This is a hero?

[SMR 368]

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.

I wasn't trying to say you were arguing that killing an armed robber creates more. My argument was that in the absence of such a pattern, there is no way to argue that killing an armed robber doesn't decrease the (decidedly finite) total number of armed robbers in the world.

[Peikko 1,575]

I wasn't trying to say you were arguing that killing an armed robber creates more. My argument was that in the absence of such a pattern, there is no way to argue that killing an armed robber doesn't decrease the (decidedly finite) total number of armed robbers in the world.

There is no finite number of armed robbers. If the conditions that make people turn to armed robbery remain in place armed robbery will continue no matter that you do manage to kill a few of them as they go about their crimes. Arguing that there is is silly.

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.u...apital-offense/

I didn't say that in this case he would not have been tried for a capital crime if he had remained alive - I simply made the point that armed robbery is not in and of itself a capital crime so any idea that you can simply 'pop' them to make them go away is nonsense.

[Ban Hammer 12,857]

I didn't say that in this case he would not have been tried for a capital crime if he had remained alive - I simply made the point that armed robbery is not in and of itself a capital crime so any idea that you can simply 'pop' them to make them go away is nonsense.

you'll find that in most states, armed robbery is a justifiable use of deadly force.

[Peikko 1,575]

you'll find that in most states, armed robbery is a justifiable use of deadly force.

I didn't say it wasn't. What I said was that those who use deadly force still have to abide by the laws that govern the use of deadly force - in other words we can't just 'pop' armed robbers like rabbits.

[SMR 368]

There is no finite number of armed robbers. If the conditions that make people turn to armed robbery remain in place armed robbery will continue no matter that you do manage to kill a few of them as they go about their crimes. Arguing that there is is silly.

I didn't say that in this case he would not have been tried for a capital crime if he had remained alive - I simply made the point that armed robbery is not in and of itself a capital crime so any idea that you can simply 'pop' them to make them go away is nonsense.

You clearly have no concept of the definition of finite. I don't really think it's worth it to try and explain it to you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So how many wannabe armed robbers are floating around out there? For sake of argument...

[Ban Hammer 12,857]

I didn't say it wasn't. What I said was that those who use deadly force still have to abide by the laws that govern the use of deadly force - in other words we can't just 'pop' armed robbers like rabbits.

if you were in a store being robbed, and even though the robber was not pointing a gun at you, could you shoot him?

Edited August 23, 2010 by charles!

[Peikko 1,575]

You clearly have no concept of the definition of finite. I don't really think it's worth it to try and explain it to you.

Well, if you want to limit the number to the number of humans that will be born before it all comes to an end, then sure it is finite. However, that's not what you mean at all. What you are saying is that if we were to keep killing armed robbers as per what happened in this event eventually we would get rid of them, or at the very least there would be noticeably less armed robberies. I said that that is nonsense because that does nothing to address the underlying causes the make people turn to armed robbery.

Of course if you want to be able to shoot them like rabbits; but you don't think that would cause other far worse problems?

Edited August 23, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

if you were in a store being robbed, and even though the robber was not pointing a gun at you, could you shoot him?

Me personally? I doubt it, I'm not trained and I would imagine I would do more harm than good. I guess survival might kick in if I was directly threatened, otherwise, no, I don't think I could.

[slim 1,514]

What on earth could be his defense against shooting either a prone injured person with no threat to him at the time of the second shooting or shooting a dead bodyof someone who he killed.

His defense will be that he was still threatened by the unconscious robber. That's really the only defense that he can use because that's the only way shooting someone is justified.

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.

All valid arguments and all will be used to argue down to manslaughter instead of murder.

This shopkeeper is going to get manslaughter 2 and won't do any time. There's no way they can let a white man who shot an unarmed, defenseless black kid off with nothing, even if he was involved in a shootout and outnumbered 3 to 1. The video clearly shows he "executed" this kid and regardless of the facts, that's what sticks in peoples' minds. No justice... no peace.

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.

The good thing for the defendant is we couldn't see in the video what was going on off camera. If the suspect was still on the ground moving and/or moaning or doing anything conscious at all, it's possible he could've still felt reasonably threatened and would be justified in shooting him again.

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.

That's your opinion, but the law is pretty clear that once the threat has been mitigated (like, he dropped the gun, was shot, etc.) it has to be "fair" after that. It's not acceptable to shoot someone who's not placing your life in immediate danger.

