Customer kills gunman during Jacksonville robbery attempt

[BillyJack]

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?

No, I do not know anything about citizen's arrest. Please understand I am not against the actions this guy took. I am glad all turned out OK for the clerk and that guy. Yes I also know that citizens are help accountable and tried in court like cops. This situation is hard and that is why a jury and judge will make decisions if there is a trial.

However, I still feel people should not go around and shoot people. These situations are hard. I am also sure there are situations where I would say it was warranted too. For example, if you are in your home and you are defending yourself. So how are the two situations different. I guess I feel it is OK in your home because the man has entered your home with a gun and has no business there what so ever. The robber is wrong no matter what, but how do we react and how does that affect everyone.

[HSoft]

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. :/

You know facts like "10 years minimum" which means there is a possibility he will get out in 10 years. Yep that's a fact there, but don't let it get in your way... :rofl:

[Depicus]

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.

Rules around parole were probably drafted without thought for mass murderers but does it really matter if he will never be released anyway.

I am sure people in the US have parole hearings without much likelihood they will ever be released.

[SupportGeek]

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.

Pure hyperbole, you can "what if" all you want, but part of being a CCW holder is to be able to read a situation, never deploy your weapon unless you are sure you need it, and use it to its maximum potential.

You are right, you cannot go around shooting suspicious people, and concealed carriers do not, thats what psychos do. These 2 felons were engaged in a violent robbery, and threatening the lives of another human, he did what was necessary to preserve an innocents life.

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.

Incorrect, the police are under NO obligation to protect you at all, this has been backed up in court, all they do is show up after the fact and help fill the body bags with the corpses of the innocents that thought the police would protect them.

With the law 100% on his side, this shooter is NOT a vigilante, but way to identify and side with the scumbags in this story.

[FlintyV]

You know facts like "10 years minimum" which means there is a possibility he will get out in 10 years. Yep that's a fact there, but don't let it get in your way... :rofl:

Yup but you put it across like after 10 years the guys released when it's much different and likely he'll never be released. :D

[king_of_hearts]

No, I do not know anything about citizen's arrest. Please understand I am not against the actions this guy took. I am glad all turned out OK for the clerk and that guy. Yes I also know that citizens are help accountable and tried in court like cops. This situation is hard and that is why a jury and judge will make decisions if there is a trial.

However, I still feel people should not go around and shoot people. These situations are hard. I am also sure there are situations where I would say it was warranted too. For example, if you are in your home and you are defending yourself. So how are the two situations different. I guess I feel it is OK in your home because the man has entered your home with a gun and has no business there what so ever. The robber is wrong no matter what, but how do we react and how does that affect everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_States

"Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police."

[BillyJack]

... but way to identify and side with the scumbags in this story.

No one in this thread has sided with the robbers.

[HSoft]

Yup but you put it across like after 10 years the guys released when it's much different and likely he'll never be released. :D

umm...not quite "works out to be 47 days per person and he could get out after just 10 years" - note could get out after 10 years. Not will get out.

[FlintyV]

umm...not quite "works out to be 47 days per person and he could get out after just 10 years" - note could get out after 10 years. Not will get out.

Why do I see that he was detained for 21 years?

[SupportGeek]

No one in this thread has sided with the robbers.

Um, yes they have.

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?

You shoot to stop the threat, trick shooting is risking others lives, and also risking not stopping anything, even with hits, he was siding with the felons here.

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.

Side of the felons, justice was served, but instead argues for them to live off the ###### of the taxpayer in jail.

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

Wants to preserve the life of the robbers

...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.

Arguing that the felons should not die while committing a violent, potentially deadly robbery.

It can be said that pretty much anyone arguing that the concealed carrier should have stayed out of it to allow the robbers to possibly kill and get away clean is also on the side of the felons.

[HSoft]

Why do I see that he was detained for 21 years?

Like most prison sentences, you get detained for X but can get out after Y. Commonly referred to as parole in the US. He got detained for 21 years, could get out after just 10.

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

Incorrect, the police are under NO obligation to protect you at all, this has been backed up in court, all they do is show up after the fact and help fill the body bags with the corpses of the innocents that thought the police would protect them.

With the law 100% on his side, this shooter is NOT a vigilante, but way to identify and side with the scumbags in this story.

