2 robbers shot by customer, shakes community

leopardpimps
i do not think these young adult deserved to die . they made bad choices still young and only human we all do it, make mistakes they are other ways to stop crime other than shooting them . has no one read the bible tho shalt not kill. i am not religious but your as blood thirsty as each other surely a tussle of some sort and them getting arrested and paying for the crime and maybe changing their lives would be better or i am i just crazy? but i was said they had had police contact before so even if they had got away would end up getting caught in the end by supporting murder are we not as bad as them?

Correction on the verse you quoted below.

ITS THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ACTUALLY!

Killing in self defense is fine. Thou shall not kill is a command to not MURDER someone. Soldiers are not held to account for their actions in defense of themselves and others either. The two criminals did experiene a life changing even. They died. Some mistakes you can never learn from. The Fact that they were already sporting records is also another nail in their coffin.

IvanAstikov
Nobody deserves to be shot for merely threatening to use violence. If the thieves have fled without using violence, it's not up to random passers-by to up the ante to a possible shoot out in a public place. Had any of his shots missed and hit a bystander, there'd be less dancing around and whoops of joy.

A criminal pulling a gun out when confronted by another with a gun goes way beyond "threats"--it is life or death at that moment, kill or be killed. Only one intelligent option--the one the customer took.

reply to post by opethPA


They were robbers, someone with a gun tells them to stop. They didn't and pull guns themselves and now they are dead.
Better than normal law process I'd say. You break the law and have guns to enforce that, and you die by the gun, I'd say that quite reasonable.

reply to post by opethPA


Seriously? Because you make the assumption that people would be upset if a cop did this, but this doesn't even almost resemble one of the incidences that makes the rounds here. You try to pre emptively decide the opinions of ATS posters regarding two stories (one real, and one theoretical) so you can make a point. In reality it would have made more sense to post the story and allow people to make their opinions known and then try to compare to a similar previously posted story that resembled your theoretical scenario.

The fact is you are way off with your opinion of how people here would generally feel about your theoretical scenario. From my personal experience I can say with certainty that most people (even people like me that are hard on cops) would find this a justified shooting if it were a cop. People will support the citizen that did the shooting and I will too, but he is on the edge and I can see how one could say he wasn't justified (because he shouldn't have gotten involved, but he became justified when they pulled on him).

Basically your OP is incredibly manipulative. You are trying to make a point with your own personal fantasy.

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by opethPA

 

Basically your OP is incredibly manipulative. You are trying to make a point with your own personal fantasy.

Seriously? Did you even read my post or do you just always have e-rage?

I asked if the same people that would cry about cops shooting to kill would cry about this citizen shooting to kill. Ill go pull up the posts about the 77 year old partially deaf veteran that shot at the police first and we can go over how that thread turned out. Seriously..no idea why you are so spun up about what you think I said or what I asked vs what is actually typed.

Other than that I said the only people responsible for this scenario are the criminals... I think what the citizen did was the right thing. The criminals played with fire and got burned.

IvanAstikov
reply to post by alienreality

 

Do you really believe he told them to stop before he had his gun drawn and pointing at them? Is that the job of members of the public, whatever their military experience? The mention of the robbers pulling out their own guns before being shot suggests that they weren't brandishing them before The Hero shouted "Stop!" at them, hence they were no threat to him if he'd just minded his own business.

You have a real slanted perspective on reality.

Here's your perfect scenario:
Robbers: "Give us your money."
Cashier: "Okay okay okay...I love being robbed; it's okay because you're only threatening me with violence."
Concealed Handgun License Carrier: :throws CCW permit in the trash:
Robbers: Get away scott-free with the money and the girl and live happily ever after doing the same #, day in, and day out.

You are either a thief, or an imbecile. Heck, maybe you're both. The reason there's even a concealed carry license, is that it requires the carrier to be proficient in the weapon they plan to carry. You shoot with what you carry and you have to pass shooting tests over a period of time. Thus the bullets found their mark and everyone who's an innocent and law-abiding citizen gets to live another day, while the street are two a__holes cleaner at night.

