Silly robber in St. Louis gets owned

[Ackmed]

So many apologist for an obvious thug. It is sickening. He got what he deserved. I suppose his mother will say he is a good boy, was making changes, etc. The usual bullshit lines.

 

[highland145]

:ninja:



We don't need no damned facts here.:|

 

[highland145]

So many apologist for an obvious thug. It is sickening. He got what he deserved. I suppose his mother will say he is a good boy, was making changes, etc. The usual bullshit lines.

College bound.

 

[Brainonska511]

So many apologist for an obvious thug. It is sickening. He got what he deserved. I suppose his mother will say he is a good boy, was making changes, etc. The usual bullshit lines.

Where are the apologists? I didn't see any beyond people that just wanted the facts before blindly rushing to judgement based on a fact-poor news article.

 

[Chaotic42]

I've lived in St. Louis for hours now and haven't been robbed or murdered.

 

[TechBoyJK]

 

[TechBoyJK]

I've lived in St. Louis for hours now and haven't been robbed or murdered.

where at in stl?

 

[zinfamous]

So many apologist for an obvious thug. It is sickening. He got what he deserved. I suppose his mother will say he is a good boy, was making changes, etc. The usual bullshit lines.

are you daft? tell me how the link in the OP passes as any kind of legitimate journalism.

here is the article:

"Some would-be thief got shot. Some stuff happened before that."

What do you think publishing that, without any care towards investigation, or reporting facts, was expected to achieve?

I tell you what the goal is: getting dipsticks like you to drop your cheeseburger and pump fists in the air about a criminal getting shot. Americuh! Fuck Yeah derpderduurrrr!

and all you dillholes ate it up in droves.

No one here laments a thug thief getting shot. No one. The aim of anyone's criticism in this thread is towards that horseshit article trying to pass itself off as anything more than directed click bait for NRA knob slobbers.

"apologists?" lol.

 

[HeavyD]

Maybe we should get all of the facts before we pass judgement me included.

 

[Chaotic42]

where at in stl?

Down in the southern part of the county. It's nice, I like it. I just need to stop watching the local news. People are dropping like flies up in the city.

 

[Blanky]

Based on the video I think it was a totally legit shoot, and since cops are already able to shoot somebody with a toy gun if they don't reasonably know better, a non-cop is, too. Also, we know people are allowed to use lethal force to defend an innocent third party.

If it happens as that vid said, there shouldn't be charges.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Based on the video I think it was a totally legit shoot, and since cops are already able to shoot somebody with a toy gun if they don't reasonably know better, a non-cop is, too. Also, we know people are allowed to use lethal force to defend an innocent third party.

If it happens as that vid said, there shouldn't be charges.

Yep.

I mean, if it's to the point in a scenario that

1) You are aware of someone with criminal intent is armed
2) You are armed
3) You are watching armed criminal use suspected firearm to commit robbery
4) Criminal is not aware that you are there, and you are armed
5) You can take clean shot to disable criminal

You have to shoot. You're a jerkface if you don't.

 

[jlee]

It isn't reasonable to assume either way, given the only information is that he "intervened"

How exactly did he "intervene" to get a supposedly armed thief out of his store with what seems to be no hassle?

Why are people in this thread telling people not to make assumptions, all the while doing the exact same thing?

Simply based on the information in that article you linked (at the state it was when you originally posted it), It is certainly reasonable to assume that the owner laughed at the (possibly drunk/inebriated) yahoo for pulling a toy gun on him and told him to gtfo, then decided to follow him, knowing all the while he wasn't armed; as it is to assume that he had no idea that the thief was armed or not.

Stop drawing unreasonable conclusions from a lack of information.

Still, as originally written, the only known "facts"

--owner gets thief to leave his store
--owner follows thief to second store
--owner pulls gun and shoots thief (in the back), when thief pulls a toy gun and makes the same threat to owner 2.

Tell me this--did the thief pull the toy gun on owner 1, and at that time owner 1 did nothing? Why is it unreasonable to assume this is actually what happened under the cover of the "intervened" description?

Yes--if owner 1 shot that dude for pulling a toy gun on him, I would say it is completely justified. We certainly know, however, that this is not what happened.

The physical orientation of an individual presenting an immediate and imminent threat of unlawful deadly force is irrelevant when discussing the legality of intervention.

 

[pcgeek11]

He damn well deserves to be charged.

If the owner had gunned the guy down in store 1 he would deserve a medal. But chasing the guy to another store crosses the line from self defense to assault with a deadly weapon.

Wrong. The robber was in the process of robbing another store with what was ( appeared ) to be a weapon. It was completely legal and justified. It doesn't matter that it was a toy gun if they thought it was real.

 

[luv2liv]

i dont understand why the law makes it so hard to shoot criminals.
does it really matter if he was robbing me or my friends? why does it matter if i shoot the punk in the back or front?

 

[AznAnarchy99]

i dont understand why the law makes it so hard to shoot criminals.
does it really matter if he was robbing me or my friends? why does it matter if i shoot the punk in the back or front?

I remember a video a few years ago where some kid robbed a liquor store and the owner shot back nailing him in the leg. He was still alive and the owner came over and executed him. Owner got prosecuted.

 

[Ns1]

Need an update when available.

 

[midnight growler]

Good news everyone, the robber was white! We can all now relax and not riot again!

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_f15e0d52-3aaa-5a68-95ff-56d81e102aad.html

 

[Darwin333]

He damn well deserves to be charged.

If the owner had gunned the guy down in store 1 he would deserve a medal. But chasing the guy to another store crosses the line from self defense to assault with a deadly weapon.

Not when the guy points a gun at him. There is nothing illegal about following someone. There is nothing illegal about following someone that just robbed you. There is nothing illegal about shooting someone who is in the middle of committing armed robbery and points a gun at you.

I'm not seeing where the guy broke the law. He might have "wanted" to get some vigilante justice but fortunately for him the bad guy gave him a perfectly legit and legal reason for the store owner to shoot him. Unless he flat out admits to chasing him for vigilante justice versus trying to ID the guy for the police there is absolutely no proof that he "intended" to break any laws.

Maybe you saw something that I didn't, exactly how do you think he broke the law? The bad guy was already in the process of committing another felony with what could at the time be reasonably be believed to be a gun when the store owner found him.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Not when the guy points a gun at him. There is nothing illegal about following someone. There is nothing illegal about following someone that just robbed you. There is nothing illegal about shooting someone who is in the middle of committing armed robbery and points a gun at you.

I'm not seeing where the guy broke the law. He might have "wanted" to get some vigilante justice but fortunately for him the bad guy gave him a perfectly legit and legal reason for the store owner to shoot him. Unless he flat out admits to chasing him for vigilante justice versus trying to ID the guy for the police there is absolutely no proof that he "intended" to break any laws.

Maybe you saw something that I didn't, exactly how do you think he broke the law? The bad guy was already in the process of committing another felony with what could at the time be reasonably be believed to be a gun when the store owner found him.

The guy was absolutely acting within the law when he shot the perp. /case

also

http://fox2now.com/2015/01/15/hotel-manager-among-4-people-murdered-just-hours-apart-in-st-louis/

 

[DrunkenSano]

They need to relax the laws when it comes to armed robbers. Once they declare an armed robbery, should be open season on them in any state as long as you don't endanger innocent bystanders. Just because the armed robber begins to flee, it should be okay to shoot to kill. He's still just as dangerous, and if he gets away successfully, he can kill again in the future.