This is a hero?

[SMR 368]

The kid was no hero, and he must have known the potential risks he ran by attempting armed robbery. That said, what on earth makes you suppose that killing armed robbers necessarily means there will be less armed robberies? Clearly, the people who engage in them think that the benefits outweigh the risks and will continue to do so no matter how many of them are killed - there isn't some finite number of armed robbers that we have to kill in order for armed robbery to be extinct, what a bizarre and frankly stupid idea.

Regardless of deterrents, killing armed robbers means there will be less of them. You eliminate their ability to re-offend. At least one of the robbers involved in this story was an experienced armed robber. Perhaps if someone had taken him out the first time around he wouldn't have been around to re-offend and bring accomplices with him who may have been offending for the first time.

I would venture a guess that most armed robberies involve a repeat offender, either as a participant, an agitator, or a planner. Take 'em out the first time and that won't happen.

Pharmacist is a disabled Air Force veteran. Another article:

http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2009/05/29/video-oklahoma-city-pharmacist-shooting-armed-robber-1/

Funny how the original story didn't mention that there were three robbers and that they continued to fire at the storekeeper. It seems all sinister that he went and got another gun until you read that there was a second robber who had hit him once and continued to fire at him. In that situation, it makes good sense to make sure the one guy is staying down so that you can focus on the other guy without worrying about the first getting up and shooting you in the back. Five may seem like a little much but he was wounded and under fire at the time. Sounds like a healthy survival instinct to me.

[Danno 1,228]

in previous post you said "Clearly, the people who engage in them think that the benefits outweigh the risks and will continue to do so no matter how many of them are killed "

to which i replied "if a criminal knows the shopkeeper is armed that deters crime in that store."

when you make the RISK OUTWEIGH THE BENEFIT that WILL lower crime.

nothing odd about my logic.

I agree, your logic is Spot-on.

IN fact if we read the Comments made buy our -On board liberals-

we can see how reckless it is to let these folks anywhere near the Criminal justice or law making roles of society.

[Danno 1,228]

And another thing...... that first "shot to the head" might have just grazed him and he could have been struggling to shoot back.... we don't know the details.

In my opinion, when you bring a gun or knife against someone..... you forfeit any right to claim "he didn't fight fair" no matter what happens to you.

[BobandXiaomei 14]

No sympathy for this devil. He went in an Outlaw and he died as an Outlaw.

[DEDixon 39]

she named him "Antwun" ..... she should have known better.

[Ban Hammer 14,085]

if your offspring is engaging in armed criminal behavior, it's a major stretch of one's imagination to call him a "hero" - more appropriate would be "zero"

[SMR 368]

If she wants to blame someone, why doesn't she blame the convicted felon who likely pushed his younger accomplices in this crime? If we need to blame someone, why don't we throw the book at this guy instead of the pharmacist who was defending himself?

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

US Military marksmanship training doesn't teach soldiers to do head shots, not even sniper training is geared towards head shots.

The US Military teaches "Center of Mass" targeting as you're less likely to completely miss the target.

If anyone here can prove that they would be instantly calm and rational just seconds after a shoot-out with three armed assailants then you are a better person than most. His system was probably so full of adrenaline that even though 2 of the scumbags had fled the scene he was still in the middle of the shoot-out.

Those scumbags cased his place, knew when drugs & money would be out and disabled the magnetic lock on the door. They probably knew he was in a brace from his recent back surgery. They set the stage to have the odds in their favor, lucky for them he wasn't a much better shot than they were or we'd have 3 mommies claiming that their sons were heroes for being to stupid and clumsy to rob a disabled old man 3 shooters against 1!

[Peikko 1,575]

Regardless of deterrents, killing armed robbers means there will be less of them. You eliminate their ability to re-offend. At least one of the robbers involved in this story was an experienced armed robber. Perhaps if someone had taken him out the first time around he wouldn't have been around to re-offend and bring accomplices with him who may have been offending for the first time.

I would venture a guess that most armed robberies involve a repeat offender, either as a participant, an agitator, or a planner. Take 'em out the first time and that won't happen.

Funny how the original story didn't mention that there were three robbers and that they continued to fire at the storekeeper. It seems all sinister that he went and got another gun until you read that there was a second robber who had hit him once and continued to fire at him. In that situation, it makes good sense to make sure the one guy is staying down so that you can focus on the other guy without worrying about the first getting up and shooting you in the back. Five may seem like a little much but he was wounded and under fire at the time. Sounds like a healthy survival instinct to me.

No it doesn't. There is no finite number of armed robbers that we have to kill in order to solve the armed robbery problem - all it means is that a specific person can't commit armed robbery any more.

[Ban Hammer 14,085]

there's always a finite number of armed robbers, mc. 6,864,197,548 and counting.

[Danno 1,228]

No it doesn't. There is no finite number of armed robbers that we have to kill in order to solve the armed robbery problem - all it means is that a specific person can't commit armed robbery any more.

And Honor Roll students begin to take their place?

You are working with wacky-Logic MC

Wacky logic I tell ya.

[SMR 368]

No it doesn't. There is no finite number of armed robbers that we have to kill in order to solve the armed robbery problem - all it means is that a specific person can't commit armed robbery any more.

Every armed robber offends for his own reasons. But it's not as if killing one inspires someone to take his place. Most armed robbers will continue to offend, even if caught, punished and later released. This particular robbery had a participant who had previously been convicted of burglary and kidnapping. He brought two other younger guys with him this time. Popping him the first time would have prevented him from re-offending and probably also prevented these two younger guys from turning to crime. I can't see how you could argue that popping him would have caused others to become robbers that wouldn't have otherwise.

Thus, popping him the first time would have reduced the number of armed robbers and the number of armed robberies. It is a finite number and we can pop them all.

[Peikko 1,575]

Every armed robber offends for his own reasons. But it's not as if killing one inspires someone to take his place. Most armed robbers will continue to offend, even if caught, punished and later released. This particular robbery had a participant who had previously been convicted of burglary and kidnapping. He brought two other younger guys with him this time. Popping him the first time would have prevented him from re-offending and probably also prevented these two younger guys from turning to crime. I can't see how you could argue that popping him would have caused others to become robbers that wouldn't have otherwise.

Thus, popping him the first time would have reduced the number of armed robbers and the number of armed robberies. It is a finite number and we can pop them all.

I am not arguing that at all and that you come to such a bizarre conclusion based on what I said is, well odd. The fact is that unless you tackle the conditions that create armed robbers, armed robbers will continue to be created; you can continue to kill them (pop them? really?) but that will not change the reasons that people turn to armed robbery. Bear in mind that armed robbery is not a capital offense and self defense can only be justified under certain circumstances.

[Ban Hammer 14,085]

Bear in mind that armed robbery is not a capital offense and self defense can only be justified under certain circumstances.

in this case, they were trying to as the perps fired shots.

(4) Murder by the defendant during a burglary in the first or second degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/capital-offense/

[natty bumppo 297]

maybe antwun really was a he-ro ....

by offering to eliminate himself from the gene pool, other wannabes may learn the armed robbery occupation does have life altering occupational hazards and will seek employment elsewhere ,,,,

Edited August 23, 2010 by frank bama