I honestly believe that this must be the mentality of 80% of our current agenda-makers: Protect criminals and oppress law-abiding citizens.

You mind as well throw away your social security card, your license, your passport, and get to kicking rocks.

Hmmm... Having one of one's hand cut off [for theft] all of a sudden sounds more humane a punishment than what you may get in the U.S. nowadays.

iLemming
Hmmm... Having one of one's hand cut off [for theft] all of a sudden sounds more humane a punishment than what you may get in the U.S. nowadays.

edit on 7-11-2013 by iLemming because: (no reason given)

or maybe criminals should not do criminal things like armed robbery?
I saw someone earlier try and insinuate that if they were stealing food that might have been ok..
That's pretty much BS.

reply to post by Restricted


Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

I hate any form of bullet-chucka with a passion because they are the most disgusting things to have ever been conceived. With that said, I hate these types of people more. As long as they are no longer going to cause anyone a problem (because there are already enough problems) then that's fine by me.

Personally I would fully expect to be blitzed if I were to carry out an armed robbery. It is a risk these people must accept.

ITS THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ACTUALLY!

Killing in self defense is fine. Thou shall not kill is a command to not MURDER someone. Soldiers are not held to account for their actions in defense of themselves and others either.

Does this still apply to all international soldiers EVEN if they are not in their homeland?

I understand that by you saying 'In defense of themselves and others' you could argue that international soldiers may be seen as liberating others' countries... but that's only in line with their own view - Not necessarily the people of that country they are "liberating".

It's a well known fact that American & British soldiers are killing Taliban & Al Qaeda (I was in fact a British soldier)... but the Taliban & Al Qaeda don't think they are wrong, so who is wrong for killing who? (not based on your personal views or the views of your nation).


I think it boils down to - there is no right or wrong, there is just 'stuff that happens' and that the verse in question is a load of tosh along with the book of fibs it came from.

opethPA

iLemming
Hmmm... Having one of one's hand cut off [for theft] all of a sudden sounds more humane a punishment than what you may get in the U.S. nowadays.

edit on 7-11-2013 by iLemming because: (no reason given)

or maybe criminals should not do criminal things like armed robbery?
I saw someone earlier try and insinuate that if they were stealing food that might have been ok..
That's pretty much BS.

I think robbery of any kind is only ever acceptable when it's from a Bank, millions are taken and no one innocent is harmed as a result; Bank staff, Police or the Public; through gunfire or crashing through traffic in a panic trying to escape.

The reason I say this is that they have been robbing from us for so many years, it is only fair that some of us should get the chance to claim some of that back forcefully.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


in the weeks preceding this shooting, the store had been robbed several times.
the owner put the word out that he would like legally armed neighbors to stand around the block near the store and defend the store.
one of the neighbors got lucky, as he saw the robbery and was lying in wait for the bastards as they fled the scene.
he ordered them to stop and since they had their own pistols in their hands as they were running he was prepared for the confrontation, as he probably placed himself in their path and was ready for their resistance which was met with two .50 cent bullets.
great coordination of local resources and community building.

reply to post by crazyewok


keep your opinions about the American gun possession in the uk.
you guys were losing the last big war and were begging for us citizens to send their privately owned weapons over there to your island so that you would not be speaking German.

reply to post by Vortiki

If you knew everyone had a firearm on them, how likely are you to attempt to rob anyone?

I'm pro gun, but as to avoid the government monopoly on violence and force it to be more concerned about public demands, having said that your statement contains false logic...

If you knew everyone had a firearm on them, how likely are you to expect more violent crimes ?

People do not become criminals by chance, criminal is one that does not obey or fallow the rules of society so the blame for criminals is firs on the society not the individual. I say first because there are crimes that go beyond breaking or abusing others with intention but that only complicates the primal fact, even then society can be shaped to reduce all of these cases...

In the present situation the society is rules by the criminals and sociopaths I believe that one should not act violently without violence being exerted against their own interests. In the specific case the robbers were killed by an outside to the situation as he called upon himself the power to threaten the life of the robbers, In my book this is wrong. By that logic one should expect "heroes" to act violently and rid society itself of the more dangerous criminals and sociopaths that have claimed control of how society is shaped as to create criminals and general misery in the first place...

