Possible Endings to this tale

[compmanio365]

imported post

The guy walks in with a ski mask, ok, I'm already on heightened alert because of that. The guy pulls a gun out, he's getting drawn on and ordered to drop it, assuming he's not already aiming at someone; if he turns towards someone or myself, or if he's already got a bead on someone, that's when I pull the trigger until the threat is taken care of.

 

[darthmord]

imported post

A guy walks in, brandishes a firearm...

I'm either going to find cover and/or prepare to fire depending on what his actions are.

If the BG is actively pointing his firearm at people and/or has fired rounds, he's getting shot. End of story. He's proven his danger and willingness to kill others.

If the BG is just showing it threateningly, I cannot shoot him as he has not raised the threat level sufficiently to cause a self-defense / defense of others situation.

If I were behind him, I would demand he drop his weapon or else. Failing to do that, he'd likely be shot. Why? If he's refusing to drop his weapon and stand down, then he's going to turn it on me to prevent me from stopping his criminal acts.

It's why I like going to Open Carry Dinners. It'd be an incredibly stupid thing to rob a place where 20+ people are openly carrying.

But it really depends on how high the BG is escalating the situation. If he's not providing deadly / lethal force, I cannot either. But at the same time, my response will be metered by such things as Luby's. There's nothing saying he won't turn his gun on everyone once he gets the cash.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

I still wouldn't utter a syllable, if his gun is out, he's made it clear there's only two very small muscles between him and an innocent victim. pulling this heist off in the first place is a perfect example of thecurcuitry controlling those two muscles. the worst collateral damage would be his questionable amount of gray matter on a BurgerKing Marquismenu.. If he leaves the building, then his immortality is being fed, and he will committ another gun related crime.. You gotta realize this isn't just your average family man trying to scrape up enough money to cover a forclosing motrgage, this is and will remain a way of life for this scum if he's allowed to leave and grow stronger..

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

There'd be no conversations.

Dunno the angle... approach distance... collaterals 'n stuff... I'd shoot him at first opportunity tho. He'd keep doin' this 'til he killed somebody. Maybe already had. I think the GG hesitated after drawing on the BG. 'Drop it' or some Hollywood nonsese. Nah... you pull on 'em soon as you can come to bear.

 

[MetalChris]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

I still wouldn't utter a syllable, if his gun is out, he's made it clear there's only two very small muscles between him and an innocent victim. pulling this heist off in the first place is a perfect example of the circuitry controlling those two muscles. the worst collateral damage would be his questionable amount of gray matter on a BurgerKing Marquismenu.. If he leaves the building, then his immortality is being fed, and he will commit another gun related crime.. You gotta realize this isn't just your average family man trying to scrape up enough money to cover a foreclosing mortgage, this is and will remain a way of life for this scum if he's allowed to leave and grow stronger..

+2000

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

I still wouldn't utter a syllable, if his gun is out, he's made it clear there's only two very small muscles between him and an innocent victim. pulling this heist off in the first place is a perfect example of thecurcuitry controlling those two muscles. the worst collateral damage would be his questionable amount of gray matter on a BurgerKing Marquismenu.. If he leaves the building, then his immortality is being fed, and he will committ another gun related crime.. You gotta realize this isn't just your average family man trying to scrape up enough money to cover a forclosing motrgage, this is and will remain a way of life for this scum if he's allowed to leave and grow stronger..

So you're the self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner? If all of you guys with this mindset are as badass (in your own minds only) as you talk, then there's a whole lot of people in this thread that are going to land themselves in jail should this situation ever present itself to them.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

I still wouldn't utter a syllable, if his gun is out, he's made it clear there's only two very small muscles between him and an innocent victim. pulling this heist off in the first place is a perfect example of thecurcuitry controlling those two muscles. the worst collateral damage would be his questionable amount of gray matter on a BurgerKing Marquismenu.. If he leaves the building, then his immortality is being fed, and he will committ another gun related crime.. You gotta realize this isn't just your average family man trying to scrape up enough money to cover a forclosing motrgage, this is and will remain a way of life for this scum if he's allowed to leave and grow stronger..

So you're the self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner? If all of you guys with this mindset are as badass (in your own minds only) as you talk, then there's a whole lot of people in this thread that are going to land themselves in jail should this situation ever present itself to them.

Me in jail for the prior described mention act of defense, who's being Judge ,Jurror,and executioner now??

