• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Business Owner Kills Armed Robbers

The other - Raylin Footmon, a nephew of a cop in the NYPD's 25th Precinct - made it across the street before collapsing on the sidewalk, police and witnesses said. He was later pronounced dead at St. Luke's Hospital.
Click to expand...

that surprised me a bit
 
The robbers (or their families) should be forced to pay for the bullets and whatever other damages they caused. Shooting robbers in the back should be legal. Everyone knows this.
 
he furious employee who had been pistol-whipped ran out of the store and leaned over the mortally wounded Footmon, cursing at him, witnesses said.

The worker went back into the store and dragged Morgan's body onto the sidewalk, yelling at him and kicking him, witnesses said.

"He stood over the body cursing him and shaking him, even though he was dead," said Matthew Viane, 38, who lives in the neighborhood. "He was screaming at him and stomping him. "He [the employee] said, 'You were going to kill me? Now you're dead!'"
Click to expand...

This man is amazing.
 
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
he furious employee who had been pistol-whipped ran out of the store and leaned over the mortally wounded Footmon, cursing at him, witnesses said.

The worker went back into the store and dragged Morgan's body onto the sidewalk, yelling at him and kicking him, witnesses said.

"He stood over the body cursing him and shaking him, even though he was dead," said Matthew Viane, 38, who lives in the neighborhood. "He was screaming at him and stomping him. "He [the employee] said, 'You were going to kill me? Now you're dead!'"
Click to expand...

This man is amazing.
Click to expand...

Heh
 
Good for the restaurant owner. Especially liked pistol whipped working dragging the dead body outside and cursing at him.
 
They got owned. He broke the law probably with a back shot but hey slap on the wrist, maybe community service or something or volunteer work to teach a class on targeting.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
They got owned. He broke the law probably with a back shot but hey slap on the wrist, maybe community service or something or volunteer work to teach a class on targeting.
Click to expand...

My bet is it will even help his business.
 
at 20-30 feet with a 12 gauge shotgun at that distance is it hard to be accurate with it? I though after 10-15 feet it becomes highly inaccurate.

The Human laws that are written somewhere say you cant shoot people in the back even during war and crap, idk. I read it a while ago for some school paper
 
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
The robbers (or their families) should be forced to pay for the bullets and whatever other damages they caused. Shooting robbers in the back should be legal. Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...

I was robbed at gun point, when the robber was heading out the door I should have been able to shoot him in the back? I don't think so, you only shoot when a person's a threat. When they're hi tailing it away they're no longer a threat so shooting them should be illegal. This coming from somebody who was robbed with a Glock to the side of his head.
 
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
The robbers (or their families) should be forced to pay for the bullets and whatever other damages they caused. Shooting robbers in the back should be legal. Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...

I was robbed at gun point, when the robber was heading out the door I should have been able to shoot him in the back? I don't think so, you only shoot when a person's a threat. When they're hi tailing it away they're no longer a threat so shooting them should be illegal. This coming from somebody who was robbed with a Glock to the side of his head.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I personally view my property and money (even it is just pocket change) more valuable than the life of anyone that would try to take it from me by force.

So yes, you should be allowed to shoot them in the back fleeing, then charge their family with murder for raising such a fuck up.

 
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
The robbers (or their families) should be forced to pay for the bullets and whatever other damages they caused. Shooting robbers in the back should be legal. Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...

I was robbed at gun point, when the robber was heading out the door I should have been able to shoot him in the back? I don't think so, you only shoot when a person's a threat. When they're hi tailing it away they're no longer a threat so shooting them should be illegal. This coming from somebody who was robbed with a Glock to the side of his head.
Click to expand...

same here dude. been robbed with a gun and a shotgun pointed at me. i think its the anger/rage/adrenaline that makes people getting robbed want to shoot them in the back.. or maybe they just dont understand the law that well either. scary experience though.
 
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
The robbers (or their families) should be forced to pay for the bullets and whatever other damages they caused. Shooting robbers in the back should be legal. Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...

I was robbed at gun point, when the robber was heading out the door I should have been able to shoot him in the back? I don't think so, you only shoot when a person's a threat. When they're hi tailing it away they're no longer a threat so shooting them should be illegal. This coming from somebody who was robbed with a Glock to the side of his head.
Click to expand...

Then you are a fool. You should have killed him when you had the chance. You don't know the state of mind the robber is in. He might decide that he should leave no witnesses, and come back to kill you. Once you pull out a weapon and threaten someones life, you must die. Everyone knows this.
 
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
The robbers (or their families) should be forced to pay for the bullets and whatever other damages they caused. Shooting robbers in the back should be legal. Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...

