Customer kills gunman during Jacksonville robbery attempt

[king_of_hearts]

@KingCracker :It's not worth your breath trying to change their opinions, especially when it comes to firearms. People have differing cultures, and many wouldn't understand living in a nation that you can purchase arms.

I don't fault anyone thinking that using arms for self defense/defense of another is wrong, but it's the law of the land in the States.

This guy stopping those two robbers is completely lawful, and in my eyes moral. If i was an employee working in that store I'd be extremely grateful someone came to my defense, civilian or not.

Once someone attempts a physically illegal act (attempt to cause harm to others), they open themselves to being engaged. Everyone has the right to self defense. Anything other only empowers criminals to continue to do criminal acts without reprise.

Best case scenario would have been to incapacitate the criminals, but depending on the circumstances it might not be completely possible.

In a perfect world the criminals would have dropped their fake guns, and waited for the police to arrive. They made their choice.

[BillyJack]

Reverting to the wild west? This has been the gun laws forever, and this is how the world works. If you decide to rob someone at gun point, well there's a possibility you're going to get yourself shot first. If they were robbing someone without a weapon, your comments would have some merit, when they have guns as well, they have none. Nothing has changed from how it's ever been, maybe you're just waking up to the world around you.

Simple solution, don't rob someone at gun point and you won't get shot. When you decide to threaten someone else's life, you put your own at risk.

What if the shooter hit the clerk or another by stander and killed them? What if the three people were friends and filming a scene for a video? What if they would have put their guns down and surrendered? There is a reason that laws exist and you cannot go around and shoot suspicious or people that you suspect are doing something wrong.

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

America is turning into the Wild West, everyone running about with guns shooting each other. Protection is the job of the police, full stop, not vigilantes.

[king_of_hearts]

What if the shooter hit the clerk or another by stander and killed them? What if the three people were friends and filming a scene for a video? What if they would have put their guns down and surrendered? There is a reason that laws exist and you cannot go around and shoot suspicious or people that you suspect are doing something wrong.

Congrats on the strawman argument! The old guy told them to drop the guns, they decided not to. No one else was harmed.

[Depicus]

So you're equating guns and self defense to pedophilia? Really???

First of all Self defense is protecting your life against a threat that is trying to kill you. Pedophilia is a disease that makes adults sexually abuse a defenseless child that will cause physical and most likely mental harm. Shooting someone to save your life is NO WHERE near pedophilia. They are on two different levels, they aren't even in the same universe.

No I am using an analogy, let me give you another one. I am not a burglar, rapist or murderer yet while at university I did criminal law. Just because I didn't do something doesn't mean I cannot study, inform myself and debate an issue. Prior to doing my degrees I was in the army for 5 years so despite being from the UK I have shot quite a bit (even have a few trophies somewhere) - hopefully you can give me a pass and allow me to discuss weapons or is my experience not enough for you.

[BillyJack]

Rather an odd statement give the US has its hand and opnion in everybody elses going on

All countries are busy in other countries business, but that is another topic.

[KingCracker]

I agree with you but you cannot for sure say nothing would have happened. Just because he did not know what was going to happen does not mean he can take action. This guy had no authority to take action and like you said, we just can't have vigilantism.

Florida has the Stand Your Ground law. I wonder if this guy told the other two guys that he was standing his ground before shooting and if he did would that give him a legitimate reason to fire upon the robbers.

So you're in a dangerous situation and its possible you might lose your life. You're just gonna stand there and wait for the cops? What has this world come to. Its not about being a vigilante its about protecting yourself during a time when the cops aren't there.

[king_of_hearts]

No I am using an analogy, let me give you another one. I am not a burglar, rapist or murderer yet while at university I did criminal law. Just because I didn't do something doesn't mean I cannot study, inform myself and debate an issue. Prior to doing my degrees I was in the army for 5 years so despite being from the UK I have shot quite a bit (even have a few trophies somewhere) - hopefully you can give me a pass and allow me to discuss weapons or is my experience not enough for you.

So you're in a dangerous situation and its possible you might lose your life. You're just gonna stand there and wait for the cops? What has this world come to. Its not about being a vigilante its about protecting yourself during a time when the cops aren't there.

Woah, don't bring logic into this argument!

[BillyJack]

Congrats on the strawman argument! The old guy told them to drop the guns, they decided not to. No one else was harmed.