And if spattering some punks headgear all over a BK restaurantin the course or theOP description of what transpired, then I'll wear the BADD ASS Badge all the way to Jail !!

MaybeI can say it would beCowards who are so selfish in self preservationlike you thatact in a submissive way that has brought this civilization to where it is todayand caused 80% of the population to cower in a corner..MAN UP styles, you would be presumably watching this scenario unfold while you have a gun on your lame ass.

I am very passionate about thugs/punks/Idiots not demeaning innocent people in my everyday walk through life, not just a scenario played out by the OP..

 

[Enoch Root]

imported post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yJ7cfr9Lso

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

I have been reading the threads about this incident and thinking about what I would do since the story was first posted in another thread. Obviously we don't have enough information to discuss the tactics of the situation because, as others have mentioned, we don't know the layout, the positions of people, etc.


There are 50 states and DC in the Union and they all have different laws. Can we just drop the absurd "and you'll find yourself in jail" or "and you'll be sued for ..." blanket statements. Some states such as MO have civil immunity for a justified SD shooting in their castle doctrine statutes. Other states such as WA and TX specifically allow lethal force to stop a felony in progress. Such statements need to be qualified by state.

I, like others, first thought it absurd that the LAC got into an argument with the BG. Then I started thinking, what if that was a strategic move? What if there was a family with kids near the BG who the BG was sweeping with his gun as he demanded money and the LAC argued with him to distract him and give those people a chance to retreat? Maybe the argument instead of being a stupid, Dirty Harry stand down was actually an heroic act to buy time for innocents in the area and to allow those people to get out of the line of fire in case the LAC did have to shoot. Thoughts about that possibility?

As to what I would do, I don't know. If he actually pulled the trigger or I honestly believed he was going to pull the trigger such that I believed that I or someone else there was certainly in imminent danger of death of serious bodily injury, well, that is why I carry and I would defend myself even if he wasn't aiming at me as I could very well be next. If it appeared that he was just giong to take the money and run without hurting anyone physically I would be probably be inclined to be a good witness. If I did decide that I needed to engage him with lethal force what I would not do is talk to him about it, offer warnings or threats or try to stand him down. Not that there isn't possibly a situation in which I would do that, this just isn't one of them. I'm not an LEO and my job is not to apprehend the BG. I just want to go back home safely.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

I am very passionate about thugs/punks/Idiots not demeaning innocent people in my everyday walk through life, not just a scenario played out by the OP..

The problem is who your (well intentioned) Rambo attitude is going to endanger and whether it will do more harm then good. Killing someone for robbery is not self-defense, nor is it ethically justifiable, yet it's exactly what you're advocating. You're in no place to judge or deal punishment for anyone's actions.

I said that I would have no problem taking a shot IF someone was in CLEAR and IMMEDIATE danger. Him waving a gun around doesn't mean anything, petty robbers are blowhards. I'd much rather see the local BK get taken for a few hundred dollars then to risk a shootout in a crowded dining area. It also isn't my place to determine whether his crime is worthy of death or not, nor is it my place toprovide the execution. So, yes, I would sit and watch because I'm not interested in getting innocent people killed so I can look like a vigilante badass.

EvenIF you get that magical shot that takes him down immediately before heshoots anyone else, and you manage to not over-penetrate or miss and hit someone else, and he doesn't shoot first and kill or injure you or someone else... EVEN THEN you've only won the battle, but lost the war.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

I am very passionate about thugs/punks/Idiots not demeaning innocent people in my everyday walk through life, not just a scenario played out by the OP..

The problem is who your (well intentioned) Rambo attitude is going to endanger and whether it will do more harm then good. Killing someone for robbery is not self-defense, nor is it ethically justifiable, yet it's exactly what you're advocating. You're in no place to judge or deal punishment for anyone's actions.

I said that I would have no problem taking a shot IF someone was in CLEAR and IMMEDIATE danger. Him waving a gun around doesn't mean anything, petty robbers are blowhards. I'd much rather see the local BK get taken for a few hundred dollars then to risk a shootout in a crowded dining area. It also isn't my place to determine whether his crime is worthy of death or not, nor is it my place toprovide the execution. So, yes, I would sit and watch because I'm not interested in getting innocent people killed so I can look like a vigilante badass.