I was robbed at gun point, when the robber was heading out the door I should have been able to shoot him in the back? I don't think so, you only shoot when a person's a threat. When they're hi tailing it away they're no longer a threat so shooting them should be illegal. This coming from somebody who was robbed with a Glock to the side of his head.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I personally view my property and money (even it is just pocket change) more valuable than the life of anyone that would try to take it from me by force.

So yes, you should be allowed to shoot them in the back fleeing, then charge their family with murder for raising such a fuck up.
Click to expand...

Ok, well when the police showed up, they mentioned if I had shot him in the back I more than likely would have gone to jail. They saw the gun we had and asked if I was tempted to shoot him as he ran away. So the LAW also agrees with me. It's not unheard of for people to get hard time for shooting a robber in the back. If you want to risk hard time when the threat is gone that's totally up to you man.
 
Originally posted by: QueBert

Ok, well when the police showed up, they mentioned if I had shot him in the back I more than likely would have gone to jail. They saw the gun we had and asked if I was tempted to shoot him as he ran away. So the LAW also agrees with me. It's not unheard of for people to get hard time for shooting a robber in the back. If you want to risk hard time when the threat is gone that's totally up to you man.
Click to expand...

The law is not on your side when they are in his store and have already threatened death or grave harm. The owner won't be charged with anything. Law is on his side. Even in NY, which is one of the funny states.
 
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
The robbers (or their families) should be forced to pay for the bullets and whatever other damages they caused. Shooting robbers in the back should be legal. Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...

I was robbed at gun point, when the robber was heading out the door I should have been able to shoot him in the back? I don't think so, you only shoot when a person's a threat. When they're hi tailing it away they're no longer a threat so shooting them should be illegal. This coming from somebody who was robbed with a Glock to the side of his head.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I personally view my property and money (even it is just pocket change) more valuable than the life of anyone that would try to take it from me by force.

So yes, you should be allowed to shoot them in the back fleeing, then charge their family with murder for raising such a fuck up.
Click to expand...

Ok, well when the police showed up, they mentioned if I had shot him in the back I more than likely would have gone to jail. They saw the gun we had and asked if I was tempted to shoot him as he ran away. So the LAW also agrees with me. It's not unheard of for people to get hard time for shooting a robber in the back. If you want to risk hard time when the threat is gone that's totally up to you man.
Click to expand...

The law is not always correct.
 
In California he would get 15 to life for 2nd degree murder. Is it right? I don't know. Once the perp runs away I'm not sure if you have the right to shoot him in the back.
 
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
The robbers (or their families) should be forced to pay for the bullets and whatever other damages they caused. Shooting robbers in the back should be legal. Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...

I was robbed at gun point, when the robber was heading out the door I should have been able to shoot him in the back? I don't think so, you only shoot when a person's a threat. When they're hi tailing it away they're no longer a threat so shooting them should be illegal. This coming from somebody who was robbed with a Glock to the side of his head.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I personally view my property and money (even it is just pocket change) more valuable than the life of anyone that would try to take it from me by force.

So yes, you should be allowed to shoot them in the back fleeing, then charge their family with murder for raising such a fuck up.
Click to expand...

Ok, well when the police showed up, they mentioned if I had shot him in the back I more than likely would have gone to jail. They saw the gun we had and asked if I was tempted to shoot him as he ran away. So the LAW also agrees with me. It's not unheard of for people to get hard time for shooting a robber in the back. If you want to risk hard time when the threat is gone that's totally up to you man.
Click to expand...

Any DA with an IQ over 10 would not prosecute a case like that.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: QueBert

Ok, well when the police showed up, they mentioned if I had shot him in the back I more than likely would have gone to jail. They saw the gun we had and asked if I was tempted to shoot him as he ran away. So the LAW also agrees with me. It's not unheard of for people to get hard time for shooting a robber in the back. If you want to risk hard time when the threat is gone that's totally up to you man.
Click to expand...

The law is not on your side when they are in his store and have already threatened death or grave harm. The owner won't be charged with anything. Law is on his side.
Click to expand...

I was robbed at gun point, the guy ran away. I had 3 police offers going over the surveillance tape and talking to me for a good 30 minutes straight. If the assailant is shot in the back they're not posing a threat. People will still shoot due to adrenalin, or anger. Doesn't put them in the right thought.

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Then you are a fool. You should have killed him when you had the chance. You don't know the state of mind the robber is in. He might decide that he should leave no witnesses, and come back to kill you. Once you pull out a weapon and threaten someones life, you must die. Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...


Funny, all 3 cops said I did the right thing by not shooting him. Robbers rarely return to the scene of a crime, the store I worked at had been robbed 5 times over 10 years, nobody was ever shot. And no robbers ever returned. But if I had shot him I could almost guarantee his homeboys would have came looking for me. No cops will recommend shooting unless your life is immediately threatened. You won't find a single cop who will agree with what you're telling me

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top