I am not using a straw man argument. I am suggesting some reasons why someone should not go around and take things into their own hands. If you think that my suggestions are false and is the straw man argument then everyone else here is using the straw man argument when they suggest the robbers could have killed the clerk or the defender.

[SupportGeek]

Complete nonsense. Just because most people have never shot a gun doesn't have any impact on how informed they are or if there views are biased.

What an incredible strawman you created there, he didnt say "you never shot a gun, therefore you know nothing" but good effort.

But besides that obvious attempt to discredit him based on nothing, your statement as a standalone is pure hogwash, of course firing a gun is going to have an impact and SOME kind of bias, once you take the time to actually shoot a firearm, like every other action you perform in your life, it makes you more informed.

I would agree with his sentiment, the general public's interest in firearms extends only in so far as what they see in movies, and what the news tells them. Most people have no inclination to learn more, or even enough knowledge or curiosity to realize what the MSM usually touts is wrong, or even that everything the anti-gun talking heads spout is wrong.

To say someone not involved with firearms more intimately is ignorant to the facts is being generous to be honest.

[king_of_hearts]

I am not using a straw man argument. I am suggesting some reasons why someone should not go around and take things into their own hands. If you think that my suggestions are false and is the straw man argument then everyone else here is using the straw man argument when they suggest the robbers could have killed the clerk or the defender.

Ah, but its all about the moral high ground.

Are you suggesting its perfectly fine for robbers to go around burglarizing, but defending yourself and others is wrong?

Edit:

In addition are you suggesting police can do no wrong, and that's why we would wait for them before we act?

[KingCracker]

I am not using a straw man argument. I am suggesting some reasons why someone should not go around and take things into their own hands. If you think that my suggestions are false and is the straw man argument then everyone else here is using the straw man argument when they suggest the robbers could have killed the clerk or the defender.

If you're talking about shooting someone for mugging someone then no. But if you're in a robbery where the person has a deadly weapon drawn then all bets are off. Taking things into your own hands is perfectly acceptable because you don't know that they might use the deadly weapon on you and if you think that's wrong then be my guest, if you're ever in a situation like that then hopefully they wont use the weapon on you, if they do then the police will be there to take pictures of your dead body instead of the criminals.

[SupportGeek]

I agree with you but you cannot for sure say nothing would have happened. Just because he did not know what was going to happen does not mean he can take action. This guy had no authority to take action and like you said, we just can't have vigilantism.

Florida has the Stand Your Ground law. I wonder if this guy told the other two guys that he was standing his ground before shooting and if he did would that give him a legitimate reason to fire upon the robbers.

I think its clear you have no idea what the stand your ground law is.

Also as a concealed carrier, it IS in fact his duty to take action to defend life and limb, the law is 100% on his side, this is as far from Vigilantism as can be.

[king_of_hearts]

I think its clear you have no idea what the stand your ground law is.

Also as a concealed carrier, it IS in fact his duty to take action to defend life and limb, the law is 100% on his side, this is as far from Vigilantism as can be.

Bingo.

[BillyJack]

So you're in a dangerous situation and its possible you might lose your life. You're just gonna stand there and wait for the cops? What has this world come to. Its not about being a vigilante its about protecting yourself during a time when the cops aren't there.

No I am not saying that. I for one would definitely be the person who would defend themselves. If I walked into that situation as this guy did I would more likely react too. I do not carry or use guns so I cannot say how I would react if I had a gun. If I did not have a gun and I walked right in front of this happening I cannot say how I would react at the moment too. If I walked into the situation from behind and there was only two guys I would probably take cover. If I walked into the situation from behind and there was only one guy I would try to disarm the guy.

There needs to be a law in place for good reasons otherwise people can go around and shoot or kill others and claim self defense.

What gives this guy's judgment the right? He might think and react but can be wrong. Why couldn't he try to resolve the situations without force? I think the best answer for this would be to ask an actual cop what they are trained to do in this situation. Are they trained to shoot instantly, warn then shoot, or are they trained to resolve the issue? They are more likely all trained differently. They also might not execute their training accurately in the situation. I guess you want us to all react with eye for eye and finger for finger mentality.

[KingCracker]

It seems like some people on this forum are so worried about the loss of life that they would give up their life lol. A good person dies while the bad person lives lol wow.

[BillyJack]

Ah, but its all about the moral high ground.

Are you suggesting its perfectly fine for robbers to go around burglarizing, but defending yourself and others is wrong?

Edit:

In addition are you suggesting police can do no wrong, and that's why we would wait for them before we act?

I am not suggesting either.

