Back to square one. We know that the ex-marine that killed the guy put himself in the position that result in shots fire in public that could easily cause harms to others. We know that the robber is there to rob. We don't know that the robber was there to kill. We don't know that the robber was there to do bodily harm. What else do we know? I don't know. What else do we need to know, depend if you already made up your mind. I'm done with this.
An armed robbery is already a position that could result in shots fired in public that could easily cause harm to others. The vet didn't create that situation, he put an end to it. The robber was there to threaten to murder people....how do you skim over that fact?
The robber was armed and was robbing. We know that. Nothing else. We can't read mind of the robber and if they have the intention of harming others outside of stealing their property. We know that when shots fire, everyone is in danger. We know that we should try to avoid shots unless absolutely necessary (at least those that know guns well). Stealing games is what I hardly said is a situation where it deem the need to confront and put yourself in a situation to fire. But again, I don't know that that Marine saw that day, maybe he saw the two crazies firing and killing in his head.. i don't know. You probably already know.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. It's a discussion because he put himself in harm's way and a lot of bad things could have happened as a result. A couple of XBoX's aren't worth people's lives. If a stray shot had killed someone then what?
nononono, before a shot was fired, there was POTENTIAL harm in the store full of people, as there was POTENTIAL chance guns COULD HAVE been fired When he shot at them and started a gun fight, there was ACTUAL HARM to the store full of people with REAL bullets flying everywhere So yes he put more people in harm's way by actually firing a bullet in a public space causing more bullets to be fired everywhere It's just extremely fortunate that no one was shot by a stray bullet
Seems like there weren't any stray bullets considering they went in a deceased armed robber who threatened to kill people for an XBONE. Do you think the armed robber agrees with this? I don't
Not all robbers pull their guns when caught. These guys did. Not all CHL carriers are ex Marines with years of handgun training. This guys is. This sits ok with me bc I'm from the school of thought where the instance you put a gun in someone's face to rob them, you have put everyone's life in jeopardy, as well as your own. You might die and that's on you. I've been dumb enough in my youth to put myself in situations where I could have died, and that was on me. This is the Texas I grew up in and this is the Texas that parents need to educate their kids about: to be aware of the consequences of crime and to be aware in public. We can complain about it, try to change it, or leave.
Exactly. Yet, Rocket River clearly takes sides with this guy and only portrays him as a victim and the guy that came to defend against the crime being committed as the villain. It's mind-boggling.
Too many people operate under the assumption that criminals with guns will just leave happily once they have what they want. There is no way to ever know what a person who is willing to rob a store at gunpoint is going to do with that gun.
I don't think he's arguing that. I think he's making a more nuanced point. I still disagree with him, but I don't think he's saying the robbers are victims. This point has been made is important to keep in mind. We're definitely lucky that no one else got hurt. And we're lucky that the CHL guy was a Marine with years of training. And we're lucky that he was there bc those robbers (and possible murderers already) needed to be stopped for the safety of society.
He said the sheriffs are changing the facts to protect the Marine. The robbers just wanted an XBONE. He said the Marine drew first. I have to agree with ATW that he has made all of these "facts" up in his mind to paint them as the victim.
While I don't think the robber was the victim, I think it was negligent to start a gun battle with innocent bystanders around IF the robbers were trying to flee. We don't know what happened, we don't have video footage, but I would feel it would be necessary to stop the robbers at all costs if an innocent person was in IMMEDIATE danger. If the robbers were seemingly removing themselves from the situation and no longer posing an immediate threat innocent bystanders, intuitively I think it would be wiser to let them leave on their on accord with their loot, rather than engage them in a gun battle with people all around. Not because I feel bad for the robbers, but because I don't think the risk of innocent casualties is worth it if there no longer is an immediate danger to anyone. What if the ensuing gun battle resulted in innocent casualties? Does all the blame goes to the robber? Or does some blame go to the moron with the gun who would have been wiser to just let them leave, and most likely no innocent would have gotten hurt/killed? If your daughter or sister was killed as a byproduct of reckless actions by a vigilante, honestly would you only blame the robbers? Or would you shake your head in disgust that that moron could've just minded his own business and your daughter/sister might still be alive? Imagine how you would feel about the situation, if a gun was pointed in the vicinity of your daughter thus posing an immediate threat, or a situation where the robbers were getting in their car to leave and your daughter only died because a vigilante wanted to start a gun fight?
I think it's situation dependent. That's why I said it was lucky for everyone that this particular citizen with a gun happened to have training in the Marines. Since we're being hypothetical and talking about feelings, what if the Marine did nothing and then the robbers got away and killed someone else? Armed robbers are much more dangerous to society imo than well trained vigilantes imo. Armed robberies end up in murders quite often, and without the presence of a vigilante. I'm not arguing that all CHL carriers should always try to do the right thing, but in this situation, we had a combat trained gun carrier who quickly assessed the situation and killed armed robbers who had possibly murdered in the past.
That he's a marine doesn't mean he has extensive handgun training so I think that's way overstated. Knowing how to use an M4 doesn't make you a good shot with a handgun. He might even be a great shot with his handgun but Marines don't get training on stopping armed robberies. It's just fortunate all around that nobody else was killed by having a gun fight in a parking lot. I still think his story is fishy though. If he already had a gun why was he going to his truck to get a gun?
Marines get handgun training too. But true, he's still not a cop trained in civilian situations, and even then, there are documented cases of cops messing up bc tbh, it's a tough situation that not everyone can handle. It's fortunate that no one got hurt, but I think it's fair to say the guy's experience in the Marines probably helped him.
It may have helped him but my point is, we don't know whether it was necessary. I'd like to believe that the 'Marine' did only what he thought was necessary to protect the actual victims. However, if it was a similar situation as Joe Horn, who went after burglars who were clearly on their way leaving the premise, then I would say it was reckless to start a gun fight in a public space. Joe Horn: "“I ain’t gonna let them get away with this ****. I’m sorry, this ain’t right, buddy … They got a bag of loot … Here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.”" This isn't being an apologist for the robbers, this is using common sense and it's only a matter of time before we'll hear a similar story with a much sadder ending.
