Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

When armed people walk into your place of business and attempt to point a gun at you, the reason why is less of an issue than "crap im about to die".  Reasons/motives/background are the purview of those safely out of range.

@Fisher - thanks.  I see that you knew what I meant.

I have seen a man in court for armed robbery; they were not discussing the question of the death penalty and that had never been a concern for him.  They were going over the conditions of his rehabilitation.  He was simply on probation after doing his time in prison.

this man was lucky his poor decisions didnt result in worse.

[LegoLord]

You mean lucky some idiot didn't shoot him to death, right?  Because the U.S. Justice system is meant to do as it has done for that man I spoke of, not to kill off all the desperate people.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

when a person uses a weapon to rob another person, they are inviting consequences beyond they're ability to control long before the law gets involved.  its funny that you think the idiot is the guy being robbed.  interesting.

[LegoLord]

The guy killing over robbery is the idiot, especially if the company being robbed has insurance, which most do.  Not the desperate guy trying to survive.

[Agdune]

He's dead, and I assure you it's just a tiny bit better than him being alive.

I see you're able to divine possible futures? So what if he was a desperate teenager who tried to rob some place? (Emphasis there goes on teenager, a group known for being predisposed to stupidity and violence) He could have had plenty of reasons for doing as he did and a long time ahead of him to realise how crap being an idiot is and made something useful of himself. He sure as hell won't amount to anything useful now.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

The guy killing over robbery is the idiot, especially if the company being robbed has insurance, which most do.  Not the desperate guy trying to survive.

i am sure that will comfort the widows/widowers/brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers/children & family members of innocent working people who were killed on the job by a poor, misunderstood robber...........

hogwash

[Strife26]

Here is what we can establish as the baseline perameters for the discusion.

1) Shooting someone when they are commiting a robbery is legal.
     b) including shooting to kill (shooting the gun out of his hand = no)

2) However, shooting a downed guy who is not a threat isn't.
     b) unless said downed guy is attempting to do something stupid, like pull a gernade or pistol, then waste 'im.

3) Dogs rule!

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Agreed. 
Dogs rule.

[Cthulhu]

My views here are that the guy was in the right by shooting him in the first place(Although it would have probably been better to give the guy what he wanted.  I'm not dying for someone else's money, and companies like that stress compliance, so it's not like he would've gotten in trouble).

Executing him, however, took it too far, and he should be jailed.

[Yanlin]

I'd like to point out to everyone that gun control or gun ownership doesn't solve this problem--criminals are made from people who were abandoned, or have been in a very desperate situation for a long time, not from the availability of guns. Good parenting and low poverty will help a ton more than gun carp.

Yeah... But... You know... There's a ton of stupid and horrible parents out there producing these brats.

As for what you said about self defense,

Ok, some self-defense stuff here.

If you are in a position where your life is threatened, then you must act as if the person is willing, even eager, to take your life. You must also act like he is a blackbelt in all martial arts, trained by the Navy SEALs, the Marine Corps, Spetsnaz, some ethnic martial arts master, and Mike Tyson's Punch Out. Oh, and he has three friends who are just as skilled, and hiding behind you.

In short, you've lost.

So you must give this person no chance to take your life. You have to evaluate the situation and either comply or strike quickly and without hesitation. You should comply if you are reasonably sure that you can get your way out of this--this means you have to know what he's thinking. I mean that you know exactly what options he's considering, and which he'll probably choose, and for what reasons.

If you have a momentary advantage, you should strike. Decisively. Killing is acceptable. Half-measures like "shooting him in the leg" or "run up and disarm him" or such should be practiced beforehand and used only if the opportunity really, really presents itself, as they generally don't work. Also, don't worry about the legal implications. In short, don't fight to wound--fight to kill or get away.

Otherwise, a compliant stalling is the best policy.

If you're striking, the point to stop is when he won't fight back. Him falling down is a possible indicator. Don't trust him til you've secured him and removed his weapons or confirmed that he's dead/unconscious. Even then, keep whatever weapons you can find on hand.

Remember, if you're in a position where this advice is helpful, you've already lost. Yanlin's advice about public signs and cameras is excellent--it'll push you out of any casual criminal's hit list.

Mo' info.

It's called Krav Maga. Best damn martial art in the world. Look it up. The best thing about it? It is 100% compatible with all other martial arts. How? It has no set moves. Just a psychological mindset. The "No quarter" mindset. If you're defending yourself, the other guy should NEVER have the ability to even THINK about attacking you again.

[Hawkfrost]

I hear you all say that he went too far; I agree.

But have any of you actually been in one of these situations?
When the adrenaline is pumping, your not going to be considering that "Maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy again."
Your going to make sure that he isn't going to jump up behind you and gut you while your calling the cops.
Its a "kill or be killed" mindset that involuntarily takes over, and unless you've trained your mind otherwise, your going to eliminate the threat.

That doesn't justify grabbing another gun from behind a counter and shooting him again though, because the heat of the moment is over and you can think somewhat rationally again.

But I know at least for me, if someone broke into my house at night I would grab the nine-inch hunting knife I keep on my bedside table, run him through, and tear my blade across his belly  until he slumps to the floor.

