Man kills robber. Community divided.

[Scythax]

Shooter was completly justified in his actions. Chances are he made four shots on the man simply because, as others have said, he'd have been trained to fire until they weren't standing anymore, and that's how many it took. WIthout having seen the robbers I'm betting the robber in question was a fairly large guy, probably quite fit too considering he then managed to leave the area and die elsewhere, after already being shot four times. Ordinary people don't do that. The body usually goes into shock far before that point.
The only thing which sort of strikes me as odd is that the shooter allegedly had his weapon concealed. Why? Why would he even want it concealed? It just makes it harder to draw. Sure he was in the wrong for it, and no in the context it really doesn't mean shit, but I just don't get WHY he did it in the first place. If he'd been trained as a security officer like the report says he was then he should have known better, on more fronts than one.

tl;dr Shooter is in the right, haters are in the wrong, shooter was a fool for concealing the weapon.

 

[Fingolfin High-King of the Noldor]

That guy is a tank. He shot the first man and held the second man all by himself. He saved many lives.

 

[MrNickster]

If someone is hiding their identity and threatning someone else with a shotgun, opening fire on them is acceptable. The shotgun wasn't loaded, but the guard didn't know that-To him, that gun was loaded and the gunman needed to be taken down.

The boys should not have been robbing and the guard should not have been concealing that weapon. In my book, killing is bad on all levels, but a guilty person being shot and killed while robbing is far better than an innocent person dying from a thiefs gunshot.

 

[Veleste]

If a guy walked into my store with a shotgun and a ski mask, and I had a gun, I would feel it was my duty to fire. Race doesn't come into it, the fact that he had a gun comes into it. It's one part self preservation, one part the preservation of others.

I'm sorry the boy died and while these media coverage is awful I'd think it was more horrifying if no one was upset he was killed.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I'm going to have to take the shooter's side. If you're willing to point a gun at someone you have to be prepared for the consequences.

As for whether or not he went overboard, pistols are not known for their accuracy. "Double-tapping" is a preferred shooting technique by military and police alike. The firearm classes and license courses I have attended repeatedly stress that you should not draw a gun unless you plan on killing with it.

 

[McNinja]

In my state, if you are over 18, you are allowed to carry almost anything you want (for pistols its 21), as long as it is not concealed, or basically as long as the police can see what it is without having to check. Although walking arund the street with a rifle will raise some eyebrowsm and the cops will probably tell you to put it away because you're freaking people out. You can also freely carry weapons to and from shooting ranges, or from a gun store to your home.

Concealed weapons licenses require a background check, registration of firearms, and a large fee.

On topic, this guy did the right thing. It is exactly what I would have done.

 

[RnAoDm]

I'm sure his first thought was "what colour is the robber, if he's white i'll leave him alone" Yeah right as if that would be the case. The race issue is stupid in this case.

As others have said, it's the robbers fault in the first place and they should be prepared for consequences to their actions, i think perhaps the number of times the guy was shot and the end result is a little extreme but i assume that it isnt the easiest situation to become an expert marksman, the guy did what he could to save people and himself.

To be less serious : I'm sure he was killed because he beat the shooter to hold up the place... concealed weapon indeed!

 

[Diligent]

Yup, like others have said this shouldn't even be a debate. Your rights as a citizen are gone as soon as you do something uncivilized like stroll into a store with a shotgun and mask. And how is it a race issue? They were masked. I'm sure the shooter didn't go, "Ok, what skin color are these guys under those masks....BLACK!! OPEN FIRE!"

 

[Rawker]

[sub] this kind of thing wouldnt happen if we had anarchy...[/sub]

I think he should take the fine and be able to go. We have no idea what they would have done had they would've done had he not shot.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

He was found of no wrong doing because they victim had a sawed off shotgun pointed at people. Many people take issue with the fact that the shooter was not charged with anything because he fired ?an excessive amount?

If the guy he shot ran away, he hadn't knocked him down. Did he knock the gun out of the guy's hands? If you're going to shoot someone who's standing holding a sawn-off shotgun pointed at people, you shoot him until he's not standing holding a sawn-off shotgun pointed at people. You don't hit him once then give him a minute to think about whether he'd like to surrender now.

or that ?he didn?t try to revive the guy he shot?

Tough! Hey, the guy he shot ran off.

or ?he?s not a hero he didn?t make sure everyone was okay?

He did a fairly good job of making sure noone was made not-okay with that shotgun, didn't he? There's a big difference between "hero" and "guilty" and there are a lot of other things in between.