As grumpy cat would say "Good."

But really, the more robbers get shot to death, the less robberies will happen. If not out of fear, then at the very least the same people that would have robbed won't because they're dead. There are a lot of them these days, particularly in areas where there are strict gun control. I say stand your ground should venture into vigilante and for a good reason.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


in most but not all jurisdictions of the usa if some one dies during the commission of a felony the people commiting the crime are laiable for it even if they didnt kill any one. example people rob a pizza place a car chase ensues during the chase an officer is tboned by another driver and killed, the robbers when caught will be charged with the murder of the police officer even if they didnt directly cause it . another example three people rob a bank one stays in the car two go in one of the two that goes in shoots a guard all three are now guilty of murder even the one who didnt go into the bank

en.wikipedia.org...

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the commission of a felony, the offender can be charged with murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony.

criminal.lawyers.com...

Felony Murder Rule Most forms of murder require an intent to commit death. Felony murder only requires the intent to commit the felony. During the course of the felony, any homicide will be considered murder, whether it's intentional or accidental. This is called the felony murder rule. Under the felony murder rule, all participants of a felony can be charged with murder if a homicide occurs. This is true even if a participant isn't directly responsible for the death. For example, the driver of a getaway car can be charged with felony murder if his partner accidently shoots someone while attempting to rob a bank. The purpose for the felony murder rule is to deter people from engaging in felonies knowing that they can be liable for the actions of their partners. Limitations on the Felony Murder Rule Many people disagree with the felony murder rule. They find the rule unfair since it doesn't take into account the criminal's intent to kill. Since a criminal can be charged with murder for someone else's act, the law doesn't differentiate between a person who has bad intentions and one who has no bad intentions. Most states have limitations on when the rule can be used. The felony must usually be a dangerous crime or committed in a dangerous manner. Some examples of felonies that'll support the felony murder rule include: Robbery Rape Sodomy Arson Burglary Kidnapping Escape from law enforcement

edit to add good his state has castle doctrine so he cant be sued by the family either.they cant touch this guy legal clean shoot.if the criminals family has other children hopefully they raised them better

reply to post by leopardpimps

i do not think these young adult deserved to die . they made bad choices still young and only human we all do it, make mistakes

I recently read an account where a man in a Chicago housing project dragged a young girl up to the roof of a building, raped her and then threw her off the roof. Using your logic, we could say he's only human and he made a mistake. He made a bad choice.

reply to post by ColeYounger


People who themselves want to excuse bad behaviour will always have such opinions (leopardpimp's).

Whether or not it's a mistake doesn't lessen the impact on society. Those robbers deserved all they got, those who think otherwise prove themselves to be suspect.

reply to post by opethPA


IMO, there is no debate necessary. The legally armed, concerned citizen attempted to detain two robbery suspects. Those persons then pulled guns on this citizen, who, within his rights defended himself as should be expected of any person. The fact that he was faster than the two who already had their guns drawn is just bad for them. This concerned citizen probably fired his weapon at center-of-mass of both young men, resulting in the deaths of the young men.

Him having a military background just about ensures that he was properly trained in the use of his firearm and that he knew to fire at center-of-mass.

The sister of one of the young men said that he could have shot them in the leg. I have two problems with this:

1. In a situation where you are facing people that have already drawn weapons you would not take the time to take such careful aim.

2. Shooting them in the leg would, in no way, have prevented them form firing their weapons.

Therefore, in his situation, I would have taken the same action that he did.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I disagree that this "random passers-by"(sic) was the one who upped the ante. As the article stated, he attempted to verbally restrain them. The two young men pulled their guns on him first, he then defended himself in the safest way possible. He did not miss, he practiced excellent weapons control, he hit his targets. The fact that he was a better gunman then the two perps was their bad luck.

He had every legal right to perform all of the actions he performed. I am certain that we will here more about this if the concerned citizen was white and the two perps were black.