BF2S Forums Robber shot dead by witness

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Maybe he was reaching for his gun at his death throws after repeated "don't go for your fucking gun" lines..  So If your argument stands, then victim should be at minimum awarded a malicious/excessive wounding ticket?  What would you charge?

You can still shoot them in the back a third time, but lying on the ground like that I really doubt this guy would be dumb enough to reach for his gun.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Maybe he was reaching for his gun at his death throws after repeated "don't go for your fucking gun" lines..  So If your argument stands, then victim should be at minimum awarded a malicious/excessive wounding ticket?  What would you charge?

You can still shoot them in the back a third time, but lying on the ground like that I really doubt this guy would be dumb enough to reach for his gun.

Dumb enough to attempt a B&E.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Maybe he was reaching for his gun at his death throws after repeated "don't go for your fucking gun" lines..  So If your argument stands, then victim should be at minimum awarded a malicious/excessive wounding ticket?  What would you charge?

You can still shoot them in the back a third time, but lying on the ground like that I really doubt this guy would be dumb enough to reach for his gun.

Dumb enough to attempt a B&E.

Didn't we have a post on here a bit ago about a rapist that went back to the same house to rape the woman again at a later date?  Talk about dumb.  (good thing she bought a shotgun, too.)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

imortal wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

You don't shoot to kill when they are lying in a blood of their own blood shot twice in the chest, do you?

Again.....

The most common little phrase is "you shoot until there is no threat." 

-If the guy drops his gun, turns and runs, then he is no longer a threat.
-If the guy is down after taking two shots to the chest, and he has dropped his gun and clutching his chest trying to stop the flow of blood while watching air escaping from his lung and plural space making bubbles in the blood of the bullethole, he is no longer a threat.
-If you shot the guy in the leg, and he fell on the ground but kept his gun and is trying to aim it at you, he is still a threat.  Aim and squeeze the trigger again.

Edited for spelling

Castle doctrine FTW.

YAY, TEXAS!  "Texas, our Texas, all hail the mighty state..." (excerpt from the state song of Texas)

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

...if i was in that situation i would NOT have retreated to my car to obtain my pistol and returned to kill the attacker* because:

(1) the point of a personal weapon is for personal defense. from my understanding, any use of the personal weapon for non-personal use is not lawful.

(2) ALL of these conditions were not met:

• You Must Be A Reluctant Participant or Non-Aggressor
• You Must Be In Reasonable Fear Of Death Or Great Bodily Harm
• No Lesser Force Will Do, Making Lethal Force Necessary
• Retreat Is Not Practical

There was a report on the radio today(which I can not link to) that explained that he "had a bad feeling" and left the store to return to his car before the robbery began.  After he left, then the bad guy started his attack.  He heard the woman's screams while at his vehicle, and at that point secured his handgun and returned into the store. 

In this instance, he was coming to the aid and defense of another.  It is not a legal requirement to come to the aid of another, but I know it is allowable under Texas law (not sure about Florida, though, which is where it occured).

TheAussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Dumb enough to attempt a B&E.

True, but you don't know the circumstances of either his motivation or the shooters.

I've had an aunt die in a gas station hold-up. She was the cashier attendant, followed all the instructions but was still killed.

Could a passer by have saved her? Possibly. But they too could have been killed through nothing but chance of walking in at the wrong time. Adding another gun to the situation doesn't always help.

In the op situation the bad guy died. It was just luck the passer by shot at the right person.

Not quite luck, since he had been in there immediately before the attack, and knew who the clerk was.  I would say that if you walk into a store, and an unknown individual is beating someone you know to be an employee of that store, you can draw a reasonable conclusion.  And, since he had just been there, he knew that they had not just been arguing or anything.  Amazing what a quick peek before the attack can give you.

Also, many props to this guy for being in Condition Yellow (heightened state of awareness for threats) and for attempting to withdraw from the situation first.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Dumb enough to attempt a B&E.

True, but you don't know the circumstances of either his motivation or the shooters.

I've had an aunt die in a gas station hold-up. She was the cashier attendant, followed all the instructions but was still killed.

Could a passer by have saved her? Possibly. But they too could have been killed through nothing but chance of walking in at the wrong time. Adding another gun to the situation doesn't always help.

In the op situation the bad guy died. It was just luck the passer by shot at the right person.

