Or possibly he decided that the teen was already pointing a gun at an innocent bystander and he felt he could stop him before anyone got hurt.
Personally, I don't think the problem is with what he did but rather the way he did it. If he had a gun and the robber didn't know it, he should have been able to force him to disarm (or shoot him) without causing a firefight. Getting into an argument with him and trying to be as macho as possible is not exactly in the CCL handbook. Also, if the robber has been arrested for carjacking, selling crack, weed and assaults, why the hell is he out on the street? What kind of justice system are they running in Florida?
How was he trying to be macho as possible? He said put the gun down, probably his morals forced him to give the guy a chance. wrestling with him to get the gun away is super dumb. Gun would be pointed in all directions. The argument might have been "put down the gun" screaming "**** you" "just put down the gun" "**** you, I will kill you" shots You guys are taking a lot from a "heated argument" its not like they were talking trash.
Thanks for comparing apples to footballs. There was no suspicion here. The guy had a loaded gun pointed at the cashier. There wasn't a question about whether a violent crime was happening. Now the argument has become absurd. He suspected a crime...that's rich.
Uh, it really doesn't matter what intent the robber had. You don't argue with a robber with a gun, period. Lose the fight, win the war...
So that entitles the Joe on the street the law enforcement job. Where does that right come from? Constitution? Who gives the guy that right to make a judgment in a situation like this and decide to shoot the robber. There is something called accountability and professional ability to assess and control situation. That belongs to the police force. You guys scare me.
We scare you until you are the guy who has a gun pointed at you by a bad guy and I happen to be around. As to what entitles Joe on the street to enforce the law...in just about every state, an individual can do everything to protect somebody else that they are entitled to do to defend themselves. Nobody is going to question your legal ability to shoot somebody if they are pointing a gun at you. Therefore, under defense of 3rd persons law, if Robber Y is pointing a gun at Mr. X, I can legally shoot Robber Y. That is the law....deal with it.
The 3rd party conduct defense works only if the BK clerk was justified to kill the robber. We have agree what is reported out of the Miami Herald are undisputed facts here for our discussion Where in the facts says the robber was pointing the gun at the Burger King clerk? And if your position is that a 3rd party is justified to "act" strictly under what you described, we don't have disagreements there. But it seems to me a lot of posters here are saying one is justify to "act" to stop a crime, which I disagree.
I am absolutely justified in acting to stop a crime. If I see a guy swipe an old lady's purse, I am justified in tripping him to get the purse back. This will probably cause injury. Hell, the poor b*stard may even roll into traffic. If I see somebody being physically assaulted, I have the right to knock the hell out of the assailant. If I see somebody being threatened with a gun, well...load, aim, and fire. The test is whether the victim of the crime has the reasonable apprehension of being shot. When a robber brandishes a weapon, the intent is to give the apprehension of being shot. The CHL in this case did not just open fire, but acted by telling the robber to put the gun away. The robber then opened fire. The robber then got shot. It appears that the CHL violated no laws in this case.
Ok, I will give you that. But the scope of a citizen's arrest is pretty limited, no? IIRC, such a statute only authorizes a private citizen to detain and make an inquiry of the suspected party for a felony on reasonable grounds.
All it says in the report is that the robber showed his gun . Was the threat imminent to allow a self-defense on BK clerk's part. Flashing a gun in one's hoister does not pose an imminent danger, whereas pointing a loaded gun at someone poses such danger. Let's just agree that we don't know the details to speculate. I also don't know where you get telling the robber to put the gun away part. Again I know what is reported out of the paper. It didn't say that.
I've skimmed this thread since my last post and it seems like most of the people defending Landers' actions are relying on a presumption that the robber would've have started shooting people anyway. While yes its true that we can't presume he wouldn't have I don't think any of us know for a fact whether he would've have or not. While I think Mr. Landers very well did think he was doing the right thing the problem with what he did was irresponsible and he is paying the price for it now with bullet wounds to himself. Shooting a gun in a crowded space is always going to be dangerous and while we don't know what might've happened if Landers didn't react the way he did we know for a fact that by reacting how he did he has gotten severely wounded. While his bravery might be praised I think his judgement should be questioned. To the legal question without knowing more I don't think I would convict Landers as without knowing Florida law I'm not sure what he did was illegal and for that matter he's already paying the price for his reckless actions.
Its pretty subjective. I would by no means attempt to make a CA on any non-violent crime. There is simply too much liability at risk. Its really sad to grant these powers to the citizen, but only to turn around and give more rights to the criminals.
Yeah, the solution is MORE guns....that makes a lot of sense... What was the average life expectancy back when everyone had a gun? DD
I base my presumption that if anyone is willing to use deadly force for a handful of cash, then there is really no limits on what they will accomplish. Only a desperate person would do this. If you back a desperate person in a corner, then someone WILL get hurt. In this particular case, its fortunate that this person volunteered to put himself in harms way. Looking hindsight, you can't dispute this criminal would have eventually seriously hurt or killed an innocent person.
Huh? You are making MASSIVE leaps of innane logic.....why is it a certainty to you that he would harm someone? To me, he probably takes the cash and then runs away...... I am not crying for him dying, but if an innocent person got shot because some knucklehead decided to go Rambo tough guy, he would be in prison too. I don't want to be in the middle of a gunfight....at Burger King..... Come on ...SHEESH ! DD
