Charges unlikely against man who shot robbers

[LibertyRevolution]

He shouldn't have HAD to shoot them so many times. Once each should have killed them. But if he didn't kill them on the first shot, by all means continue shooting until they are incapable of returning fire. Remove the threat. What if he had shot just once and they then shot and killed him?

Exactly. When you pull your gun, you have already made the decision to fire till they are down, or your empty...

 

[LibForestPaul]

LOL at the bleeding hearts who probably never owned a gun, much less fired one in a life or death situation, trying to Monday morning quarter back this saying the old guy should've stopped his pursuit. When you wave a gun or other weapons in the face of your potential victim you no longer get to call "time out" when your crime doesn't go as planned.

Time out, let me get my second chance kbar.
Time out, while I get to some cover.
Time out, while I signal to my posse.
Time out, while I reload.
Time out, while I run to my car so I can get the shotgun.
Time out, while I run to my car so I can ram it through this establishment.

Really, what is so wrong with a time out.

 

[Kluge]

Legal perspective? There is no such thing as a legal perspective other than rattling marbles in the head by humping everything in sight.
And, yes, you can quote me on this.

Thanks for your permission--strangely, you seem to be coming closer to making sense these days.

Don't know if that's a reflection on you or me.....

 

[Jeremy]

To those who disagree with me: What would you do if you were fighting in a war and an enemy soldier surrenders to you? By the same logic, many of you would shoot him anyway.

And there's certainly nothing wrong with discussing how to appropriately use a deadly weapon. I've seen people here get upset about someone posing in a photo with their finger on the trigger. Killing an unarmed/fleeing person seems worse than that. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with holding a gun in a picture or shooting at someone who threatens you. But what is the limit? Would you follow him out to his car, follow him home, and shoot him in his drive way? I don't blame the man for what he did because there's no time to think in that situation. But don't criticize me for trying to think ahead.

 

[Revolution9]

To those who disagree with me: What would you do if you were fighting in a war and an enemy soldier surrenders to you? By the same logic, many of you would shoot him anyway.

They didn't surrender and the old man was shooting up their buttocks..not their head. They are lucky he didn't go for the headshot. Yer too young to actually know what the real world is like. I know these types..have listened to them plan their BS..have watched them spend the loot after they made a hit. I woulda shot the punks as well and shoved the baseball bat down their maw.. Frkkin' lowlife thieves don't deserve a break. They will not give you a break. There is mutual reciprocation in the old fellas actioning. If these punks have any humanity they will thank him in later years for A. not killing them and B. Giving them a heads up that the "lifestyle" they chose was heading for trouble. I have had a few of the punks I had to end up jacking hard come up to me later and thank me for setting them straight and halting their momentum abruptly.

Rev9

 

[Jeremy]

They didn't surrender and the old man was shooting up their buttocks..not their head. They are lucky he didn't go for the headshot. Yer too young to actually know what the real world is like. I know these types..have listened to them plan their BS..have watched them spend the loot after they made a hit. I woulda shot the punks as well and shoved the baseball bat down their maw.. Frkkin' lowlife thieves don't deserve a break. They will not give you a break. There is mutual reciprocation in the old fellas actioning. If these punks have any humanity they will thank him in later years for A. not killing them and B. Giving them a heads up that the "lifestyle" they chose was heading for trouble. I have had a few of the punks I had to end up jacking hard come up to me later and thank me for setting them straight and halting their momentum abruptly.

Rev9

You say I don't understand the real world because I don't think killing is good when it's not in defense. You then told me a story from the real world about how you didn't kill some of these "types" and they thanked you later in life. The moral of your story is clearly that there is hope for these "types" and that you shouldn't kill someone unless you really have to. Maybe I understand the real world a bit better than you think.

I'm also not following your theory that killing someone teaches them a lesson. A dead person won't learn a lesson. Even if he was shooting at their butts, you don't shoot at someone unless you intend to kill them.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

FTFY

If you agree no charges should be pressed, why would he be the lucky one?

I'd rather live in a world where we look at how many lives he saved rather than mourning the two lives - committing violent acts - (almost) lost.

They have a lucky? I know he didn't kill them, but what does these robbers' ownership of a lucky have to do with it?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

He shouldn't have HAD to shoot them so many times. Once each should have killed them. But if he didn't kill them on the first shot, by all means continue shooting until they are incapable of returning fire. Remove the threat. What if he had shot just once and they then shot and killed him?

And it is crazy that the one with the ball bat had low bail. A ball bat to the head is just as likely to kill someone as a bullet.

It's only a close-range weapon, and not generally regarded as a weapon for its original purpose. What's more, he didn't use it. You can't really know what someone is doing if they draw a baseball bat in a cafe. If they draw a gun, it's another story, and pretty obvious what they're trying to do.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

To those who disagree with me: What would you do if you were fighting in a war and an enemy soldier surrenders to you? By the same logic, many of you would shoot him anyway.

And there's certainly nothing wrong with discussing how to appropriately use a deadly weapon. I've seen people here get upset about someone posing in a photo with their finger on the trigger. Killing an unarmed/fleeing person seems worse than that. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with holding a gun in a picture or shooting at someone who threatens you. But what is the limit? Would you follow him out to his car, follow him home, and shoot him in his drive way? I don't blame the man for what he did because there's no time to think in that situation. But don't criticize me for trying to think ahead.

Fleeing and surrendering are not the same thing. If you are in a war, you would not and should not shoot an enemy who is surrendering, but would you shoot an enemy who is retreating? Why not?