So as I don't know the motivations of the intruder/attacker, I'm not willing to gamble my family on a giving a 2am intruder IN MY HOME the benefit of the doubt.  Furthermore how am I expected to know there is only one?

As to your loss, I share your pain.

I have a hard time seeing that as murder when the guy was clubbing a woman about the head with a beer bottle.

Edit: Waste of ammo perhaps.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2009-01-07 07:38:44)

Well, according to some of your arguments, we should go around and shoot every man that beats his wife or girlfriend.  Sounds good...get on that.

m3thod wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

Well, according to some of your arguments, we should go around and shoot every man that beats his wife or girlfriend.  Sounds good...get on that.

as long as we get to bone her before shooting him.

...lol...before?...wouldn't it be easier to wait until after...come on...use your head meth...lol

m3thod wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

m3thod wrote:

as long as we get to bone her before shooting him.

...lol...before?...wouldn't it be easier to wait until after...come on...use your head meth...lol

yeah but once you've shot him she could tell you to piss off.  Better bone her first and then leg it!

Good point. Besides, think how well she would give a BJ if her life depended on it. Better than a fat chick I bet.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

When you draw your firearm it is to do specifically that.

i like you am a CCW permit holder and feel qualified to speak on the subject.

i'm not saying "Chris" should be thrown in jail, but i'm surprised he's not accused and probably convicted of murder.

if i was in that situation i would NOT have retreated to my car to obtain my pistol and returned to kill the attacker* because:

(1) the point of a personal weapon is for personal defense. from my understanding, any use of the personal weapon for non-personal use is not lawful.

(2) ALL of these conditions were not met:

• You Must Be A Reluctant Participant or Non-Aggressor
• You Must Be In Reasonable Fear Of Death Or Great Bodily Harm
• No Lesser Force Will Do, Making Lethal Force Necessary
• Retreat Is Not Practical

---
_{*don't get me wrong, i would have jumped in to help and probably beat the guy to a pulp (resourcefully using some nearby object as a weapon, but i would have not drawn my pistol on the guy, even if i WAS carrying).}

Fair enough. Let me ask you something though. What if you walked into that store and encountered the same scenario, except it was your wife instead of a clerk? Say you had your sidearm on you. Do you still beat the guy up, or do you draw and fire?

What compels you to ask this question? Every time I see a thread about firearms and personal defence, there's always someone posting "but what if it was your family?". What kind of baiting and dishonest question is that? Almost anyone would betray their ideals and reason itself if that's what it took to save a loved one from death or serious injury. It's a pointless question to ask, because it proves absolutely nothing. You could ask "but what if it was your family?" to most any subject regarding harm or danger and get a different answer.

Would you steal from your family?

Would you steal from your family if I'd kill your wife unless you did?

mikkel wrote:

What compels you to ask this question? Every time I see a thread about firearms and personal defence, there's always someone posting "but what if it was your family?". What kind of baiting and dishonest question is that? Almost anyone would betray their ideals and reason itself if that's what it took to save a loved one from death or serious injury. It's a pointless question to ask, because it proves absolutely nothing. You could ask "but what if it was your family?" to most any subject regarding harm or danger and get a different answer.

I ask this question because if you value human life equally your response should be consistent. Obviously if you had to chose between two lives, one being a stranger and one being a loved one you would opt for the later. What compels you to think that you can ask me what compels me? If one can rationalize a situation by using deadly force in one incident, and lesser force in the same incident with different persons then their logic is not consistent and the purpose of me asking was to find out for myself if that ws indeed the case. My logic is usually questionable, however, it remains consistent. I would use deadly force on an assailant of either a loved one or an innocent bystander in distress. Mostly because I would feel obligated to help but I do not know what the aggressor has. They could have a knife I don't see, a hidden gun or be like Chuck fuckin Norris or something. Either way, I am not going home in a body bag. It is easy for us to sit here and judge and look at situations in retrospect. I am not intimate with your history, nor do I care to be, so I will not assume things about you but perhaps you should go to Macy's and buy some non bunching panties before you respond to my post like you are someone who I should have to fucking explain myself to.

edit** - Besides, if you have proven you can disarm a situation without deadly force and chose not to out of personal rage maybe you should be asking somebody else what compels them.

mikkel wrote:

Would you steal from your family if I'd kill your wife unless you did?

What?

Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2009-01-07 15:32:47)