EvenIF you get that magical shot that takes him down immediately before heshoots anyone else, and you manage to not over-penetrate or miss and hit someone else, and he doesn't shoot first and kill or injure you or someone else... EVEN THEN you've only won the battle, but lost the war.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

I am very passionate about thugs/punks/Idiots not demeaning innocent people in my everyday walk through life, not just a scenario played out by the OP..

snip Killing someone for robbery is not self-defense, nor is it ethically justifiable, yet it's exactly what you're advocating. You're in no place to judge or deal punishment for anyone's actions.
snip

You leave out a VERY important word! This was not just a robbery, but an ARMED robbery. It is a robbery using the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to steal another's property. The standard for the use of lethal force is generally the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury (although it may be entirely different in CT and I know nothing about CT's laws on the matter).

If you kill the BG or otherwise use lethal force against the BG during an armed robbery you are not doing so because of the "robbery" part but rather for the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury implicit in the "armed" part which is why, most places, such lethal force is justifiable. This is recognized in the law in numerous ways such as increased penalties for armed robbery or robberies using a firearm and in many places where it is a capital offense if the BG or an accomplice kills someone during an armed robbery. So most places if you kill them it is justifiable, if they kill you or someone else the state can kill them.

This thread is not about a strong-arm robbery where someone jumps over the counter, shows no weapon, punches an employee in the face and grabs money out of the cash drawer wherein lethal force would likely not be justified. This thread is about an armed robbery wherein lethal force is generally justified.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

I am very passionate about thugs/punks/Idiots not demeaning innocent people in my everyday walk through life, not just a scenario played out by the OP..

snip Killing someone for robbery is not self-defense, nor is it ethically justifiable, yet it's exactly what you're advocating. You're in no place to judge or deal punishment for anyone's actions.
snip

You leave out a VERY important word! This was not just a robbery, but an ARMED robbery. It is a robbery using the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to steal another's property.

Ok I get that, but you're missing something important too. This is an armed robbery at a BURGER KING. There's a massive difference between a group of guys strolling into a bank with evil black rifles and a guy holding up a fast food joint with a handgun. In one situation you have professional criminalsready and willing to kill over large amounts of money. In the other situation you have a cowardlycrack head that needs a few quick bills for his next high. Would he kill if pushed? Maybe, but I'm sure your average convience store/retail robber just wants to be in and out with as little trouble as possible, that's why they bring a gun and often balk when challenged. On the other hand, professional robbers looking to make big money bring guns because they very well might need them. Each situation needs to be teached differently.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

I am very passionate about thugs/punks/Idiots not demeaning innocent people in my everyday walk through life, not just a scenario played out by the OP..

snip Killing someone for robbery is not self-defense, nor is it ethically justifiable, yet it's exactly what you're advocating. You're in no place to judge or deal punishment for anyone's actions.
snip

You leave out a VERY important word! This was not just a robbery, but an ARMED robbery. It is a robbery using the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to steal another's property.

Ok I get that, but you're missing something important too. This is an armed robbery at a BURGER KING. There's a massive difference between a group of guys strolling into a bank with evil black rifles and a guy holding up a fast food joint with a handgun. In one situation you have professional criminalsready and willing to kill over large amounts of money. In the other situation you have a cowardlycrack head that needs a few quick bills for his next high. Would he kill if pushed? Maybe, but I'm sure your average convience store/retail robber just wants to be in and out with as little trouble as possible, that's why they bring a gun and often balk when challenged. On the other hand, professional robbers looking to make big money bring guns because they very well might need them. Each situation needs to be teached differently.

No, there's no difference. BK and a crackhead or bank and "Heat" wannabes it makes no difference. Once they have a gun out and they're pointing it at people, there is a an immediate danger that somebody is going to be killed. It only takes that crackhead one squeeze of a finger and the clerk is done, or a bystander is done.

I'm not sure what you're definition of "immediate danger" is, but you aren't expected to be a mind reader. The display of a deadly weapon by the robber is as close as you can get to knowing his intentions, the rest is all guessing.

Not wanting to get involved is fine, and I'm not one of these people who shoves that "good men do nothing" crap in your face, it's up to you to decide for yourself when it's worth getting involved.

I'm just taking issue with your argument that BK is any different from any other armed robbery, and your notion of "professional" criminals. IMO opinon, crime is not a profession, but some criminals have more experience than others. I've read that the more experienced ones will often not carry a weapon in an effort to beat a weapons charge if they are caught, but I'm no expert, either.

