Its painfully obvious this argument centers around two debates... 1) Black/White vs. Shades of Gray 2) Reactive vs. Proactive In argument 1... We have people who think automatically "Robber = dead ----> good" without thinking about the intented consequences involved. Whether or not the end justifies the means, etc. In a situation where the majority of the time materials are the objective and not violence, is it better to act in self-defense (even if you are not specifically being threatened) and erase all doubt? My feeling is that, just because you *can* do something (i.e. shoot someone who is robbing a fast food joint), does not always mean you should. Also, it is not enough to say that "look, the guy had a violent/criminal past!", because no one there, especially the civilian shooter, knew that. He acted without that knowledge, so to call his actions responsible is questionable at best. And seeing as how the majority of crimes of this nature do not end in violence (at least it stands to reason), calling him a hero is quite frankly wrong. (unless you are the burger king CEO) in argument 2... You have people who would rather react to violence and crime, rather than be proactive and prevent it altogether. A gun to stop a gun just makes more guns, it doesn't seem to make less violence or crime. I'd gladly retract this statement if someone can prove otherwise with facts, because quite frankly, I like and support the idea of an armed citizenry. I think culture, class, and socioeconomic problems make guns dangerous, not guns themselves. At the end of the day, do you believe people storm into gas stations and fast food joints with a gun to harm people, or to get money? Its a simple cause and effect problem, and some people are putting the cart way before the horse on it.
I don't have a desire to believe that they do or they don't, what I do have a desire to do is see some hard evidence of that fact, because logic dictates from the start that the intent and the outcome are non-violent. I would literally jump through my computer screen and give you a giant donnymost hug if you could give me some numbers on it.
I was thinking that myself. Its hard to know since its apparently a fight/flight thing, and people react differently when put in these situations, but as I understand it, the man was in no immediate danger and he initiated the contact with the robber. At the point the robber pulled his gun on him, all bets were off, time to blast him... but was it wise to get into that position to start with? Probably not.
LOL <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7l2y8HDU7-U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7l2y8HDU7-U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
If I am in his situation, I see a guy after the cash in the register. If he is robbing me, then I feel immediately threatened. Otherwise its proximal. Don't resort to name calling, please.
You are telling me that those customers will say they felt like they were in no immediate danger? Of course they did because they were. These arguments are getting absurd.
You're bogging down in different interpretations of words and hypotheticals about a situation we can't re-live, meanwhile, your justification of the actions are lacking.
An armed robber who is threatening lives doesn't put everyone in the store in immediate danger... You are grasping at straws. You really have no argument.
Still waiting for a justification that is was safer to confront the robber and start shooting than to let the robber go.
In fact, lets take it back to Major's original question. So you think it was a good thing. Can you provide a reasoned, empirical argument why? All I keep seeing is "the robber is dead and no one else got hurt, what else do you want?". The ends do not justify the means.
This is it. I'm not going to talk in circles anymore because you really don't have an argument. Have a nice day. You don't know what the robber is going to do and you don't ASSUME. He could EASILY just start shooting. You take NO CHANCES of that happening.
Don't get frustrated and rage quit on me, this is interesting stuff here. Funny you say "you don't assume". Since, by shooting him, you assume he is going to harm you. If we're playing the assumption game, should I assume that the man with a concealed handgun in line behind me is a threat and take him out too? After all, he could just as easily start shooting. And yet, I still see no actual factual justification for the actions of the man, just assumption and hypotheticals.
What was the customer expecting when he went up to the robber. To reason with him and get him to leave the store willingly? Did he not know up to that point that the robber had a gun?
Please just stop. You already KNOW he has threatened to harm with a gun, is unstable and very dangerous. That was not an assumption. He made his intent very clear. (well I guess not to you...). It is not hypothetical. You try to take out the future the hypotheticals. Landers did and it was a good thing.
So you are saying if the civilian had not pulled out a gun, the thief would still tried to shoot somebody (uh, out of what? Not getting enough patties?) And I did see Refman's post, and I'm not really convinced by it... BTW, I love this forum, on another forum I go on, this kind of thread would've derailed into personal insults by about page 2.
The robber is obviously not thinking or behaving rationally or logically. I'm not willing to give him the chance to do anything. Google "death clerk armed robbery".
...only if he is pointing a semi-automatic weapon at someone and demanding them to give him property that is not theirs. I think a guy threatening to kill the guy next to me is a threat to me. I don't own a gun, and I wouldn't carry it around with me when I'm out to get a Whopper, but I think the civilian was clearly in danger. not saying he took the best course of action, but he was in danger.
I'm pretty sure once the robber got his money, he is just going to leave. This is just another case of a common armed robbery. If I'm a robber and was insane and wanted to shoot people at random. Why would I demand money first? Most cases where an insane person wants to shoot people at random end up shooting themselves. Again, why would I demand money? On the other hand, if I am a robber and need a few bills to support my failing life, thus my intent is to STAY ALIVE and feed my basic needs (food, drugs, etc...), why would I start shooting people at random? Sure, if confronted I would have no choice. But seeing that there are security cameras and probably a silent "call police" button, I would want to get out of there quickly as possible. Of course robbers are idiots... CHL guy was stupid, he may have got a rational person shot (killed) with his antics... So now he was trying to save BK a few bucks? This is a billion dollar industry? Obviously, the robbers intent was not to take human lives if he did not have to. I doubt BK would even want to pay for this guy's hospital bills.