[Toady One]

(on the criticism of the inaluct mute, the situation was compounded by two previous warnings, one for trolling a fanfic thread and one for an anti-gay slur.)

[Frelock]

Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire.

This, personally, is what clinches it for me.  If you feel safe enough to turn your back on a man, you are not currently "threatened" by him.  The "kill or be killed" mindset must have already subsided, or at least it should have.  If Ersland had peaked his head around the door and fired a few more shots from there, I would have been more sympathetic.  I might have even said that was in self defense.  However, specifically ignoring a person, then coming back to shoot them reeks of foul play.

Imagine an old WWII movie.  An American is shot, and lying on the ground, gasping for breath.  A Nazi commander walks into the room, surveys his men to see that they are in position, then takes out his pistol and shoots the American in the head.  Seems like a typical scene from a movie, just to show how evil the Nazis are.  Heck, Lord of the Rings does a similar move in the third movie with the orc commander shoving his spear into a downed human soldier.  Simply put, you don't hit a man while he's down, and you certainly don't shoot him.

That said, I think Ersland's initial reactions were reasonable and might go as far as to say commendable.  I find it perfectly acceptable to kill a person who is threatening to kill others (just threatening you is a slightly different matter for me).  In addition, I believe that first-degree murder is the wrong charge, and that second-degree would be better.  However, I'm also not a law professor, so perhaps the difference is too fine for me to see.  Nevertheless, the execution probably didn't matter in the long run, as Parker probably would have died from the first shot.

[Jreengus]

The guy killing over robbery is the idiot, especially if the company being robbed has insurance, which most do.  Not the desperate guy trying to survive.

i am sure that will comfort the widows/widowers/brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers/children & family members of innocent working people who were killed on the job by a poor, misunderstood robber...........

hogwash

Ok, I wasn't going to post in this thread but that just goes too far, lets leave aside the fact that you are ignoring the widows/widowers/brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers/children & family members of misguided robbers who needed rehabilitation not a bullet in the brain. When someone commits a standup robbery they don't want to shoot anyone, they aren't stupid they just want some money, hell even if you ignore their demands they are probably more likely to leg it than shoot you (Not advisable) after all the last thing they want is a murder conviction. When you draw a gun however you're now facing someone who's life is in danger and now someone is going to die or get injured. So it's the fault of the idiots who drew a gun that they are dead, all they really had to do was give them what they want claim it back off the insurance wait for the robbers  to go to jail and get a chance to turn their life around. Much preferable to a situation where someones death is garunteed.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

No, this is not a post.

[Hawkfrost]

The guy killing over robbery is the idiot, especially if the company being robbed has insurance, which most do.  Not the desperate guy trying to survive.

i am sure that will comfort the widows/widowers/brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers/children & family members of innocent working people who were killed on the job by a poor, misunderstood robber...........

hogwash

Ok, I wasn't going to post in this thread but that just goes too far, lets leave aside the fact that you are ignoring the widows/widowers/brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers/children & family members of misguided robbers who needed rehabilitation not a bullet in the brain. When someone commits a standup robbery they don't want to shoot anyone, they aren't stupid they just want some money, hell even if you ignore their demands they are probably more likely to leg it than shoot you (Not advisable) after all the last thing they want is a murder conviction. When you draw a gun however you're now facing someone who's life is in danger and now someone is going to die or get injured. So it's the fault of the idiots who drew a gun that they are dead, all they really had to do was give them what they want claim it back off the insurance wait for the robbers  to go to jail and get a chance to turn their life around. Much preferable to a situation where someones death is garunteed.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

No, this is not a post.

If we let all robbers get away with whatever they wanted, who would bother working?
The cops would be sticking you up and stealing your wallet for Hel's sake.

Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire.

This, personally, is what clinches it for me.  If you feel safe enough to turn your back on a man, you are not currently "threatened" by him.  The "kill or be killed" mindset must have already subsided, or at least it should have.  If Ersland had peaked his head around the door and fired a few more shots from there, I would have been more sympathetic.  I might have even said that was in self defense.  However, specifically ignoring a person, then coming back to shoot them reeks of foul play.

Imagine an old WWII movie.  An American is shot, and lying on the ground, gasping for breath.  A Nazi commander walks into the room, surveys his men to see that they are in position, then takes out his pistol and shoots the American in the head.  Seems like a typical scene from a movie, just to show how evil the Nazis are.  Heck, Lord of the Rings does a similar move in the third movie with the orc commander shoving his spear into a downed human soldier.  Simply put, you don't hit a man while he's down, and you certainly don't shoot him.

That said, I think Ersland's initial reactions were reasonable and might go as far as to say commendable.  I find it perfectly acceptable to kill a person who is threatening to kill others (just threatening you is a slightly different matter for me).  In addition, I believe that first-degree murder is the wrong charge, and that second-degree would be better.  However, I'm also not a law professor, so perhaps the difference is too fine for me to see.  Nevertheless, the execution probably didn't matter in the long run, as Parker probably would have died from the first shot.

Exactly.
He was obviously in control and in a rational state of being, and I agree second-degree murder is appropriate.