on innocent people, you stop them by any means necessary... And if that involves killing them, so be it. Given the chance I would have put two in the chest and one in the head of each. Just to make sure no amount of EMTs could save them.
These people make me sick... What, should he have waited for them to shot someone dead before pulling out his gun? And even then he should go check if the robber's weapons were loaded and only fire warning shots!
I wish THEY had been shot. Fucking wastes of DNA. Someone pulls out a gun on innocent people, you stop them by any means necessary... And if that involves killing them, so be it. Given the chance I would have put two in the chest and one in the head of each. Just to make sure no amount of EMTs could save them.
They're mad because he didn't treat his injuries?
He isn't a medical proffessional, he'd probably try to take the bullet out or something, which could make it worse.
And he's in a Walgreens anyway, is he gonna give the guy an aspirin?
He isn't a medical proffessional, he'd probably try to take the bullet out or something, which could make it worse.
And he's in a Walgreens anyway, is he gonna give the guy an aspirin?
Without reading the article and just the post, the person had on a ski mask, had at least 2 guns, and one was pointed at people. Who gives a fuck what race you are? If I had a side arm, you could be chinese, japanese, african, british, antartican, or anything else I'm gonna bust enough caps in your ass to kill ya. Despite this, from a strictly legal stand point, he wasn't licensed to conceal a side arm, so maybe they could push further with that if somebody really wanted to.