That'll be why it says "To protect and serve" on the sides of US police cars then? Way to spout nonsense

[theyarecomingforyou]

It can be argued that pretty much anyone arguing that the concealed carrier should have stayed out of it to allow the robbers to possibly kill and get away clean is also on the side of the felons.

But it would be a stupid argument.

Nobody here has argued for the felons; the contention relates to the proportionality of lethal force. The death penalty isn't used for armed robberies because it is not proportionate to the crime committed; therefore it follows that people shouldn't be allowed to shoot armed criminals dead. It's one thing to grab the perpetrator's weapon and use it against them in self-defence; it's another to kill them on the spot with your own weapon. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[NeoandGeo]

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?

It is indeed a good punishment for armed robbery. You don't arm yourself without the possibility of having to shoot your weapon. You rob armed, you have the right to be shot dead, end of story. If they were caught and tried they would have almost certainly done it again at some point. Don't give scum sympathy.

[Veiva]

But it would be a stupid argument.

Nobody here has argued for the felons; the contention relates to the proportionality of lethal force. The death penalty isn't used for armed robberies because it is not proportionate to the crime committed; therefore it follows that people shouldn't be allowed to shoot armed criminals dead. It's one thing to grab the perpetrator's weapon and use it against them in self-defence; it's another to kill them on the spot with your own weapon. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I understand your point of view. But I have to disagree. Someone who is committing a crime, especially if they convey that they will use deadly force to commit it, does not deserve the freedom to do so. Ever. By arguing that they should be allowed to convey this notion without the danger of reciprocity, the criminal is now given more rights than the victim.

In no case should someone be able to threaten a life without any kind of reciprocal action being taken, in my opinion. If I were threatened by someone with a gun, how do I know they won't use it? How does an outside party know they won't use it? I'd rather a criminal be dead than an innocent. A criminal who undoubtedly is committing a crime does not deserve more rights than his victim, ever. Life may be valuable, but I believe that once you purposely forfeit another person's right to live (or attempt to, or convey the notion you will), you are beyond the point at which you can claim your life should be protected until you are no longer a threat.

[SupportGeek]

That'll be why it says "To protect and serve" on the sides of US police cars then? Way to spout nonsense

Seriously, MOST dont anymore, at least I havnt seen one in a long time that does and Im talking years, Usually they have like "EMERGENCY 911" info in that spot, or like the NYPD cars, it now says "Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect"

Or often nothing, like LA, or SFPD even Philly.

Im sure we can image search some somewhere that might have something like that, but its no longer the norm, its been trending away from "protect" for a while.

But dont let that stop you from putting your foot in your mouth or anything.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I understand your point of view. But I have to disagree. Someone who is committing a crime, especially if they convey that they will use deadly force to commit it, does not deserve the freedom to do so. Ever. By arguing that they should be allowed to convey this notion without the danger of reciprocity, the criminal is now given more rights than the victim.

The criminal justice system isn't about reciprocity. Why should one reprehensible act be matched with another? It's not that criminals have more rights but it is dangerous for society to bypass the safeguards provided by the justice system in favour of allowing bystanders to shoot criminals dead. What if the situation was more complicated than it first appeared? What if the "criminal" that was shot was actually an innocent person off the street who had been given a fake gun and told if he didn't join in with robbery that his family would be shot dead? I'm obviously not suggesting that's at all likely but there are often mitigating circumstances that are not immediately evident and the justice system is better equipped to deal with that than a random guy with a gun. A 'shoot first ask questions later' mentality doesn't befit justice.

Take Anders Brevik, for instance. He killed 77 people in Norway but was still brought in alive to face the justice system. In the US that would never have happened - he'd have simply been shot dead there and then. It's just a different mentality.

[KingCracker]

The criminal justice system isn't about reciprocity. Why should one reprehensible act be matched with another? It's not that criminals have more rights but it is dangerous for society to bypass the safeguards provided by the justice system in favour of allowing bystanders to shoot criminals dead. What if the situation was more complicated than it first appeared? What if the "criminal" that was shot was actually an innocent person off the street who had been given a fake gun and told if he didn't join in with robbery that his family would be shot dead? I'm obviously not suggesting that's at all likely but there are often mitigating circumstances that are not immediately evident and the justice system is better equipped to deal with that than a random guy with a gun. A 'shoot first ask questions later' mentality doesn't befit justice.

Take Anders Brevik, for instance. He killed 77 people in Norway but was still brought in alive to face the justice system. In the US that would never have happened - he'd have simply been shot dead there and then. It's just a different mentality.

