He shouldn't have felt threatened...

[TheHuckster]

I may be wrong, but I believe in Canada, we have different laws for Robbery vs Robbery with a Weapon, the later carries a heavier sentence. I believe the thinking is, that if you have a weapon you are more threatening than without, so the crime is rightfully worse.

Grab enough weaponless robbers with a lot of brawn against a single helpless cashier, and you can be just as threatening as a robber with a weapon.

Just saying. If a robber isn't using intimidation to get what they want, they're either the most polite robber in the world or they have the IQ of a hockey puck. The whole point of robbing someone is to make them feel threatened, and you don't need a weapon to do so.

[siead_lietrathua]

Grab enough weaponless robbers with a lot of brawn against a single helpless cashier, and you can be just as threatening as a robber with a weapon.

Just saying. If a robber isn't using intimidation to get what they want, they're either the most polite robber in the world or they have the IQ of a hockey puck. The whole point of robbing someone is to make them feel threatened, and you don't need a weapon to do so.

they may not need a weapon to intimidate, but adding a weapon takes it from "oh shit i could get my ass beat if i don't comply" to "oh shit i can get my ass killed if i don't comply"

and when you're talking firearms, you also have to factor in accidental discharge as well, if said robber keeps his finger on the trigger like a moron.

[Jetfire]

Just to partly clarify (though I'm not good at reading Legalese so I may be interpretting wrongly), weapon charges are a supplemental charge that may be added on to almost any offense (including robbery) under Canadian law. I assume it is viewed as a harsher/more penalized charge. And just sticking your fingers in the shape of a gun is NOT enough to be considered a weapons charge.

[Barracuda]

Those of you who are arguing the "punishment doesn't fit the crime" are kind of missing a vital point. He wasn't killed as punishment for his crime, he was killed because he was in the process of threatening innocent people's lives and one of them defended himself and everyone else in the room.

Put bluntly, when you fear for your life, when you are afraid you are about to be hurt or other innocent people are about to be hurt, you have a right and a moral duty to act. And the only way to be sure you stop the criminal from hurting people is to stop them cold, either by incapacitating them or killing them, and very few people, INCLUDING police, can deliberately shoot to incapacitate successfully.

There's that War Story on here about the guy who threatened the member who was a furniture salesman, not just once but several times with imminent harm. Is anyone really going to suggest he had no right to fight back like he did?

It's the exact same situation. This wasn't vigilantism, he didn't decide to shoot to "take the law into his own hands", he shot because the punk had a GUN waving around towards him and other innocent people! Period f***ing dot. People like the family who are armchair quarterbacking after the fact will pardon me if I regard their opinion with some contempt, since it wasn't THEIR lives on the line if they were WRONG and I get the feeling most of them would be the kind of person who would NEVER carry a gun for self defense even if they legally could (meaning they would likely never find themselves faced with that choice anyway.)

[Jester]

I may be wrong, but I believe in Canada, we have different laws for Robbery vs Robbery with a Weapon, the later carries a heavier sentence.

It's the same in the U.S. Robbery is a criminal act, but Armed Robbery is a criminal act with a more severe penalty attached to it.

Grab enough weaponless robbers with a lot of brawn against a single helpless cashier, and you can be just as threatening as a robber with a weapon.

Just saying. If a robber isn't using intimidation to get what they want, they're either the most polite robber in the world or they have the IQ of a hockey puck. The whole point of robbing someone is to make them feel threatened, and you don't need a weapon to do so.

Incorrect. The whole point of robbing someone is to get something they have that you want, either through force, intimidation, or stealth. You can rob someone without that person every being aware of it. For example, if I break into your house in the middle of the night when you are asleep, or at a time when you are only hem, and I take away from your home various items of value so that I may profit from it, I have just robbed you. I have not threatened you, nor intimidated you, nor put you in any physical danger, nor made you feel threatened in any way (at least during the robbery--afterwards, you may very well feel threatened and violated), and yet, I have still robbed you.

Now, whether a robber commits their robbery stealthily or with a show of weaponry or force, in almost all instances, the point of the robbery is to acquire something of value by illicit means. While some sadistic robbers may feel otherwise, the POINT of the robbery is not to threaten those robbed; that is usually just a means to an end.