An unconscious kid on the floor doesn't threaten anyone.

why don't we throw the book at this guy instead of the pharmacist who was defending himself?

In the first couple of shots, the pharmacist was defending himself. When he grabbed the second gun, walked over to the kid and executed him, he wasn't defending himself.

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!

The military also teaches rules of engagement and the Geneva Conventions.

In this situation, (and even in war) it's illegal to execute a non-combatant. Anyone who is unconscious is a non-combatant. Period.

if you were in a store being robbed, and even though the robber was not pointing a gun at you, could you shoot him?

This is a great question.

In most states, the law says "if you reasonably believe yourself to be in danger of death or serious bodily harm you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force." On other people is where it starts to get really fuzzy. Most states cover it with "if you reasonably believe someone to be in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm you may use deadly force." They typically go on to say, "you do not have the right to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force to stop situations where the risk of death or serious bodily harm is not imminent."

If you're at the Circle K and you're pulling your case of Keystones and a Slim Jim out of the back row and a couple of teenagers bust in yelling, cursing, and shooting, you're fully justfied to shoot them. However, if you hit one of them and he's incapacitated on the floor, you're not justified to reload and/or grab another gun then shoot him several more times while he's on the ground.

[slim 1,514]

if we were to keep killing armed robbers as per what happened in this event eventually we would get rid of them, or at the very least there would be noticeably less armed robberies. I said that that is nonsense because that does nothing to address the underlying causes the make people turn to armed robbery.

See if you can google some interviews with robbers/rapists/murderers/etc. where they talk about the ONE THING that will stop them from victimizing someone.

You can maybe find it on YouTube but there's a pretty good set of interviews out there where criminals talk about how they choose vicitims and who they specifically avoid and why.

[SMR 368]

Well, if you want to limit the number to the number of humans that will be born before it all comes to an end, then sure it is finite. However, that's not what you mean at all. What you are saying is that if we were to keep killing armed robbers as per what happened in this event eventually we would get rid of them, or at the very least there would be noticeably less armed robberies. I said that that is nonsense because that does nothing to address the underlying causes the make people turn to armed robbery.

Of course if you want to be able to shoot them like rabbits; but you don't think that would cause other far worse problems?

I suppose it depends on your definition of noticeable. But you have acknowledged that if you kill an armed robber it does nothing to cause more people to become armed robbers or to exacerbate the underlying causes that make people turn to armed robbery.

By simple math, that means that you shoot one robber, you have -1+0 robbers for a net loss. Whether or not that is noticeable is subjective. But it is certainly a real change.

As a note, in order for the number of armed robbers to be finite, it is not required that it be possible for a normal person be able to count them. Simple logic dictates that there is a certain number of people who are armed robbers. That number may be changing regularly, but it's still a finite number.

[Peikko 1,575]

See if you can google some interviews with robbers/rapists/murderers/etc. where they talk about the ONE THING that will stop them from victimizing someone.

You can maybe find it on YouTube but there's a pretty good set of interviews out there where criminals talk about how they choose vicitims and who they specifically avoid and why.

So what? I realize that there are some very strange people out there, and I also realize that since YouTube came along these people have access to mass audiences - random interviews are not enough to be able to launch any kind of hypothesis as to why armed robbery exists, nor what one can usefully do about it.

[Peikko 1,575]

I suppose it depends on your definition of noticeable. But you have acknowledged that if you kill an armed robber it does nothing to cause more people to become armed robbers or to exacerbate the underlying causes that make people turn to armed robbery.

By simple math, that means that you shoot one robber, you have -1+0 robbers for a net loss. Whether or not that is noticeable is subjective. But it is certainly a real change.

As a note, in order for the number of armed robbers to be finite, it is not required that it be possible for a normal person be able to count them. Simple logic dictates that there is a certain number of people who are armed robbers. That number may be changing regularly, but it's still a finite number.

If it is constantly changing, then it is not a fixed number that we can deal with and move on, which was my point as you know.

[Ban Hammer 12,857]

Me personally? I doubt it, I'm not trained and I would imagine I would do more harm than good. I guess survival might kick in if I was directly threatened, otherwise, no, I don't think I could.

again, it depends on the state as to the answer. in more than a few, yes, you could as they are committing felony armed robbery. so yes, popping robbers like rabbits is an option in those states.