Two masked, armed robbers robbed a store and were confronted by an armed citizen outside the store who shot and killed them. I understand the families are saddened at losing their loved ones but they seem to have no capacity at all to lay blame at the feet of the two robbers. They want the shooter prosecuted.
They conform to every awful thug enabling stereotype the pro gun crowd could wish for.
It’s a little vague where the shooter felt he had to shoot the robbers, but I guess that’ll be more clear later.
Still, your typical robber isn’t the brightest bulb, and probably doesn’t realize that it is VERY possible if you break in somewhere, you can easily end up dead. Instead of you break it, you bought it, you break IN, you bought it.
Wow, that first one reads like an Onion article…
In related news, it seems the two masked robbers had a getaway car driver with them too. That driver has now been arrested and charged with the murders.
Darwin award candidates?
I’ve seen mothers of killed armed robbers tell reporters “They didn’t have to kill my boy, everyone has to work”. Yes armed robber is a profession.
I’m always amazed at the criminals and family members of criminals who expect OTHER people to follow laws, and expect OTHER people to be careful not to hurt them. Someone who commits robbery IS a bad person, and IS a criminal. Yes, they might have had their good points…but the fact of the matter is, these guys decided that they were going to rob a store, and they probably didn’t much care if they hurt or killed other people while doing this.
The two threatened someone (the shooter), and now their family members believe that the shooter should have just called the cops? Sorry, when you threaten someone with a gun, I think that you’ve decided to take the chance that the threatened person is going to respond with deadly force.
I’m sure the family members are grieving. But perhaps this could have been prevented if the family members had not been quite so accepting of the robbers’ faults, instead of insisting that the men were “good men” who had just made a few unfortunate choices.
I don’t like guns, but I agree. What we’re seeing here is just a mother’s blind love, or something like that.
There was a famous case, also in Reading, PA, about 10-12 years ago, in which an angry ex-boyfriend chased his terrified ex, infant child and a companion all over the city, then, when they came to halt at a grade crossing, used his vehicle to push theirs in front of a moving train, killing everyone in the car.
At the arraignment, the ex-boyfriend’s mother was prominently quoted as saying, “but he’s a good boy”.
Threaten people with guns and end up getting shot. Sounds like they already got their justice.
Ah, Reading…my old hometown, and one of the worst impoverished shitholes in America these days. I feel bad about that but whaddayagonnadoo.
I agree it’s a little vague as presented. If they came out and the guy just shot them without being in danger, then I could see a case. If they threatened him, then I would guess that the shootings were justified.
I’m sorry for the family of the young men who were killed but armed robbery is a dangerous profession to go into. It could just as easily have gone wrong and the shopkeeper or a bystander been killed; I’ve no sympathy for the young men themselves.
Are we certain it isn’t?
“We bring you the news, while you bring us the news”.
What a weird coincidence that they threatened an unrelated concerned citizen outside of the place they robbed who had already called 911 and who was able to turn the tables on them.
Reminds me of the guy in Texas several years ago, who called 911 when he saw his neighbor’s (unoccupied) house being robbed by two men, and said he was so mad about it (although he didn’t know his neighbor) that he was going to take his shotgun and go out and kill them. The operator repeatedly told him not to do it, but he did, and killed them both.
Of course, he claimed that they threatened him, and of course, he got away with murder, IMO. The police investigating the incident said the men were shot in the back.
This case is different, in that the crooks were armed, and were robbing people, not taking stuff from an unoccupied home. But I would guess the threat level to the shooter was about the same.
With parents and family like that, no wonder they thought robbery was a great profession.
You reap what you sow.
Think of it as evolution in action.
It seems like everyone views this like a black & white, comically absurd situation, but I’m seeing lots of shades of gray.
Armed robbery is a big deal and should carry a serious punishment. But let’s be clear: are you all saying that armed robbery merits the death penalty?
I do think that if the two armed thieves threatened the bystander, that bystander was right to protect himself. I am curious how a bystander who was threatened by two armed gunmen was able to draw and take down two assailants.
I hope that its not a case of a well-meaning vigilante unnecessarily escalating a situation to wild west brand of justice. I can totally sympathize that the citizen vigilante may fear retribution from the armed thieves’ family and/or crew. But I think that’s one of the reasons we typically don’t encourage citizens to play judge, jury, and executioner.
Two armed, masked men exiting a store with guns extended after robbing it are not due much benefit of the doubt.
I think that anyone who commits armed robbery has no cause for complaint if s/he is killed during that crime. The death penalty is decided in a court of law, where presumably the judge and jury can take their time to weigh all the factors. A person who is threatened by another person who is waving a gun, though, has to act quickly and decisively. Committing a crime incurs a certain risk, or at least it should. Armed robbery should not be a way to get some money without running a certain risk to one’s health and life. Don’t like the risk? Don’t commit the crime.
Because of an armed robbery, I have a metal plate holding the pieces of my skull together. I am alive because of an excellent surgeon, and a hell of a lot of luck. The detective who handled the case was of the opinion that the robber did not intend to leave any witnesses.
Armed robbers kill victims and bystanders often enough that you are justified in erring on the side of caution, and removing a perceived threat to your life.
A firearm is a lethal weapon. If you see one pointed at you, or anywhere near you, you are justified in perceiving a threat. It doesn’t matter whether or not the gun is loaded. It doesn’t matter whether or not it is a real gun. You act on the information you have.
If you see masked people carrying weapons, you have to assume that they are willing to use them.