[TheHuckster]

Incorrect. The whole point of robbing someone is to get something they have that you want, either through force, intimidation, or stealth. You can rob someone without that person every being aware of it. For example, if I break into your house in the middle of the night when you are asleep, or at a time when you are only hem, and I take away from your home various items of value so that I may profit from it, I have just robbed you. I have not threatened you, nor intimidated you, nor put you in any physical danger, nor made you feel threatened in any way (at least during the robbery--afterwards, you may very well feel threatened and violated), and yet, I have still robbed you.

Now, whether a robber commits their robbery stealthily or with a show of weaponry or force, in almost all instances, the point of the robbery is to acquire something of value by illicit means. While some sadistic robbers may feel otherwise, the POINT of the robbery is not to threaten those robbed; that is usually just a means to an end.

I guess it's my vernacular but I typically define "stealth robbery" as burglary, and not robbery. Any form of theft that involves intimidation and coercion is what I consider to be robbery. I guess the term is ambiguous, though. In my latest search for the definition today, robbery is often defined as "stealing with force or threat of force" but there are other definitions in other places that more broadly define it.

So point taken.

[Kheldarson]

I guess it's my vernacular but I typically define "stealth robbery" as burglary, and not robbery. Any form of theft that involves intimidation and coercion is what I consider to be robbery. I guess the term is ambiguous, though. In my latest search for the definition today, robbery is often defined as "stealing with force or threat of force" but there are other definitions in other places that more broadly define it.

So point taken.

Actually, you're right:

http://criminal.laws.com/burglary/burglary-vs-robbery

Burglary assumes that the victim isn't there; for a robbery, they must be present.

[Jester]

I think we're both right, after a fashion.

I think we can all agree that armed robbery is pretty much what took place here, i.e., the use of a weapon to intimidate and threaten others into handing over their goods or money to the person with the weapon.

And burglary is, of course, stealing from them without their immediate knowledge.

My point was that robbing someone is stealing from them, and vice versa, however it is accomplished. Legally speaking, there is a definite difference between robbery and burglary, and by the legal definition, it would be wrong to say the two are the same.

But robbing someone is stealing, no matter how it is done. The phrase "he robbed them blind" often implies that the culprit took from the victim without the victim's awareness, and to a great degree. Many burglary victims have said, in one way or another, that they felt robbed of everything, not just their possessions, but their feeling of safety and security in their own homes.

Yes, it is semantics, and I probably should not have honed such a fine point on it. Legally, committing robbery, armed or otherwise, is through threat of force, burglary is stealing through stealth. But you can rob someone without committing robbery per se.

Or perhaps I've just had too much beer.

[s_stabeler]

I think we can agree that an armed robbery, regardless of semantics on the definition of robbery Vs burglary, is where you use the threat of force to force someone to hand over something (either money, or an item)- therefore, when the threat is of lethal force, then it is justified in using lethal force on the person threatening such.

[Jester]

It is debatable whether or not a lethal reaction is justified, but a violent response in defense of oneself and others certainly is. Armed robbery, with it's inherent intimidation factor, is threatening, and it's hard to fault someone for reacting to a clear threat with some form of force. The idea that no one should have felt threatened is naive and ignorant, or simply a blatant disregard of the facts.

[crashhelmet]

you don't have to retract anything.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1240447/dante-williams-killed/

williams was shot in the chest and head as he walked towards harrison
not in the back of the head as he was leaving.
harrison fired multiple shots from a yard or two of distance. not point-blank aimed at the head.
the only people saying he was shot in the back of the head is the family.
the video shows he was shot as he approaches harrison

so can we stop saying he was shot in the back of the head already? because it's fucking incorrect!

I'm having trouble finding it now because of the SEO utilized shenanigans bringing everything "Pro Gun" to the top of Google searches. There was a report that said the video showed the deceased walking past the shooter towards the door. The shooter stood up and fired multiple times. The first shot hit him in the back of the head, spinning him around and causing the next bullet to hit him in the chest.

It was because of this that the family decided to file a lawsuit against the shooter.