The justice system wont save you from a criminal trying to kill you so telling people to wait for justice to be dealt by the government is just wrong and deadly advice. If someone is trying to kill me i'm sorry but i'm not going to be standing there waiting for the cops to arrive i'm taking my life into my own hands and telling me that i'm wrong is just plain crazy, how some one could say that I shouldn't defend myself needs a dose of reality and reality is criminals and mad men don't play by the rules and neither will I if I need to protect my life. You've said that you're for self defense but at the same time tell us that you think justice should served by the government..This whole shooting innocents thing can be greatly reduced with training. Mad men either get in a shoot out with the cops or shoot themselves, look no further than the Colorado shooting he gave himself up to the police, its not a different mentality, its the mentality of the shooter that determines whether or not the mad man survives.

[KingCracker]

That'll be why it says "To protect and serve" on the sides of US police cars then? Way to spout nonsense

The courts ruled that they are not suppose to protect individuals but serve the community as a whole. Lets not let facts get in the way though. A Sheriff told me that I shouldn't depend on law enforcement to protect my life and that the only one that can protect me is myself. He is right, law enforcement is under no obligation to protect me as an individual and they are to serve and protect the community as a whole. Asking a cop to be there when i'm in a life threatening situation is not going to happen and those that tell me to wait and let them continue to do to me what they planned on (killing me) is just plain out right lunacy.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.

http://www.allsafede...DontProtect.htm

Warren v. District of Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia^[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted^[2]District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

http://en.wikipedia....ict_of_Columbia

[FlintyV]

This whole shooting innocents thing can be greatly reduced with training.

I'd love to hear about that.

[KingCracker]

I'd love to hear about that.

Well if you lived in the U.S and own a firearm you can take classes,

This guy is one of the most well respected trainers in the country he's based out of my state, hes a former police officer and did a few tours in Iraq and has trained Navy SEALS in his class. If you don't think training can help a person with his/her shooting skills then there's really no need to discuss anything with you.

[FlintyV]

Well if you lived in the U.S and own a firearm you can take classes,

This guy is one of the most well respected trainers in the country he's based out of my state, hes a former police officer and did a few tours in Iraq and has trained Navy SEALS in his class. If you don't think training can help a person with his/her shooting skills then there's really no need to discuss anything with you.

I presumed you were talking about the Anders Breivik case and wondered how training would have helped them. I think it's a sad statement when you feel you need training to protect yourself in your country..

[spy beef]

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?

Tell that to Batman's parents.

[KingCracker]

I presumed you were talking about the Anders Breivik case and wondered how training would have helped them. I think it's a sad statement when you feel you need training to protect yourself in your country..

I think its sad that you think that people shouldn't prepare to protect themselves. The world isn't a safe place I don't care if you live in the U.K or U.S people are out to do you harm and if you don't prepare for those situations then you're asking to be hurt and taking such a sad stance on self defense only leads me to believe if you ever had to protect yourself from someone trying to do you harm you would fail miserably. Don't give me that B.S about I don't need to protect myself because that's exactly what it is B.S, its human nature for someone to try to harm or take advantage of someone else. It's always happened from the beginning of human life and it will continue to the end no matter what laws you have in place. People will find a way to do harm to each other whether there's a gun involved or not so telling me that you think its sad that I think training is a good thing tells me that you live in a fantasy world. You either live in a fantasy world oblivious to the real world or you don't get out much.

[FlintyV]

I think its sad that you think that people shouldn't prepare to protect themselves. The world isn't a safe place I don't care if you live in the U.K or U.S people are out to do you harm and if you don't prepare for those situations then you're asking to be hurt and taking such a sad stance on self defense only leads me to believe if you ever had to protect yourself from someone trying to do you harm you would fail miserably. Don't give me that B.S about I don't need to protect myself because that's exactly what it is B.S, its human nature for someone to try to harm or take advantage of someone else. It's always happened from the beginning of human life and it will continue to the end no matter what laws you have in place. People will find a way to do harm to each other whether there's a gun involved or not so telling me that you think its sad that I think training is a good thing tells me that you live in a fantasy world. You either live in a fantasy world oblivious to the real world or you don't get out much.

It's not B.S, it's your belief that you need training in self defense to live. To say it's human nature to try to harm someone is completely false and it really depends on what kinds people you're interacting with.