4 guys try to rob a store, owner warns them then blows their faces off with shotgun

[Mugen123]

he could have fired 3x in succession.. it wasn't like he shot once.. looked around oh they are still moving and and shot at them a few more times..

just point and shoot until you're out of bullets in that situation right? it's not like the guys a cop... he see's a bunch of robbers.. they don't listen fire away..

no, but according to the article he was a cost-guard vet...

[Mugen123]

Lots of acts are committed relatively impulsively with not much thought. Realistically, you can't have a full on conversation with them, but it's certainly better than threatening someone with a weapon.

Common sense dictates you want to de-escalate the situation.



I highly doubt his life was at risk, not many people are willing to risk a life sentence to shoot a random convenience store clerk. The gun was a threat mechanism and if anything, the only thing that could of brought up his death (or anyones) was a struggle of any sort... which did occur.

Since you asked though, if I were in Gus' shoes I'd just give them the money, and let the cops handle it (police dogs anyone? -- good luck getting away). It's not worth risking my life for something that's covered under insurance. Not to mention sometimes you have to get your ego in check and realize that other people are influenced by your actions (family or otherwise). It's never just me or them.



You might want to do a little psychological evaluation of people in the military. They have the "right" to defend themselves, how many of them are negatively impacted? How many mass murders are related to people in the military or people obsessed with guns (don't use this 1 line as a quote and ignore the rest).

There's no doubt that -some- people can carry arms RESPONSIBLY, but that margin is far lower than your hypothetical statistic.

I'm not going to make things personal, perhaps you're a great person for society and you can be responsible with a weapon. However, do you whole-heartedly believe that a majority of modern day society has the fortitude to carry arms? Toss in cultural gaps in there, and perceptions of what is permissible or not and you'll definitely see some interesting times.

finally someone with some sense

[Mugen123]

Please explain why not killing them would be better for society as a whole. Also, explain how the public can benefit with the survival of the gangsters.

Because I don't understand why the outcome albeit harsh is ultimately bad for society.

That's really not what I was getting at, some people believe they could redeem themselves, some don't, that's a whole nother topic I really don't feel like getting into because it will never end.

All I'm saying is those 2 shots he fired after was overkill, they were already running, let the police pick them up.

[i6s1]

I don't see how owning a store gives one the right to kill people without discretion.

Maybe I should buy a store and set up a flame thrower, and incinerate someone random when they come in for a pack of smokes. Then I will just claim I was being robbed and it was in self defense.

Since I am a shop owner, there will be no questions!

I think it's pretty obvious that this was legitimate self defense. Everyone already has the right to kill during reasonable self defence, and so far, nobody's given any compeling evidence that this wasn't self defence.

[brunes]

I think it's pretty obvious that this was legitimate self defense. Everyone already has the right to kill during reasonable self defence, and so far, nobody's given any compeling evidence that this wasn't self defence.

The first shot at the guy with the gun was self defense.

The other 3 shots at guys while they were running away - one of which killed a man - were attempted murder IMO. The guy was in no imminent danger and thus self defense is not a valid defense for his actions..

[i6s1]

The first shot at the guy with the gun was self defense.

The other 3 shots at guys while they were running away - one of which killed a man - were attempted murder IMO. The guy was in no imminent danger and thus self defense is not a valid defense for his actions..

I've read a few of the news reports, and none of them mention that the 2nd and 3rd shot were fired as the attackers were running away. The reports do say that both of the dead ran away after being shot.

Even if one or more were hit in the back, it's possible that they turned as the gun went off, or that they were hit while the victim aimed at an attacker who was facing him.

Anyone who is armed is still a threat while running away, especially when the victim has a short range weapon like a shotgun loaded with buckshot. It's safer to stop the threat before the attacker can gain the upper hand.


EDIT: Here's an update;

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...BEW0QD9A2UV9O2

He said the bandits drew their handguns, yelling, "Where's the money? Where's the money?"

when he sensed one of the men was about to shoot, and pulled the trigger once.

"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.

[tritium4ever]

you're telling me owning your average person would have time to go to their gunstash if someone broke in and pointed a gun at a family member as hostage?

At least the police are trained to kill and resolve these situations..

not all thiefs are looking to murder, most of them just take material things of value and leave.. At least if they do get caught they won't face charges of life in prison.

If they're only looking to take things and leave, then they wouldn't have brought guns. The moment they bring weapons into the picture, there is an implied threat of force (else why bring the weapons?) and that's all the justification you need to protect yourself by any necessary means.

Police can't be everywhere. In the few minutes it takes for them to respond, you could well be dead without a means to protect yourself. I dunno about you but I'd rather not leave my life in the hands of the bad guys.

