He shouldn't have felt threatened...

[AmbrosiaWriter]

...when an armed man robbed the business he was in.

I'm sorry, but if I'm in the room with someone brandishing a gun around robbing the place... I'm going to feel threatened.

I don't really want this to devolve into a "PRO-GUN FREEDOM" vs "PRO-GUN REGULATION" debate. I just wanted to focus on the idea that this family is pissed off that a guy DARED to defend the entire building full of people from an armed robber who happened to share genetic code with them more closely than most people.

Some might say, "Oh but just give him the money and let him go, everyone will be fine and safe." <--- There's really no way to prove that.

I've been the victim of an armed robbery when I worked at a convenience store. It was a small mom and pop store. The robber flat out told me, "Just give me the money in the register and I'll walk out of here quietly" while holding a pistol aimed directly between my eyes. I didn't believe him. If he even perceived one thing going wrong, I was pretty sure I was going to get lead in my brain.

Oh, but of course, according to the dumbass family in the article, I shouldn't have felt threatened.

[crashhelmet]

The problem is this...

In many, if not almost all cases, a thief brandishing a gun is using it strictly for intimidation. They have no intentions of wanting to fire the weapon. They want to get their money, or whatever it is they're after, and get out.

When someone else shows up with a gun, there is fear on both sides of the altercation. It can end up resulting in unintended deaths, whether it's the thief, the wannabe hero, or an innocent bystander.

In this case, the shooter is lucky that the accomplice didn't start shooting back.

[Greenday]

The problem is this...

In many, if not almost all cases, a thief brandishing a gun is using it strictly for intimidation. They have no intentions of wanting to fire the weapon. They want to get their money, or whatever it is they're after, and get out.

When someone else shows up with a gun, there is fear on both sides of the altercation. It can end up resulting in unintended deaths, whether it's the thief, the wannabe hero, or an innocent bystander.

In this case, the shooter is lucky that the accomplice didn't start shooting back.

When someone is pointing a gun at you and other people, it's not at all unreasonable to think they just might pull the trigger.

[TheHuckster]

The problem is this...

In many, if not almost all cases, a thief brandishing a gun is using it strictly for intimidation. They have no intentions of wanting to fire the weapon. They want to get their money, or whatever it is they're after, and get out.

When someone else shows up with a gun, there is fear on both sides of the altercation. It can end up resulting in unintended deaths, whether it's the thief, the wannabe hero, or an innocent bystander.

In this case, the shooter is lucky that the accomplice didn't start shooting back.

I agree with the principle that if you are being robbed at gunpoint, the best and safest option is to give the robber what he wants and then call the police after he leaves.

However, I disagree with the idea that the person who shot the robber out of self-defense is criminally or civilly liable for his actions. As Greenday said, if someone is pointing a gun at you, it's reasonable to think the threat is real. To say he "shouldn't have felt threatened" is ridiculous. Unless he clearly had a banana in his hand, if he points a gun at you and threatens your life, then... yeah, that should make you feel threatened. I don't have any clearer way to say it.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

The problem is this...

In many, if not almost all cases, a thief brandishing a gun is using it strictly for intimidation. They have no intentions of wanting to fire the weapon. They want to get their money, or whatever it is they're after, and get out.

Here's the problem with your problem.

Like I said before, if the thief evens perceives something as going wrong, it's very likely they'll just pull the trigger in panic.

It doesn't matter if they ever intended to fire the weapon. The only way to be sure that you won't accidentally (as in, nerves just get you) shoot someone when you rob someplace is to either not have bullets in the gun or have the gun saftied as your waving it around.

In either case, no one around you can tell.

So are you still going to say that the people who were being robbed/in the room "shouldn't feel threatened"? Because that's the family's entire argument. That they shouldn't have "felt threatened."

[Jetfire]

"Shouldn't feel threatened"? Robbing someone with a weapon is the very definition of threatening. You are threatening them to give something to you.

Seems like the family is grasping for anything to explain a horrible situation that they are going through.

[crashhelmet]

You have to define how you feel threatened and what is a valid threat.

The shooter in this case did not comply with the robbers. They ordered everyone down and he stayed in his chair. He then stood up and approached the robbers before shooting at them.

It's hard to claim self defense when you're in the aggressive role.

Did he get his CWP from Uncle Jimbo and his "It's Coming Right For Us!!!!" school of hunting?

[Greenday]

Did he get his CWP from Uncle Jimbo and his "It's Coming Right For Us!!!!" school of hunting?

Quick! Thin our their numbers!

[Lyse]

It's hard to claim self defense when you're in the aggressive role.

How is a man with one firearm that was going about his day lawfully the aggressive one, and the other man with a firearm that was already in the act of one felony and threatening multiple people is not? I know which I would be more afraid of.

[SkullKing]

The problem is this...

In many, if not almost all cases, a thief brandishing a gun is using it strictly for intimidation. They have no intentions of wanting to fire the weapon. They want to get their money, or whatever it is they're after, and get out.

But how can you be sure you are in one of those cases? Or that something isn´t going to go wrong he will shoot you event though he didn´t "intend to?

One colleague of mine was shot twice after giving a robber his car keys.

One other person I know was beaten to unconsciousness with his own cellphone because the robber told him that was a "crappy, poor people´s cellphone"(it was one of those ,large, heavy old ones)

And I know another who was beaten because he had no money on him, and the robber got angry.

Iused to think, that if someone robbed me, I would just quietly give my wallet, after all, it is into worth getting killed/hurt over it.

Now I honestly don´t know how I would react.

[BlaqueKatt]

Oh, but of course, according to the dumbass family in the article, I shouldn't have felt threatened.

Ah armchair monday morning quarterbacking, also known as "just world hypothesis" "actor-observer bias", and in this case add a heavy dose of victim blaming. -_-

[s_stabeler]

You have to define how you feel threatened and what is a valid threat.

The shooter in this case did not comply with the robbers. They ordered everyone down and he stayed in his chair. He then stood up and approached the robbers before shooting at them.

It's hard to claim self defense when you're in the aggressive role.

Did he get his CWP from Uncle Jimbo and his "It's Coming Right For Us!!!!" school of hunting?

um, by thta definition, self-defense would be impossible. not following the instructions of the robebr does NOT negate self-defense.

also, when someone is brandishing any form of weaon at me, you can be damn sure |I consider it a threat- and, if it went to court, would expect that belief to stand up in court.

put it another way: at what point woudl you deem it to be a sufficient level of threat to warranty shooting the thief? when thye point the gun at you? when thye have already fired? in both of those cases, it is probably too late.

[TheHuckster]

The shooter in this case did not comply with the robbers. They ordered everyone down and he stayed in his chair. He then stood up and approached the robbers before shooting at them.

It's hard to claim self defense when you're in the aggressive role.

Wrong. Brandishing a gun, ordering everyone down, and demanding money is the aggressive role.

Ah armchair monday morning quarterbacking, also known as "just world hypothesis" "actor-observer bias", and in this case add a heavy dose of victim blaming. -_-

Are you seriously calling someone who was shot dead after a failed armed robbery attempt to be a victim?

[SkullKing]

Are you seriously calling someone who was shot dead after a failed armed robbery attempt to be a victim?

I believe she said the robber´s family is victim blaming, not you.

[TheHuckster]

I believe she said the robber´s family is victim blaming, not you.

Yeah, rereading that, I could see her post being directed at the robber's family... it was a little vague whether she was directing her post to them or AmbrosiaWriter.