• 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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: coldmeat
I read the article and I don't see it saying anywhere that he shot them while they were fleeing. It just says they were shot in the back.
Click to expand...

That's what I was wondering too, if he shot them in the back while they were pistol whipping the other employee or something.
 
Originally posted by: SandEagle
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.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they just know that anyone who would commit such a crime is a worthless waste of flesh who SHOULD be killed so they quit polluting society and don't go on to hurt someone else...which they WILL do in almost every case.
 
Originally posted by: irishScott
Uh, for those of you saying you'd shoot them in the back, there's a good compromise solution here.

1. Get mugged
2. Muggers leave but don't realize you're carrying
3. Draw weapon, tell muggers to get on the ground, fire warning shot.
4. Muggers turn around to see WTF is going on. If they refuse to get on the ground, shoot them in the chest.
5. No back shot, say they were charging you, problem solved.
Click to expand...

Except that firing a warning shot will usually get you arrested since its illegal in most states.
 
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: irishScott
Uh, for those of you saying you'd shoot them in the back, there's a good compromise solution here.

1. Get mugged
2. Muggers leave but don't realize you're carrying
3. Draw weapon, tell muggers to get on the ground, fire warning shot.
4. Muggers turn around to see WTF is going on. If they refuse to get on the ground, shoot them in the chest.
5. No back shot, say they were charging you, problem solved.
Click to expand...

what if they don't refuse? What do you do? By the law of most jurisdictions, a citizen can not rightfully hold suspects as "prisoners" of a sort, while awaiting police to take them away. They've charged people with kidnapping for that or something. Might be based on the situation, but basically, here's what I'm saying: in most states, the law is made by a bunch of pussies who like to go after anyone who defends their property.

Texas seems to be the only state where just about anything goes in the name of property defense. And dammit, that's how it outta be.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to a news article when that happened (armed citizen holds violent felon at gunpoint) and when the victim of the original crime was charged with kidnapping? I'd be curious to see it.
Click to expand...

one - didn't notice that was the UK, but... similar things have happened here
two - Canada. damn, i'll find one in the US

hmm. having a hard time with searching, probably not using the best search terms ("citizen's arrest charged with kidnapping"), as the Toronto and U.K. cases keep appearing multiple times, or some obviously retarded cases.

I think it just happens so rarely that it doesn't get much attention, and the fact that it happens so rarely that maybe that type of case hasn't happened in the U.S. in awhile. Or maybe they've gotten better with determining true kidnap situations, versus holding obvious threats captive for the police after an incident.
I had seen the Canadian case recently, but hadn't realized it was in Toronto - thought it was somewhere in the states.
Click to expand...

Yep. In the UK it's basically illegal to defend yourself or your property. Stupid. I will never live there solely for stories like that. The Canadian case might actually be valid, as the guy confined people he "believed" had stolen some plants. Doesn't sound like he had any proof.

As for cases in the US, that's why I'll make sure I live in a state with decent gun laws. They tend to be more sympathetic about self-defense. Personally I take pride in my ability to defend myself, and I believe anyone who's incapable of defending themselves needs a reality check. It's called independence.

But I digress. What if they don't refuse? Hold them prisoner and appeal appeal appeal if you get a moronic judge/cops. If I have a witness the case is bulletproof. Granted if they laid a finger on my GF or any of my close friends the point would be moot, as I'd probably lose control and simply kill them by any means available. Maybe I'd be alert enough to get them to face me first. Then I could say I thought I saw them going for a weapon, it was the heat of the moment, I was afraid for my life and the lives of others, they had already proven themselves to be a deadly threat, and I fired. In the UK I'd probably be sentenced to years in prison for murder. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: irishScott
Uh, for those of you saying you'd shoot them in the back, there's a good compromise solution here.

1. Get mugged
2. Muggers leave but don't realize you're carrying
3. Draw weapon, tell muggers to get on the ground, fire warning shot.
4. Muggers turn around to see WTF is going on. If they refuse to get on the ground, shoot them in the chest.
5. No back shot, say they were charging you, problem solved.
Click to expand...

