Customer kills gunman during Jacksonville robbery attempt

[LaP]

So by your logic the best action to take would have been wait and see if the robbers decided to kill someone? Only then do you "retaliate"? No, I don't think that is a good solution. Better that the robbers be shot, even if it did result in the death of the person doing wrong rather than wait to find out the true intentions. I understand where you are coming from with regard to preserving life but if I was one of the people the robber's gun was being pointed at I would certainly want someone else to deal with the gun wielding robber rather than wait and see what the robber actually did to me. In my opinion, the citizen did what was right.

It's not only about preserving the life of the robbers but only the clients of the store.

One day or another someone innocent will accidentally get shot.

I wont pretend to know how things are in the USA. I go there once in a while to visite family. But here it's really really really rare that someone gets shot by an armed robber. I mean i can't even recall the last time it happened. So from my Canadian pov it's better in an armed robbery to actually do nothing and let the police does its job.

Now maybe in USA armed robberies result in a worker or client being killed by a robber on a regular basis. So maybe it's a good idea in USA to actually intervene. I dunno.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Armed. Robbery.

They presented a deadly threat, and the man was well within his rights to react to that threat with deadly force.

He was within his rights according to US law; that wasn't my contention. However, it is my opinion that such behaviour is unacceptable in a modern society and certainly shouldn't be praised. Criminals should be apprehended alive and face the criminal justice system - if that means letting them escape with the money during the robbery then so be it. The police and civilian use of weapons against suspects / would-be criminals is excessive and is bypassing the criminal justice system, hence the comparison to the Wild West.

How long will it be until the police force becomes like Judge Dredd where they can execute criminals on the spot? It's not far off that now. If you're happy with that sort of "justice" then that's great but I think it is reprehensible.

[ahhell]

http://www.neowin.ne...shoots-husband/

What's your point?

[necroxd]

He was within his rights according to US law; that wasn't my contention. However, it is my opinion that such behaviour is unacceptable in a modern society and certainly shouldn't be praised. Criminals should be apprehended alive and face the criminal justice system - if that means letting them escape with the money during the robbery then so be it. The police and civilian use of weapons against suspects / would-be criminals is excessive and is bypassing the criminal justice system, hence the comparison to the Wild West.

How long will it be until the police force becomes like Judge Dredd where they can execute criminals on the spot? It's not far off that now. If you're happy with that sort of "justice" then that's great but I think it is reprehensible.

Actualyl police are trained to aim at center of mass and empty pistol. So uh yeah we pretty much have Judge Dredd here in Texas. Honestly I'm ok with it.

What's your point?

The reason people are trained to shoot for centrer of mass is because it avoids ricochets like this one. That's why you don't aim for the head, legs. arm. Aim for the chest and double tap. Texas law actually permits you to shoot someone in the chest twice if you deem them a threat to you, family, or a stranger. If the person still continues to be a threat afterwards you are allowed by texas law one shot to the head.

[AJerman]

He was within his rights according to US law; that wasn't my contention. However, it is my opinion that such behaviour is unacceptable in a modern society and certainly shouldn't be praised. Criminals should be apprehended alive and face the criminal justice system - if that means letting them escape with the money during the robbery then so be it. The police and civilian use of weapons against suspects / would-be criminals is excessive and is bypassing the criminal justice system, hence the comparison to the Wild West.

How long will it be until the police force becomes like Judge Dredd where they can execute criminals on the spot? It's not far off that now. If you're happy with that sort of "justice" then that's great but I think it is reprehensible.

So how exactly do you propose capturing these armed suspects when police or other civilians shouldn't use weapons? Are you just going to ask really nice? See, here's the issue, once they are in the act of committing the crime, they are a criminal. There need not be a justice system to prove to me that they are standing there, with a gun, asking for money from a register. Once they are a criminal, they lose the rights that most people have in my eyes. Yes, we have a justice system and people are innocent until proven guilty by that system, but tape and multiple witnesses will guarantee they are proven guilty in court as well, but they put someone else's life in danger, so they aren't necessarily going to get that chance to weasel their way out of the charges.

There are a lot of things about guns that can be controversial or up for debate, but arguing legitimate use by a law abiding citizen against a criminal in the process of breaking the law is a pretty silly one to try to debate.

[Anibal P]

?He?s always been a marksman,? his wife said. ?He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he?s ever killed anyone and I don?t know how he?ll handle that.?

So why did he fire 2 shots?, If he is a so called marksman was the arm/leg too difficult for this marksman to go after? (yes i know moving targets etc)

You ALWAYS double tap to the chest, makes sure the perp is dead

One of the first things you learn is to never pull out your gun unless you need to, and then you use the weapon to it's fullest potential

I salute Grandpa for a job well done, I'm fairly sure that at 57 turning to get the other perp would have been hard and might have endangered innocent people

[theyarecomingforyou]

There need not be a justice system to prove to me that they are standing there, with a gun, asking for money from a register. Once they are a criminal, they lose the rights that most people have in my eyes.

Then we fundamentally disagree. We have very different ideas of what constitutes justice.