I'm just saying, if I see a guy pointing a gun at a clerk in BK, I will assume the clerk's life is in immediate danger. What I do next is for me to decide based on the circumstances. I tend towards your camp; as far as I'm concerned LEOs and courts can do just as much damage to me as a crackhead with a pistol, they just do it do you slower and more painfully.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

I am very passionate about thugs/punks/Idiots not demeaning innocent people in my everyday walk through life, not just a scenario played out by the OP..

snip Killing someone for robbery is not self-defense, nor is it ethically justifiable, yet it's exactly what you're advocating. You're in no place to judge or deal punishment for anyone's actions.
snip

You leave out a VERY important word! This was not just a robbery, but an ARMED robbery. It is a robbery using the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to steal another's property.

Ok I get that, but you're missing something important too. This is an armed robbery at a BURGER KING. There's a massive difference between a group of guys strolling into a bank with evil black rifles and a guy holding up a fast food joint with a handgun. In one situation you have professional criminalsready and willing to kill over large amounts of money. In the other situation you have a cowardlycrack head that needs a few quick bills for his next high. Would he kill if pushed? Maybe, but I'm sure your average convience store/retail robber just wants to be in and out with as little trouble as possible, that's why they bring a gun and often balk when challenged. On the other hand, professional robbers looking to make big money bring guns because they very well might need them. Each situation needs to be teached differently.

That's kinda like arguing that it is justifiable to shoot someone pointing a .40 cal at you but unethical to shoot someone who threatens to kill you with a .25. No such distinctions are made regarding armed robbery or threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury in the law (beyond the matter that from your example robbing a federally chartered bank is a federal offense only because of the institution's charter). A cowardly crackhead or gangbanger (yes I am introducting gangbanger as they are also frequent perpatrators of such armed offenses) shooting someone with a gun gets you just as dead.

Actually I would hazard a guess that data would prove professional criminals are much less likely to need to shoot or accidentally shoot than a career street criminal, especially one who is either high on drugs or suffering from withdraw symptoms (addidental) or a gangbanger (tendency towards extreme violence). Hence the differentiation between "professional" and "career" criminal.

Obviously everyone situation is different. I not only don't challenge that view but frequently advocate it. And I certainly do not think that LAC using lethal force even if justifiable is always the best/right answer as my above response to the OP scenario shows. I do however maintain an assertion that using lethal force against an ARMED robber is not unethical, is not immoral and is generally supported legally. Furthermore, carrying a gun daily and having a mindset that a crackhead or gangbanger with a gun robbing a convenient store or fast food restaurant is somehow less dangerous than someone who robs a bank seems to me to be a great way to end up dead if you are ever unfortunate enough to find yourself in such a situation.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

I am very passionate about thugs/punks/Idiots not demeaning innocent people in my everyday walk through life, not just a scenario played out by the OP..

snip Killing someone for robbery is not self-defense, nor is it ethically justifiable, yet it's exactly what you're advocating. You're in no place to judge or deal punishment for anyone's actions.
snip

You leave out a VERY important word! This was not just a robbery, but an ARMED robbery. It is a robbery using the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to steal another's property.

Ok I get that, but you're missing something important too. This is an armed robbery at a BURGER KING. There's a massive difference between a group of guys strolling into a bank with evil black rifles and a guy holding up a fast food joint with a handgun. In one situation you have professional criminalsready and willing to kill over large amounts of money. In the other situation you have a cowardlycrack head that needs a few quick bills for his next high. Would he kill if pushed? Maybe, but I'm sure your average convience store/retail robber just wants to be in and out with as little trouble as possible, that's why they bring a gun and often balk when challenged. On the other hand, professional robbers looking to make big money bring guns because they very well might need them. Each situation needs to be teached differently.

Keep practicing your professional robber VS weekend offender tactics, and cower in the corner with the grandmas and children, until you get the moves down to where you feel comfortable standing up in the defense of Innocent law abidingcitizens.. With your attitude about analizing an immediate threat, you'll be dead before the thief decides which burger he wants to snag from the warming tray, so you will be the perfect lesson that the rest of the crowd needs to witness, and the good that will come from yourDullpublic display of immediate threatanalization will be that when the patrons walk past your body and see a loaded HK laying beside you will be,,, (must have been a junk gun)/(didn't really know how to use it)/(Idiot could have gotten us all killed)/(why would someone carry a gun if he has no intention of using it).. Now you would have educated and trained 50 or so non carriers, to the conviction that in case this ever happens again, I'm gonna get me a gun and keep it on me at all times, I won't let this ever happen to me again!!!



