I guess the moral of the lesson is 1) Yes, one can be justified to shoot somebody under limited circumstances in a crime situation 2) Civilians don't get same legal protection or deference from the law when doing the law enforcement job 3) You'd better be damn sure what you do is proportionate to what you try to stop if you decide to be that super-hero.
There are more guns now than ever and life expectancy is longer than ever. ask stupid questions get stupid answers.
I do agree that we do not have the details. I will further say that flashing your gun and demanding money is intended to put fear in the victim that he will get shot, which would take all of a second to draw and fire the weapon. So...yes...it does pose an imminent danger.
link? that is misleading, btw.. since we're talking about how often a robbery results in death compared to other robberies, not how often robbery deaths occur compared to other deaths.
It does show a propensity for robberies to escalate into violent crime, which is particularly relevant here.
How many other activities lead to > 10% of homocide? Very short list. Drinking and being married are close to the top.
10% of all murders are committed during the commission of a robbery. That is almost as many as are committed by a spouse or significant other. You do not find this to be statistically significant? That is an unusual position to take.
OOOPS....you forgot the facts pal. More guns but the number of gun owners, as a percentage is less. Fail. DD
Of course, in your first post, you stated that the answer was not more guns. You said nothing of the number of gun owners. The response our fellow poster gave was in response to your post regarding the number of guns.
Less? Less than when? Could you come with some definite statements? Unless you have any type of data to support that I am calling BS. Right now there are .9 guns for every person in the USA. Find a time with more guns per capita. Uh Oh! You have no data at all to support these claims of yours.
It doesn't tell us anything significant until we have more information to compare it to, or fill in the rest of the picture. It doesn't show a propesenity towards anything. That would be logically skipping several steps ahead. Still waiting on that link, also. And we're still talking about how often a robbery results in death compared to other robberies, not how often robbery deaths occur compared to other deaths...
The actions of the CHL holder would seem to be justifiable under Florida statute: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony 776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. This update to the original article says that the guy gave the robber a heads-up that he was about to shoot him, which is an exceptionally bad idea. A CHL isn't a junior policeman's badge. You are not Dirty Harry. "Drop the gun!" is liable to be quickly followed by "**** you!" and several loud noises.