It's also known that the shotgun wasn't loaded and the other gunman's gun 'might've jammed' so he got lucky. (Though obviously he didn't know that at the time.

Obviously not. You can't just call a Time Freeze and wander over to check things like that. Always assume it's loaded.

I think relatives of the deceased are arguing on the basis that their family is more important than anyone else in the whole world.

Lots of people seem to believe their own families are somehow sacred and above the law.

I don't know how many rounds I would unload, I've never been in a scenario like this and as such have difficulty predicting how I would act.

Well, if you're not trained for it chances are you WILL unload the entire clip. That's just what people tend to do in stressful situations.

Probably, yes. I am trained in the use of firearms (from my short time in the Bundeswehr), but in situations like this you probably throw rationality out the window in favor of making sure the other guy stays down.

That or people fire one and freeze, holding the trigger and staring.

The OP said "shotguns" but the linked article says "a shotgun", which is rather different. If it had been one shotgun each, the shooter would have made a serious error in hitting one of them four times without bothering to hit the other one at all. One each to stop them, then one each to kill them, then shoot any of them that're still standing.

i think perhaps the number of times the guy was shot and the end result is a little extreme but i assume that it isnt the easiest situation to become an expert marksman

An expert marksman would have put holes in the robber's heart and/or head.

 

[The Warden]

Dammit, the law should be more flexible about this sort of thing.
"Oh, you just saved that group of people from a terrorist attack, buuuut you WERE speeding in your car at the time, so you're getting a ticket."

Fuck no, he saved the day, let him off.

 

[maninahat]

Shooter is lucky, bystanders are lucky. Especially since two of the shots were to the robber's left hand and arm. Either the shooter was sloppy or he watches too many movies.

Presumably, the robber was holding the gun out infront of him, meaning his gun, hands and arms would be covering a portion of his torso. I suspect that the shooter aimed for the torso area, but the bullets hit the hands and arms because they were in the way. This actually is fairly common.

This problem even comes up in videogames plenty. You try to score a head or body shot, but only hit their arms or weapon because they are held in a position infront of the face or chest.


ON ANOTHER NOTE: I don't see the debate here. The verdict on this thread have almost been unanimous: the shooter was in the right. There is no controversy.

 

[Stuntcrab]

I have a little pity for the 18-year old who died, but he had it coming when he robbed the store.

 

[Wicky_42]

The guy is a hero.

If a person walks into a store with a sawed off shotgun to rob it I wouldnt aim for the toes either. Race is completely beside the point. The guard was fined for carrying a concealed weapon which is only right I suppose if the law functions that way. In my opinion there is no such thing as an excessive amount of shots.
If some guy had entered my home/workplace with a sawed of shotgun I'd make sure he bit the dust instead of me (providing I had a firearm and opportunity to use it). Sympathy for robbers is pure madness.

Totally this. I mean, isn't this half the point that people in the US do carry weapons? Personal defence and all that? There's a case to be made for letting the police handle things like this, but when there's a shop full of innocents being held at gunpoint by a pair of armed robbers I think taking action if and when the opportunity presents itself like this can be justified.

Question is, would we still be supporting him if the second guy's gun had of worked and other people had been killed in the crossfire? He had to have been sure that his actions were responsible.

Oh, and he should be fined for carrying a concealed weapon. It's the law, dur.

 

[Marter]

He should have shot them. If I read right, he didn't even kill the robber at the scene, so there is no way he could be accused of 'excessive firing' or 'not helping resuscitate him', as he died away from where the shooting occurred. It's not racist, as there is a good chance he was unable to tell the colour of their skin and make the call to shoot them because of that colour.

 

[Lord Honk]

If i was faced with a ski-masked shotgun-wielder i'd have emptied my mag into the guy. The others should consider themselves lucky the "hero" had enough self-control to fire controlled.

so, in other words, i in his place would not have acted differently

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Dammit, the law should be more flexible about this sort of thing.
"Oh, you just saved that group of people from a terrorist attack, buuuut you WERE speeding in your car at the time, so you're getting a ticket."

Fuck no, he saved the day, let him off.

If you save people by speeding, you get let off. If you were just happily speeding anyway then stopped and got out and saved people, you were still speeding without due cause. If he'd put the gun under a jacket in order to get into a position from which to save the day, that would be, imo, fine. He seems to have been routinely carrying it concealed, in violation of the law.