[ANON86364]

It's hardly about justice as much as it's about ensuring an innocent life is secured.

[theyarecomingforyou]

It's hardly about justice as much as it's about ensuring an innocent life is secured.

...by allowing somebody who isn't "innocent" to die, which I don't consider to be acceptable. But that's obviously a cultural difference, as the US is the only western country to still have the death penalty.

[Solid Knight]

So why did he fire 2 shots?, If he is a so called marksman was the arm/leg too difficult for this marksman to go after? (yes i know moving targets etc)

The truth: a single bullet wound doesn't always drop people. Acutally, it's quite common for people to get shot in a limb then return fire.

[AJerman]

Then we fundamentally disagree. We have very different ideas of what constitutes justice.

That's fine because laws will back me up in case the situation ever arises, such as this one.

[ANON86364]

...by allowing somebody who isn't "innocent" to die, which I don't consider to be acceptable. But that's obviously a cultural difference, as the US is the only western country to still have the death penalty.

In a scenario like this one there is one person (or two in this specific case) that is disregarding all respect of life and law. The other person is a bystander. The criminal has made his choice to endanger an innocent life. No one can know the future, all anyone would know is that a completely innocent man is having his life threatened. It is plain as day to me who deserves to have assurance of his next breath. You say that is a cultural difference, to me, it would seem correct as universal.

[former1]

I was waiting for those replies - your talking about an outdated ROE from when we were invading. Considering the fact we are now nation building that is no longer the ROE.

Being someone in the military - no having a gun pointed at you is NOT a direct threat to life. If i'm in a standoff with a guy holding a gun I cannot fire at him, unless my life is in immediate danger. If that guy turns tail and runs away I still cannot shoot him. It's all judgemental at that point - but a gun pointing at you is not a threat to life.

[SupportGeek]

He was within his rights according to US law; that wasn't my contention. However, it is my opinion that such behaviour is unacceptable in a modern society and certainly shouldn't be praised. Criminals should be apprehended alive and face the criminal justice system - if that means letting them escape with the money during the robbery then so be it. The police and civilian use of weapons against suspects / would-be criminals is excessive and is bypassing the criminal justice system, hence the comparison to the Wild West.

How long will it be until the police force becomes like Judge Dredd where they can execute criminals on the spot? It's not far off that now. If you're happy with that sort of "justice" then that's great but I think it is reprehensible.

That would be fine if a modern society were a utopia of peace love and happiness, where no crime was ever committed, we all have joy-joy days, wish each other "be wells" and used the 3 seashells to wipe our butts.

Real life dictates otherwise, a modern society is rife with criminal elements, we must defend ourselves from them. Heroism and bravery in the face of criminals, protecting inoocents must ABSOLUTELY be praised, society needs to know that its OK to NOT be prey anymore.

If its possible to easily apprehend criminals alive, sure why not, but the justice system has let everyone down, punishments are not nearly severe enough, or are madly disproportionate to the crime. Attack someone, you get maybe a few weeks in jail, copy a music CD and you are fined tens of thousands of dollars and spend months in jail.

If a criminal does something lethally threatenting, violent or deadly to an innocent they deserve summary execution, end of story.

[ANON86364]

I was waiting for those replies - your talking about an outdated ROE from when we were invading. Considering the fact we are now nation building that is no longer the ROE.

Being someone in the military - no having a gun pointed at you is NOT a direct threat to life. If i'm in a standoff with a guy holding a gun I cannot fire at him, unless my life is in immediate danger. If that guy turns tail and runs away I still cannot shoot him. It's all judgemental at that point - but a gun pointing at you is not a threat to life.

You are comparing rules of engagement in Afghanistan to a civilian corner store.

[former1]

What place is more dangerous? I'll give you a clue - it's not the corner store.

[ANON86364]

What place is more dangerous? I'll give you a clue - it's not the corner store.

A civilian doesn't have to sign up for the military to go to the corner store.

[Solid Knight]

I was waiting for those replies - your talking about an outdated ROE from when we were invading. Considering the fact we are now nation building that is no longer the ROE.

Being someone in the military - no having a gun pointed at you is NOT a direct threat to life. If i'm in a standoff with a guy holding a gun I cannot fire at him, unless my life is in immediate danger. If that guy turns tail and runs away I still cannot shoot him. It's all judgemental at that point - but a gun pointing at you is not a threat to life.

That's interesting. Albeit in a robbery, the pointing of a gun at a person is a threat on their life. If it wasn't recognized as a threat on their life then people wouldn't react to it.

[sava700]

Good thing Florida at least has sensible carry laws.

Another scumbag chlorinated out of the gene-pool

Exactly! More states should have laws like Florida - I have my permit and carry cause you never know what you end up against!! This is why we as law biding citizens have the right to carry and protect ourselves!

[theyarecomingforyou]

That would be fine if a modern society were a utopia of peace love and happiness, where no crime was ever committed, we all have joy-joy days, wish each other "be wells" and used the 3 seashells to wipe our butts.

Real life dictates otherwise, a modern society is rife with criminal elements, we must defend ourselves from them.

That might be true in the US but it's thankfully not something I have to worry about in the UK.