Aside from that, yes, the family members are the only people talking about him getting shot in the back of the head. However, no other report contradicts it or discredits it. All they simply say is that he was, in fact, shot in the head and chest.

As for the video of the shooting? The only copy I can find is in the background of the interview with the shooter. This copy of the video does not show the shooting itself. So how do you even know how far away he was, or at what distance?

[wolfie]

Incorrect. The whole point of robbing someone is to get something they have that you want, either through force, intimidation, or stealth. You can rob someone without that person every being aware of it.

IANAL, but my understanding is that robbery is theft through violence or threat of violence. The classic "thug sticks a gun in the victim's face" is robbery. So is the offender slipping a sedative in the victim's drink and stealing their stuff while they're unconscious (the only case where a victim wouldn't be aware of it). A pickpocket, on the other hand, is NOT committing robbery (but he's still a thief). Ditto for a burglar (assuming the premises are either unoccupied, or the occupant is asleep and doesn't notice the crime until they wake up in the morning).

This is the big difference between "auto theft" and "burglary" on the one hand, and "carjacking" and "home invasion" on the other. You come out of the shopping mall and find that your car has been stolen? Not robbery. You're stopped at a traffic light when someone sticks a gun in your face and orders you out of the car? Robbery.

[siead_lietrathua]

I'm having trouble finding it now because of the SEO utilized shenanigans bringing everything "Pro Gun" to the top of Google searches. There was a report that said the video showed the deceased walking past the shooter towards the door. The shooter stood up and fired multiple times. The first shot hit him in the back of the head, spinning him around and causing the next bullet to hit him in the chest.

the only video they show is the robbers pacing about during the robbery, then after the shots were fired, of the second guy escaping. they don't show the kid being shot, probably out of respect to his family. so unless someone here is willing to hack around for a copy of the full video, odds are we won't see it.

but the cops are saying that the tape shows the kid approaching the customer, raising his gun, and then getting shot by harrison. and i'm not going to reject what the cops say the tape shows, just because they won't let the media use the exact footage of the kid getting shot.

http://www.wyff4.com/Deputies-Waffle...0079434#!0Lz8r

"Deputies said one of the robbery suspects pointed his gun at the customer, and the customer then shot the man, who died on the scene."

hard to point a gun at someone if you're facing away from them.


as to having a hard time finding info.... this story is two years old. not that surprised it's sunk to the bottom of the web by now. i've been searching about for a coroner's report with no luck so far so, again, i'll take the cops at their word.

[crashhelmet]

the only video they show is the robbers pacing about during the robbery, then after the shots were fired, of the second guy escaping. they don't show the kid being shot, probably out of respect to his family. so unless someone here is willing to hack around for a copy of the full video, odds are we won't see it.

but the cops are saying that the tape shows the kid approaching the customer, raising his gun, and then getting shot by harrison. and i'm not going to reject what the cops say the tape shows, just because they won't let the media use the exact footage of the kid getting shot.

http://www.wyff4.com/Deputies-Waffle...0079434#!0Lz8r

"Deputies said one of the robbery suspects pointed his gun at the customer, and the customer then shot the man, who died on the scene."

hard to point a gun at someone if you're facing away from them.


as to having a hard time finding info.... this story is two years old. not that surprised it's sunk to the bottom of the web by now. i've been searching about for a coroner's report with no luck so far so, again, i'll take the cops at their word.

What the deputies said was in the incident report and taken from the shooter.

Every report based on the video, which pretty much is just a repost of this link says

The video shows Williams, gun by his side, walk back toward Harrison, who stands up and fires several shots killing Williams almost instantly.

The shooter lied in his report to the police and the press at the time of the shooting. He said the gun was pointed at him. He says the accomplice ran at him, when the video shows he first paused to check on the deceased before trying to run out the door.

[siead_lietrathua]

Every report based on the video, which pretty much is just a repost of this link

we were talking about whether williams was shot while walking towards harrison, VS the idea that he was shot in the back of the head while leaving. so, the video shows (gun raised or not) that williams was not shot in the back while leaving. unless he was moonwalking towards harrison, he couldn't be shot in the back of his head.
which was my point. that saying he was shot in the BACK of the head is wrong.