Customer kills gunman during Jacksonville robbery attempt


Recommended Posts

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

mitt-romney-nope-shirt_design.png

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!

  • Like 1

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

618px-Intellectual_Checkmate.jpg

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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. :/

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.

?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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!