However, I would like to point out that my opinion changes when it comes to defending one's property. If somebody breaks into your home I believe a person should have the right to use deadly - but not excessive - force to defend against it. That didn't use to be the case legally in the UK but is something that has changed over recent years, particularly after the high profile conviction of Tony Martin. I'm just opposed to people carrying weapons and being allowed to kill people, regardless of whether they're in the process of committing a crime. That isn't allowed in the UK and I'm very grateful that is the case.

[Stokkolm]

You are comparing rules of engagement in Afghanistan to a civilian corner store.

Not only that, but he's wrong about the ROE. I'm in Afghanistan right now and I can tell you, you most certainly can and will shoot to kill if a local was pointing a gun at you. The government may be telling the public that we're "rebuilding", but I can tell you that the insurgents are worse than ever this time around. This is my third time here since 2007.

[Arachno 1D]

That might be true in the US but it's thankfully not something I have to worry about in the UK.

By what definition do you not have to worry..........in the vast majority of cases its only the crminal that is armed since do gooders virtually removed the possibility of legally owning anything other than a shot gun in the UK.In one foul swoop they drove many people to sell their legally licensed and locked up guns to ner do wells just to recoup their loses.It drove many a gun club and armoury buisnesses to the wall for what,there are more guns on the street now than there ever was before such legislation came in to power.

However, I would like to point out that my opinion changes when it comes to defending one's property. If somebody breaks into your home I believe a person should have the right to use deadly - but not excessive - force to defend against it. That didn't use to be the case legally in the UK but is something that has changed over recent years, particularly after the high profile conviction of Tony Martin. I'm just opposed to people carrying weapons and being allowed to kill people, regardless of whether they're in the process of committing a crime. That isn't allowed in the UK and I'm very grateful that is the case.

Deadly but not excessive.....what are you in a Batman movie or something.

You are legally allowed to use resonable force to subdue the perp until the point an officer of the law arrives on the scene, at which point the perp will say you used excessive force and have you arrested.

Tony Martin willfully,purposfully and with intent waited for and shot an intruder thats why he got such a stiff sentence.

[Gone]

I don't see why this is considered a positive outcome by many here. Rather than apprehending the would-be robber and trying him in a court of law he was shot dead. Taking somebody's life is not an appropriate punishment for robbery. From what I can tell from the article the customer wasn't in any direct danger and had he done nothing he would have escaped without injury.

This isn't justice. This is vigilantism. The US is reverting to the Wild West. How long will it be until disputes are settled by duels in the middle of the street?

Another case of somebody from the UK protecting the criminal. If you point a gun at somebody, you should expect yourself to be killed the the very least. Somebody threatening another life for any reason other than self defense deserves to be killed.

[metallithrax]

I don't see why this is considered a positive outcome by many here. Rather than apprehending the would-be robber and trying him in a court of law he was shot dead. Taking somebody's life is not an appropriate punishment for robbery. From what I can tell from the article the customer wasn't in any direct danger and had he done nothing he would have escaped without injury.

This isn't justice. This is vigilantism. The US is reverting to the Wild West. How long will it be until disputes are settled by duels in the middle of the street?

|

I don't see why this is considered a positive outcome by many here. Rather than apprehending the would-be robber and trying him in a court of law he was shot dead. Taking somebody's life is not an appropriate punishment for robbery. From what I can tell from the article the customer wasn't in any direct danger and had he done nothing he would have escaped without injury.

However, I would like to point out that my opinion changes when it comes to defending one's property. If somebody breaks into your home I believe a person should have the right to use deadly - but not excessive - force to defend against it. That didn't use to be the case legally in the UK but is something that has changed over recent years, particularly after the high profile conviction of Tony Martin. I'm just opposed to people carrying weapons and being allowed to kill people, regardless of whether they're in the process of committing a crime. That isn't allowed in the UK and I'm very grateful that is the case.

Going by the above post you made, I think you should go back to watching My Little Pony.

1. Apprehending the robber(you start the robbery, then you are the robber, not the would-be robber), doesn't work. A bullet to the head stops the life of crime right there.

2. It isn't vigilantism, it is the law in the US, where people are allowed to carry weapons - and even use them.

3. Don't see the positive outcome of some scumbag getting shot? Seriously? You don't see the positive outcome in this? (Clue - A SCUMBAG DIED - Therefore 1 less scumbag to worry about).

4. And is there a difference between a home/shop owner defending his/her property, and a person who happens across a robbery and shoots the robber?

[Depicus]

Not only that, but he's wrong about the ROE. I'm in Afghanistan right now and I can tell you, you most certainly can and will shoot to kill if a local was pointing a gun at you. The government may be telling the public that we're "rebuilding", but I can tell you that the insurgents are worse than ever this time around. This is my third time here since 2007.

Well I understood the US RoE was based on Graduated Force but correct me if I am wrong. I know that the UK's RoE are that you cannot fire, even when you see a weapon, unless fired upon. Also the idea of Double Tapping is a bit ludicrous and best left in the movies, you have little control where the second shot will go when Double Tapping so it is always best to bring the weapon back to the firing position.