When a gun comes out one on one, or in a crowd, and is pointed in the direction of a non combatant/innocent citizenor is backed up with an agressive order or statement by someone who is obviously breaking the law, The threat is imminent, that someone will/could be shot.. That is justifiable cause to counter the threat..

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

I'm just taking issue with your argument that BK is any different from any other armed robbery, and your notion of "professional" criminals. IMO opinon, crime is not a profession, but some criminals have more experience than others. I've read that the more experienced ones will often not carry a weapon in an effort to beat a weapons charge if they are caught, but I'm no expert, either.

When was the last time you heard of someone holding up a 7-11 and it turning into a hostage standoff? How about the last time someone held up a McDonald's and started executing people to keep the police away? In fact, do youeven need more than one hand to count the times you've EVER heard of a petty crook killing someone just for the hell of it?

I'll say this again, robbers want one thing: MONEY. They do not want a body count and the possibility of a capital offense on their hands over MONEY. Give them the MONEY and they're happy. They don't want to kill you, most probablydon't even have the balls to kill you. This wasthepoint I was trying to make.



However, that doesn't even matter because Carnivore (and everyone else arguing his logic)knows this as well as I do. What they're really advocating is being vigilante badass judge, jury, and executioner. Under normal circumstances I don't have too much of a problem with that because I don't have much sympathy or idiots that do bad things. However, this isn't a normal situation. This is a restaurant at peak lunch rush filled with plenty of innocent adults and children. As much as Carnivore thinks he's going to be Chuck Norris and get this guy with a single slug to the brain, it isn't likely. My bottom line point, listen well, is: do not endanger even ONE innocent person (never mind a BK full of them) just to be a vigilante badassand make yourself feel good about taking some petty thief off the street. His sad life isn't worth the chance of someone else dying or being injuredin a situation that was otherwise highly unlikely to turn violent if he simply got what he wanted.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

Carnivore never once said he was a Bad Ass/Rambo/Chuck Norris, those are all ficticious characters that play in feel good movies, that promise a happy ending.. Those are your play words. I'm 5'9" 185# God didn't design my features to intimidate the world.. I'm just an average blue collar Jon doe that will not be intimidated, or sit Idly by while witnessing other innocent civilians being victimized.. Just stay under your rock, it's safer under there!!

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

Carnivore never once said he was a Bad Ass/Rambo/Chuck Norris, those are all ficticious characters that play in feel good movies, that promise a happy ending.. Those are your play words. I'm 5'9" 185# God didn't design my features to intimidate the world.. I'm just an average blue collar Jon doe that will not be intimidated, or sit Idly by while witnessing other innocent civilians being victimized.. Just stay under your rock, it's safer under there!!

So, just to clarify -you really, truly believe it's worth taking a preemptive shot atapetty robberwith a gun in a crowded room (risking EVERYONE'S lives in the process due to good possibility of miss, over penetration, him firing first, him firing wildlyas he goes down, etc), rather than justkeeping your cooland waiting to see if he's actually (completely randomly, because he's getting the money he wants)going to turn violent?

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

I'm just taking issue with your argument that BK is any different from any other armed robbery, and your notion of "professional" criminals. IMO opinon, crime is not a profession, but some criminals have more experience than others. I've read that the more experienced ones will often not carry a weapon in an effort to beat a weapons charge if they are caught, but I'm no expert, either.

When was the last time you heard of someone holding up a 7-11 and it turning into a hostage standoff? How about the last time someone held up a McDonald's and started executing people to keep the police away? In fact, do youeven need more than one hand to count the times you've EVER heard of a petty crook killing someone just for the hell of it?

Oh, come on, there are tons of surveilance vids out there of thugs murdering 7-11 clerks for no reason, even after they get the cash, just for the thrill of it. And at least one story of a thug frogmarching fast food employees into the walk-in freezer to execute them.

You are foolish if you think that a guy who walks into a BK with a gun and demands money is a rational person. He's not, he's a threat to the clerk's life, and he may shoot you just for seeing him there.

Or maybe not. Whatever. It's your life, up to you to guess right.