SELF-DEFENSE: SUCCESSFUL

kudos that he didn't shoot someone else by mistake.

The only reason this frightens me is because not everyone is good with (or educated enough to fire) a gun. What about the other people in the store? What if he'd have missed and shot someone just trying to buy a gallon of milk? Or a child picking out a candy bar?

Defending your home is one thing. Opening fire in a public place, quite another.

thats why you dont ask for the cash, you buy something cheap, when you hand him the money and the drawer opens, you shoot him point blank in the face and take the drawer and leave.

So, according to u,
the clerk shoud have just let the robber keep shooting,
with no thought of the clerk defending his life,
because he was not at home ?

U only get to defend your life if u r at home ?

Then no one shoud ever leave home.





David

Ok, so the guy fired his gun in the store...where, at the ceiling? And why was the clerk being such a smart ass anyway? Give the guy the money, everyone gets out safely. Instead, you have a whack job gun nut who starts firing at an armed robber in a public place.

What should have been done?

Guy walks in, asks for money. Clerk gives money. Robber leaves. Clerk calls police.

Instead, the stupid clerk endangered the lives of anyone in that store.

I don't know how much experience you have in shooting. Let me assure you that you need to be a hopelessly miserable shot to miss a human-sized target standing across a counter from you in a store.

Well, Hinckley managed to shoot Reagan . . . but that was an accident. His first shot hit Brady, his second shot hit a DC police officer, his third shot missed Reagan and hit a window across the street, his fourth shot hit a Secret Service agent, his fifth shot ricocheted off the bullet-proof glass of the limo, and the sixth shot only hit Reagan because it ricocheted off the side of the limo . . . so . . .

So what does that prove?

Well, would you characterize Hinckley as a hopelessly miserable shot then, or not?

Yeah . . . he didn't come up to scratch . . . one problem i always have with the gun nuts is their inferential assumption that the mere possession of a firearm makes you competent to use it without endangering the public . . .

I took the inference that he shot in the direction of the clerk,
but admittedly, the news account is not clear on that point.
It is an open question, as to how far he was from the clerk
when he opened fire, and whether he approached more closely or not.



That is a manifestation of resistance, and non-acquiescence.
He handled the situation superbly to success, altho, sadly,
the robber survived the event; maybe next time, the victim
will use hollowpointed slugs, of sufficient caliber.


The clerk is PERFECTLY within his rights
to have an intelligent ass. We (the good guys) have NO duty to cower,
nor to bestow respect upon violent, predatory criminals, as u seem to imply.

The victim has the right to KEEP HIS MONEY and fight back
(as he DID).

I got the impression that the robber was at point blank range,
directly in front of the victim; that 's how it usually is,
so that the victim can hand over the money, not send it.
Therefore, shot placement into his chest is e z,
and much nicer than your approach.

Another way to express it is that the victim was NOT a coward.
The victim shoud be awarded a few years tax credit,
in consideration of valuable services rendered to the decent people of his community.



This is very presumptuous; u assume, for no reason,
that the robber will not kill him ANYWAY, for the fun of it,
to avoid complaints to police, and to avoid unfriendly testimony in court,
as has happened so many times before; Y do u assume that ??


David

That 's a FACT.

The robber could have hit the clerk, causing the gun to fire in the wrong direction. Under duress, we do stupid things so who's to say anyone can do anything at that time?

Your entire arugment is based on assuming that the robber would have shot him so he has every right to shoot back. AND that anyone who owns a gun has the right to discharge it in public.

Money isn't everything. Human life (no matter how miserable) trumps it every time, IMO.

This speculatively possible ability of the robber
did NOT nullify nor void the inalienable right of the victim
to fight back, as he DID, so beautifully
(tho a head shot woud have been better).

IF "The robber could have hit the clerk" then the clerk
shoud have shot the robber before he was able to do that.


Interesting how much devoted sympathy liberals have
for bad guys; class warfare, it must be.





David

Your response, Bella, got me curious about what the legal standard for self-defense is. So I looked up the term in FindLaw's legal dictionary. Here is what it says:


So it seems we need to ask ourselves this: When a robber fires a round of shots in your store and you believe he "intends to inflict great bodily harm or death" on you, is your belief reasonable? In this scenario, is shooting the robber necessary to protect yourself? Or do you have to trust the robber to leave you alone after you've given him your money?

My own guess -- and I am not a lawyer -- is that the shop owner did act in genuine self-defense. Yes, when somebody shoots in your shop, you can reasonably believe he intends to shoot you -- and that you have to shoot first to save your skin. But it's not an open-and shut case, and I wouldn't be as triumphant about it as David is.

That statement is false.
It is impossible to predict what a robber will do.
The victim has an inalienable right to acknowledge
the existence of that possibility and to act accordingly,
to disable the robber, hopefully by killing him.
In all justice, he shoud be granted a tax credit for valuable services rendered
to the decent people, in that we will all be safer
with that robber underground.

(Note, incidentally, that the robber had ALREADY opened fire.
His willingness to keep shooting was not in question. "He who hesitates is lost.")







That accusation is baseless.
Where do u get THAT ??

I never claimed that anyone has a right to shoot up the town.





David

No, it's just that unlike you, I have value for human life.

Do you know why that man was robbing the store? Maybe out of sheer desperation. He might not be an evil person at all, just desperate and confused.

On the other hand, maybe he is evil.

You can't say any more than I can and so why would you think it's ok to shoot someone in the head?

Self defense is one thing; murder is another.

I'm done with this conversation.

You will never convince me that this was a good situation.

Good people preserve human life, not take it.

This robber will spend his time in prison, just as he should. He does not deserve to die.

I only read about it.
The triumph is not mine,
except in the sense that the triumph is for the good guys
and evil was defeated.

That seems to annoy n irritate liberals.



David