I am not saying police are perfect either, but policed are trained and know how to handle and trained to react in this situation. They are also given authority. Cops are held accountable for their actions and are present during the trial.

[KingCracker]

No I am not saying that. I for one would definitely be the person who would defend themselves. If I walked into that situation as this guy did I would more likely react too. I do not carry or use guns so I cannot say how I would react if I had a gun. If I did not have a gun and I walked right in front of this happening I cannot say how I would react at the moment too. If I walked into the situation from behind and there was only two guys I would probably take cover. If I walked into the situation from behind and there was only one guy I would try to disarm the guy.

There needs to be a law in place for good reasons otherwise people can go around and shoot or kill others and claim self defense.

What gives this guy's judgment the right? He might think and react but can be wrong. Why couldn't he try to resolve the situations without force? I think the best answer for this would be to ask an actual cop what they are trained to do in this situation. Are they trained to shoot instantly, warn then shoot, or are they trained to resolve the issue? They are more likely all trained differently. They also might not execute their training accurately in the situation. I guess you want us to all react with eye for eye and finger for finger mentality.

What gives this guy the right to shoot someone? Well first of all the guy was in danger and i'm pretty sure there's camera's around if he did murder these guys and claimed self defense he would be in trouble right now but he isn't so right there tells you he was in the right. There's enough evidence pointing that what he did was right.

There was a case a few months ago where a guy claimed self defense and claimed stand your ground. He had an audio recorder. He went out to confront some noisy neighbors, he got into an argument with them and the neighbors got a little rowdy and then the guy goes back off or i'll have to defend myself and told them he had a gun. Well the neighbors got a little more rowdy and the guy I think shot and killed two of them if I remember correctly. Well needless to say it didn't go well for him and hes serving time in prison for murder right now.

Laws are already in place to stop such things and that case is proof that laws are in place to punish murder.

[king_of_hearts]

I am not suggesting either.

I am not saying police are perfect either, but policed are trained and know how to handle and trained to react in this situation. They are also given authority. Cops are held accountable for their actions and are present during the trial.

Um. Civilians are held accountable too. If the justice system thinks that a person acted improperly, they will charge them with a crime.

I'd like to think its everyone's duty to uphold the authority of law. You do know its completely legal to make citizen's arrest, right?

[KingCracker]

I am not suggesting either.

I am not saying police are perfect either, but policed are trained and know how to handle and trained to react in this situation. They are also given authority. Cops are held accountable for their actions and are present during the trial.

Citizens can be trained too but i'm not saying they have the authority of cops, just saying they can get training in how to deal with situations.

[HSoft]

It seems like some people on this forum are so worried about the loss of life that they would give up their life lol. A good person dies while the bad person lives lol wow.

You have to laugh at some of the comments from the europeans in here, especially when they consider a persons life to be worth only 47 days of jail time. (Breivik to serve minimum 10 years for killing 77 - works out to be 47 days per person and he could get out after just 10 years). That's justice?

[KingCracker]

You have to laugh at some of the comments from the europeans in here, especially when they consider a persons life to be worth only 47 days of jail time. (Breivik to serve minimum 10 years for killing 77 - works out to be 47 days per person and he could get out after just 10 years). That's justice?

What?!?!?! That's insane! And they want us to be like them lol wow.

[FlintyV]

You have to laugh at some of the comments from the europeans in here, especially when they consider a persons life to be worth only 47 days of jail time. (Breivik to serve minimum 10 years for killing 77 - works out to be 47 days per person and he could get out after just 10 years). That's justice?

What?!?!?! That's insane! And they want us to be like them lol wow.

It's not 10 years at all as once the 10 years is up it's completely in the Judge's power to say he's too much of a risk for the population and detain him again and it was a detainment of 21 years, 10 minimum. It's the maximum in Norway and he'll most likely never be released.

You know, just facts but don't let them get in the way. :/

[KingCracker]

It's not 10 years at all as once the 10 years is up it's completely in the Judge's power to say he's too much of a risk for the population and detain him again.

You know, just facts but don't let them get in the way. :/

Um i'd say killing 77 people is to much of a risk now or 10 years from now, its silly to have him reevaluated in 10 years.

[Gnome]

?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)

If you have two armed assailants threatening everyone with guns, you don't aim to wound one. You aim to kill so you don't leave a possible threat. If a guy's threatening to punch you, you punch him back. If a guy's threatening to kill you, you kill him before he has the opportunity to carry out the threat.