 

[Revolution9]

You say I don't understand the real world because I don't think killing is good when it's not in defense. You then told me a story from the real world about how you didn't kill some of these "types" and they thanked you later in life. The moral of your story is clearly that there is hope for these "types" and that you shouldn't kill someone unless you really have to. Maybe I understand the real world a bit better than you think.

I'm also not following your theory that killing someone teaches them a lesson. A dead person won't learn a lesson. Even if he was shooting at their butts, you don't shoot at someone unless you intend to kill them.

And a dead victim won't tell the tale either. Like I said. You are bereft of the worldly experience of dealing with these types. I have had these types invade my apartment and tie me up to get a total of 22 bucks and nearly suffocated me till I crushed one of their fingers in my teeth and the bastard had to take his hand off my mouth and then bit my back and left teeth marks in it. Some local undercover cops had been alerted by my hollering when they busted in and it was broken up by them or I would be dead. Yeah I woulda killed them in an instant had i been armed.. The punks I jacked did not pull guns on me. That would have been entirely different and if I had a gun they would be dead.

Rev9

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You say I don't understand the real world because I don't think killing is good when it's not in defense. You then told me a story from the real world about how you didn't kill some of these "types" and they thanked you later in life. The moral of your story is clearly that there is hope for these "types" and that you shouldn't kill someone unless you really have to. Maybe I understand the real world a bit better than you think.

I'm also not following your theory that killing someone teaches them a lesson. A dead person won't learn a lesson. Even if he was shooting at their butts, you don't shoot at someone unless you intend to kill them.

Wow, are you serious? Have you ever heard of shoot to maim? People do shoot people for reasons other than to kill them. Sometimes it's to temporarily incapacitate them, and sometimes it's just to scare them away.

That's the second egregious falsity that you've posted, and I can't decide if you really don't know what you are saying is false or if you are just kidding. Under normal circumstances, I would go with the former, but this is just too blatant for me to say for sure because I would expect any reasonable person to immediately realize after they had typed those things that they were not true.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Just to clarify - from a moral perspective I don't give a rat's ass about shooting these thugs in the back. My observation was that from a legal perspective....everybody's a Monday morning quarterback. Including the prosecutor.

Lawyers are the bane of America.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

He shouldn't have HAD to shoot them so many times. Once each should have killed them. But if he didn't kill them on the first shot, by all means continue shooting until they are incapable of returning fire. Remove the threat. What if he had shot just once and they then shot and killed him?

And it is crazy that the one with the ball bat had low bail. A ball bat to the head is just as likely to kill someone as a bullet.

Well in his defense, he was using a low caliber sidearm. .38 doesn't have much stopping power.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

If you don't want to get shot up so many times, don't rob places of business and patrons. Pretty simple really.

 

[Jeremy]

Wow, are you serious? Have you ever heard of shoot to maim? People do shoot people for reasons other than to kill them. Sometimes it's to temporarily incapacitate them, and sometimes it's just to scare them away.

That's the second egregious falsity that you've posted, and I can't decide if you really don't know what you are saying is false or if you are just kidding. Under normal circumstances, I would go with the former, but this is just too blatant for me to say for sure because I would expect any reasonable person to immediately realize after they had typed those things that they were not true.

Even people who disagree with me said the same thing:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...shot-robbers&p=4540640&viewfull=1#post4540640

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...shot-robbers&p=4543018&viewfull=1#post4543018

Remind me to keep away from you when you're armed. Don't shoot at someone unless you expect to kill them... I thought everyone agreed about that.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Even people who disagree with me said the same thing:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...shot-robbers&p=4540640&viewfull=1#post4540640

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...shot-robbers&p=4543018&viewfull=1#post4543018

Remind me to keep away from you when you're armed. Don't shoot at someone unless you expect to kill them... I thought everyone agreed about that.

Shoot to maim, dude. What's so hard about that concept?

 

[Jeremy]

Shoot to maim, dude. What's so hard about that concept?

It's a false one.

 

[Jeremy]

FTFY

If you agree no charges should be pressed, why would he be the lucky one?

I'd rather live in a world where we look at how many lives he saved rather than mourning the two lives - committing violent acts - (almost) lost.

He's lucky for a few reasons. If they died, it could have turned into a legal mess. Unfortunately, people go to prison for that sort of thing. Also, he'd have to live with the fact that he killed two people. Even if they deserved it, its not always something someone can easily get over. I don't think anyone wants to kill, but sometimes you have to protect yourself or other people. Who knows how he would have felt after seeing the security camera footage. I don't see who he's protecting once they are running away unarmed. If the first shots took them out, I don't think it would be as bad though. Once they drop their weapons and run... it's a gray area.

But of course it's a good thing that they didn't die. This forum was one of the first to criticize the mainstream for celebrating Osama's death. Same concept. Now they will face a judge and jury, which is how it should be.

 

[Tod]

Shoot to maim, dude. What's so hard about that concept?

It IS a concept, but a very poor one.

And Jeremy, the robber with the gun pointed it at the old guy.

The guy with the ball bat swings at computer monitors not to vandalize them but to threaten the patrons, "don't do what I want and you are next".

Bastiat, that is a good argument for packing a gun with more stopping power. Although maybe it was the biggest gun he felt he could comfortably handle. .40 cal is the largest for my hands; .45 was just to big for me.

 

[Jeremy]

It IS a concept, but a very poor one.

And Jeremy, the robber with the gun pointed it at the old guy.

The guy with the ball bat swings at computer monitors not to vandalize them but to threaten the patrons, "don't do what I want and you are next".

Bastiat, that is a good argument for packing a gun with more stopping power. Although maybe it was the biggest gun he felt he could comfortably handle. .40 cal is the largest for my hands; .45 was just to big for me.

Oh I certainly don't disagree that he should have shot them.