Except that firing a warning shot will usually get you arrested since its illegal in most states.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A warning shot will get you convicted (in criminal or civil court) faster than anything else you could possibly do. The logic (albeit ignorant & misguided) from the judicial system, is that if you have time to fire a warning shot, you have time to retreat from a deadly encounter & have no reason to use deadly force.

A happy note, is that many states including my own happy state of Arizona, have passed laws recently that state that I have no legal obligation to retreat under the threat of bodily injury. And may use deadly force if necessary to defend myself, my property or that of others. Furthermore, it is now upon the prosecutor to prove that I needed to use deadly force, not the other way around.

Once you have reason to draw the weapon, use it. And no warning shots, shoot to kill.
 
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...

and the squirrels too, right?

 
Shoot him in the back...

Roll him over and shoot him in the face...

Then drag him back inside...

Then hose off the sidewalk...

Everyone knows this...
 
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: irishScott
Uh, for those of you saying you'd shoot them in the back, there's a good compromise solution here.

1. Get mugged
2. Muggers leave but don't realize you're carrying
3. Draw weapon, tell muggers to get on the ground, fire warning shot.
4. Muggers turn around to see WTF is going on. If they refuse to get on the ground, shoot them in the chest.
5. No back shot, say they were charging you, problem solved.
Click to expand...

what if they don't refuse? What do you do? By the law of most jurisdictions, a citizen can not rightfully hold suspects as "prisoners" of a sort, while awaiting police to take them away. They've charged people with kidnapping for that or something. Might be based on the situation, but basically, here's what I'm saying: in most states, the law is made by a bunch of pussies who like to go after anyone who defends their property.

Texas seems to be the only state where just about anything goes in the name of property defense. And dammit, that's how it outta be.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to a news article when that happened (armed citizen holds violent felon at gunpoint) and when the victim of the original crime was charged with kidnapping? I'd be curious to see it.
Click to expand...

one - didn't notice that was the UK, but... similar things have happened here
two - Canada. damn, i'll find one in the US

hmm. having a hard time with searching, probably not using the best search terms ("citizen's arrest charged with kidnapping"), as the Toronto and U.K. cases keep appearing multiple times, or some obviously retarded cases.

I think it just happens so rarely that it doesn't get much attention, and the fact that it happens so rarely that maybe that type of case hasn't happened in the U.S. in awhile. Or maybe they've gotten better with determining true kidnap situations, versus holding obvious threats captive for the police after an incident.
I had seen the Canadian case recently, but hadn't realized it was in Toronto - thought it was somewhere in the states.
Click to expand...

Neither of those cases were violent felons. Even in the US you may be arrested if you forcibly detain someone for committing a non-violent misdemeanor. Detaining a violent criminal, however, is perfectly legal.
 
Originally posted by: SandEagle
hmm.. new article out. according to this, he did fire a warning shot, but they didn't leave

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32...news-crime_and_courts/

"I hoped after the first shot they would go away," he said.

When they didn't, continuing to menace his employees, he fired again, and again.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say anything about a warning shot, though. It could mean that he shot one of the criminals and then waited a few moments before dispatching the rest.
 
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...

ah, if only everyone was as principled as you...
 
"he told me he was going to get his gun to kill me, then his friend told me the same thing when I shot the first"
 
Originally posted by: irishScott
Uh, for those of you saying you'd shoot them in the back, there's a good compromise solution here.

1. Get mugged
2. Muggers leave but don't realize you're carrying
3. Draw weapon, tell muggers to get on the ground, fire warning shot.
4. Muggers turn around to see WTF is going on. If they refuse to get on the ground, shoot them in the chest.
5. No back shot, say they were charging you, problem solved.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh if it were only in the movies.
Peoples instinct upon hearing a weapon fired is to move AWAY from the source, not turn around to investigate.
 
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...

That's what you get for living in Kalifornia. The guy is still on your property and it's not a threat to your life? Are you fucking serious? What if you spied him in your room but his back was to you, is that threatening or not?
 
I would have loved to be that one worker, cursing and giving it to his would be murder. The last thing that slime of a human being robber would see in his life is me taunting him, mocking him as his life blood drained from his body...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top