• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Store owner in critical condition after killing robbery suspects

I remember a guy shot a bad guy in his driveway that had broke in his house and took his wallet off of his kitchen table, probably saw it through an open window, then ran when the owner came running from the back room with his gun,
So he remembers the bad guy has to be IN your house to justify killing him, so he drags him back inside, then realizes theres a trail of blood from the driveway to inside, so he drags him back outside and told the police he shot him inside, then dragged him outside because he was messing up his carpet.

whole story came out months later but no one cared, its a southern thing.
 
shades said:
I remember a guy shot a bad guy in his driveway that had broke in his house and took his wallet off of his kitchen table, probably saw it through an open window, then ran when the owner came running from the back room with his gun,
So he remembers the bad guy has to be IN your house to justify killing him, so he drags him back inside, then realizes theres a trail of blood from the driveway to inside, so he drags him back outside and told the police he shot him inside, then dragged him outside because he was messing up his carpet.

whole story came out months later but no one cared, its a southern thing.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Link?
 
shades said:
I remember a guy shot a bad guy in his driveway that had broke in his house and took his wallet off of his kitchen table, probably saw it through an open window, then ran when the owner came running from the back room with his gun,
So he remembers the bad guy has to be IN your house to justify killing him, so he drags him back inside, then realizes theres a trail of blood from the driveway to inside, so he drags him back outside and told the police he shot him inside, then dragged him outside because he was messing up his carpet.

whole story came out months later but no one cared, its a southern thing.
Click to expand...


That used to be what people would say, "drag 'em inside", but it is stupid; the dragging part is likely going to be obvious.

In many states this advice, besides being impractical (and likely to get you jailed for tampering with evidence), is antiquated. It depends on the totality of circumstances as to whether it is a righteous shoot in most cases. Many states, like SC and Florida to name two Southern ones, have extended the "Castle" protections to your "curtilage": your yard and outbuildings.

Shoot 'em and leave 'em where they lay. Don't tamper with evidence.
 
Yay for the good guys! And yay for our right to keep and bear arms!!!!
 
Le Marteau said:
I might note that the situation at hand would not have been considered 'robbery', but rather 'armed robbery'. According to English law, the force must be explicitly threatened or used to be called anything but 'theft'.
Click to expand...

U.S. law is similar. It would be called aggravated or armed robbery in most states in the U.S.

Anyway, my point was more that one should be extremely wary of using force to counteract crimes that don't use force, and I see a lot of people failing to make that distinction -- that's the heart of my argument.
Click to expand...

I agree, in general, but when someone is facing the threat of imminent harm, in the form of an armed robbery, use of force is completely justified.
 
"The good guy happened to win yesterday. That's all you can really say. They made a mistake. They got up and didn't know they were going to die that day," said neighbor Bob Delarosa.
Click to expand...

I can't help but love that quote from the article!
 
Orion said:
That's a really quaint and convenient way of looking at it when you aren't in a situation where tensions are high and adrenaline is flowing. The fight or flight response is really strong in such situations and people could choose to do either, even at random.

Wait wait... so you're saying if an assailant has a gun and you know his motives are to rob your store, you should always shoot to kill?

Saying you don't sympathize with robbers is not that different from saying they had it coming, especially if you haven't even waited to hear the results on who fired the first shot. If the store owner fired first then it he was he who escalated the danger of the situation, not the robbers.

I am surprised you are drawing conclusions without appropriate evidence.

Your question is a loaded one. It really depends on the situation, but if the person with the gun has specific demands, then they are only using the gun to enforce those demands, and not to kill you. The threat of death is just a device to get you to comply. Robberies almost always go down that way.

If someone comes up to me on the street with a gun and demands my wallet, I give them my damn wallet and let them be on their merry way. My response would not be to draw a firearm and shoot at them, potentially committing murder OR getting myself shot back at in the process. You may feel righteous about it, like you have a right to punish them, but that is simply foolish. Your wallet is meaningless compared to your life.

When it comes to that kind of situation, there are no real guarantees. But if the owner fired first, then he's the one who made the situation more dangerous, not the robbers, and he is to blame for his own injuries as well as the deaths of others.

And AGAIN, I'm saying, that just because someone is holding you at gunpoint does not mean they are necessarily going to shoot you. In fact, complying with their demands will probably lead to you surviving the situation. Your advice of shooting automatically is completely stupid. That just puts you and bystanders at risk.

Any police officer with training will tell any member of the public that if someone pulls a gun on them and demands money, to just give over the money and not fight back. You may be trained in how to use a gun but that doesn't mean you are trained in diffusing hostile situations, and just because you have the ability to fire the gun first does not mean you will get out of it alive.

That is just arrogant and stupid.
Click to expand...

In CCW class they taught us to NEVER pull your weapon unless you intend to kill. Likewise if you have a weapon pointed at you assume they are planning to kill you.
A weapon is not a threat. It's a means. (of self defense) A victim never knows if they have the "I hate to shoot people" perp or the "Leave no eyewitnesses" perp. Most don't want to wait for them to shoot 1st to find out which they have.
As far as I am concerned when the assailants woke up made the decision to arm themselves and rob someone on that day instead of going to look for legal, legitimate employment (like the victim) they "had it coming".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom