Man kills robber. Community divided.

[firedfns13]

People are dumb. Of course the race thing comes up, there's absolutely nothing wrong with wandering around with shotguns. I keep mine unloaded, just so I don't get in any trouble or anything while mugging people.

Wait, how does it being unloaded matter? It's still a weapon, and I'm pretty sure there isnt a neon red sign above it saying, "Danger, Loaded Weapon" or green saying, "Safe, unloaded".
If you're brandishing a weapon you'll probably get some pointed at you.

Pretty cut and dry. If the guard goes to jail this is just more bull. He should get the fine but that's it.

 

[War Penguin]

Okay, I know the guy who was shot had a permit to carry an unconcealed weapon, but what about the other guys? And a ski mask? Really? How can you can explain that? You can't find a good reason for that.

 

[Kwaren]

If someone has a gun and is threatening to use on unarmed people I would shoot them too. I love being in a state where I don't need a license to carry a firearm in the open.

 

[Quad08]

Shotgun + intention to rob store = Justification for being shot at

 

[esperanto]

If he killed the robber in self defense, then that can be justified, but if he shot the robber when he was trying to get away, then it is being used offensively, and is far more complicated.

 

[gamefreakbsp]

He did the right thing. If I was in his situation, I think I would have done it the same exact way.

 

[Critical92]

id probably shoot the robbers aswell.

total hero!

 

[Archemetis]

They came into rob his store, he was able to defend his life, his costumers and his business.

In the heat of the moment I'm sure it's easy to squeeze off a few more shots then originally 'planned'. I won't go as far too say that four is excessive or not, as I have no doubt there are many people who've either died from one or survived upwards of 9...

The concealed weapon charge seems a bit... Flawed in my opinion, I mean how else was he suppose to keep his weapon? Dangling from his neck with a big 'I have a gun and know how to use it' sign?

Having a gun on show sounds like a sure-fire way to alienate and otherwise terrify potential customers. They should at least be thankful he was licensed to use the bloody thing.

So really charging the guy for having his means of protection hidden as opposed to right out in plain sight where it's more likely to push potential armed robbers into shooting his faster, seeing as they'd have the same reflex action as he did.

'A gun?! Fuck me! Better shoot him before he gets a chance to use it!'

As for the whole 'He's not a hero because...' argument.

Of course he's not a hero, he's a guy, protecting his livelihood. Like the people you read about who stab would-be-burglars when they enter their home...

Not trying to resuscitate the wounded robber to me seems flawed.
Not because I personally wouldn't try to revive someone who held a gun at me but because according the OP which I'd assume followed closely with the original article, the wounded robber RAN AWAY FROM THE SCENE! What was store owner suppose to do in that situation?

'Oh no, that guy with the sawn-off I jut shot looked in bad shape before running off, I better go off after him, who knows his friends who're still potentially capable and more likely to shoot me now might not in favour of my hypothetical medical training!'

Yeah, right.

Now the juicy RACISM!

He lives in a 85% black society.

They were wearing SKI MASKS.

The end.

Just because he himself was white, doesn't mean he harboured resentment to their race when he shot them, I'm sure he would have reacted exactly the same way had they been white, or Chinese
Or fucking gun-toting multi-colour patchwork quilts!

At the end of this, I think my position is clear.
He's guilty of fuck all, besides a minor technicality.

Any robbers worth their stolen salt and ski mask knows that a store owner more than likely owns a fatal means of defending what's rightfully his and will exercise his right to use it.
So they had to known what they were getting into.
End of.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

They burst into a store with weapons and had intent to rob the place. The robbers also had intent to cause harm to other and that to me is cause enough to try and stop them using a gun or otherwise. The people in this community trying to pull the race card are just idiots.

 

[Billion Backs]

The guy had no license to carry a concealed weapon.

It's like, sure, you might have been saved from being shot up by some dude who pulled out a gun out of his pants or something, but that raises more questions - why the fuck is HE carrying a gun in specific way he isn't allowed to carry it?

Being saved from a criminal by another criminal. Hahah.

Sure, shooting the robbers was justified. But illegally carrying a gun is a crime, and it SHOULDN'T be somehow absolved just because he arguably saved a bunch of people. Why? Because that raises a very bad precedent.

It would be exactly like saying - hey, it's okay to break the law as long as you are deemed heroic. While I don't care about laws too much in general, I'm pretty sure that would be pretty much the exact opposite of what law is supposed to be. Everyone should be treated equal under law, someone deemed hero should NOT get away easy from other charges.

Because down that road lies rather bleak future.

 

[Andantil]

He was right to fire on them. I can't see how anybody could possibly say he shouldn't have tried to stop a robbery.

 

[himemiya1650]

The guy did well, when these problems happen you go with that you know, its not like you have time to do a fully detailed analysis.

 

[Evil mr dave]

In my opinion if some one is threatening your life and the lives of others it is well within your right to respond with whatever force you deem necessary. The shooter did not know that the guns these men were carrying weren't loaded, all he knew was that there were three masked men carrying guns, committing a robbery and endangering the lives of everyone in and around* the store

He didn't ask this to happen, but it did happen and given the circumstances responded quite well. Also about the families of the deceased, I respect your right to greave but if you think the courts are going to try this man for murder because he defended him self against THREE armed assailants then your are an idiot.


*(if the police had shown up and it turned into a shootout).

 

[GamingAwesome1]

If somebody comes in threatening your life, I believe you are well within your right to take theirs instead. It's just simple self-defence. Race has got fuck all to do with it, that's just the desperate twats trying to bring up excuses.

I for one applaud this man for his heroic deed of protecting himself and the others around him.

 

[almostgold]

Who the fuck thinks this guy wasn't justified to do what he did. There was a gun pointed at innocent people. He ended it. Thats what counts.

For the bullet issue, police and other law enforcement are trained very straightforward to that fact: aim for the center of mass, keep pulling the trigger till the threat falls. Done.

Guy was in every right to shoot, as the criminal was in every right to be killed.

 

[Projo]

The fact he killed one of the robbers is a bit over the top, and he should be charged, at the very least, for having the concealed weapon.

Yeah, he's a hero, but he killed a man. He needs some form of punishment. I'd rather he get a slap on the wrist for a concealed weapon than punished for taking a life.

 

[e2density]

Hell, I'd give the man a medal.

With no attempt to be racist, I say this:
Stupid black people rob and place and try to get away by pulling the race card.

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

I would've done the same thing. He's basically a hero, as the robbers could have easily killed civilians and/or robbed a good deal of money, not to mention most likely getting away.

And I really doubt the charges would have been any different if the robbers were white.

 

[Daezd]

he's no hero. he just did what he did. I don't think he should be accused of murder, but come on. taking a life to save one is just putting the guilt on yourself.

He was in a Walgreens. I'm sure there was more than just one person there. Especially since there were what, three or four robbers?

Besides, he stopped people who had the intent to commit some pretty bad shit.

So he was in the right, even if the robber died.

no, there is no right in these situations. there is wrong, and slightly less wrong.
the 'hero' was slightly less wrong.

You're telling me that a man who drove off a group of armed robbers who--had very malicious intents--thereby potential saving the lives of the employees and customers, was only "slightly less wrong."

Look, these people were endangering the lives of innocents, and one of them suffered the consequences of his actions. It's just, and it's right.