EDIT: Oh and the reason why the average Canadian can't reach their gun stash in time to save their lives is because the law prevents them from doing so. Here, you can't keep a loaded gun close by without breaking the law. You can't even have a loaded gun inside a locked safe. It's rather absurd. If the shopkeeper had been in Canada, he would've been charged with improper storage of a firearm and would likely be going to jail...all for defending his life. Meanwhile, in jursidictions such as Arizona or New Hampshire, you can openly carry your guns around the street without a permit...if you're the robber, would you f*ck with a guy who's got the balls to show you he's locked and loaded?

[CSAgent]

If they're only looking to take things and leave, then they wouldn't have brought guns. The moment they bring weapons into the picture, there is an implied threat of force (else why bring the weapons?) and that's all the justification you need to protect yourself by any necessary means.

Police can't be everywhere. In the few minutes it takes for them to respond, you could well be dead without a means to protect yourself. I dunno about you but I'd rather not leave my life in the hands of the bad guys.

EDIT: Oh and the reason why the average Canadian can't reach their gun stash in time to save their lives is because the law prevents them from doing so. Here, you can't keep a loaded gun close by without breaking the law. You can't even have a loaded gun inside a locked safe. It's rather absurd. If the shopkeeper had been in Canada, he would've been charged with improper storage of a firearm and would likely be going to jail...all for defending his life. Meanwhile, in jursidictions such as Arizona or New Hampshire, you can openly carry your guns around the street without a permit...if you're the robber, would you f*ck with a guy who's got the balls to show you he's locked and loaded?

Exactly.

Adding to this, why do thieves/robbers carry weapons? To inflict harm if their demands are not met.

They'd be pretty crappy dumb thieves if they walk into your house and started demanding stuff without any kind of lethal force, i.e. gun.

The prissiness on this forum is absurd, I'd like to see the people advocating against this guy face a thieve face to face that's threatening your life and your well being say the same things you are saying now.

[MasterXan]

OT:

check out our ol' so great mainstream media demonizing gun shop owners

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6VOjpNUUr4

[WontonTiger]

Man this thread is sickening.

According to most in this thread it seems we should bring back the death penalty, and give teenage kids caught shoplifting gum the chair.,

Sensationalize much?

I don't see how owning a store gives one the right to kill people without discretion.

Maybe I should buy a store and set up a flame thrower, and incinerate someone random when they come in for a pack of smokes. Then I will just claim I was being robbed and it was in self defense.

Since I am a shop owner, there will be no questions!

Let's get back to reality here. Let's not Godwin this thread.

As someone going into Policing, I'm quite blown away by a few of the responses.

Normally, I don't even read these threads or watch the news, way too much bs. At the same time there are a number of people who are deeply opinionated, yet know very little about what actually transpired, why it happened, and how it could of been dealt with. Then again, there will always be those kind of people that think they are a better hockey coach, or a better politician than whomever has the seat. On the other hand, you only get upset about things you care about, so at least it's a step in the right direction.

People commit actions for a reason, while some of these actions are dangerous to society, simply killing someone off or inducing a level of fear does not really help anything. Some people may feel more secure holding a firearm, but in reality you're about 8x more likely to shoot a loved one (paranoia).

Furthermore, most people have something called an "ego" while a gun may deter a particular act at a given time, the chances are someone will come back after you, or you may even go after them -- actions are never forgotten.

Regardless, I can go on forever. The point is, try to look objectively at situations and the potential solutions / repercussions to every action. -Every- case is unique and if there were 1 way to solve everything, it would already be in place.

You would have to admit then, looking at it subjectively, with your background, you have to agree with the shopowner.

He was a coastguard member.
He had the gun 20 years, never was fired (until that day).
He warned them to leave.

In this specific case, the gun quite possibly saved the owner's life. For responsible people (read not total gun-toting morons), a gun can be the only thing that could save you against another gun-toting moron.

It's that simple.

you're telling me owning your average person would have time to go to their gunstash if someone broke in and pointed a gun at a family member as hostage?

At least the police are trained to kill and resolve these situations..

not all thiefs are looking to murder, most of them just take material things of value and leave.. At least if they do get caught they won't face charges of life in prison.

If you enter a house that is occupied, it's no longer theft. Thieves target empty homes/businesses. Robbers attack occupied locations, and are more often armed. There is a distinction.

[ES_Revenge]

I highly doubt his life was at risk, not many people are willing to risk a life sentence to shoot a random convenience store clerk. The gun was a threat mechanism and if anything, the only thing that could of brought up his death (or anyones) was a struggle of any sort... which did occur.

And I suppose if you were working in the store while it was getting robbed you'd be the first to test your theory there out right?

Sit at your computer and type what you will, when you have a gun to your head with a twitchy finger behind the trigger, then tell us you're oh so confident of this "high doubt" your life is at risk.