The guy saw the robbery in progress and was still outside the store, having already called police, when they left. It seems to me that the side of caution is the side where you get the fuck away from there.
Did the guy who shot them act unwisely? Maybe. Do the family members have any right whatsoever to complain that their “boys” were killed while in the act of committing a violent crime? Absolutely not.
Leaving anyone else who might wander by at the robbers’ mercy.
But, the armed robbers were good kids, so that’s what should have been done. Probably, they would have given passers-by some candy.
Oh my heavens! 
I never said they weren’t guilty of armed robbery, so we’re in agreement.
And, here we have the main issue. It will be his word (the guy who did the killing), against that of the dead guys. And as we all know, dead guys tell no tales. I can see this case going the same direction as another, similar case this year in Florida.
It will be interesting to see the forensics - how were the robbers shot, and if there is any video available. Absent that, it will be his word against the dead guys. Count on race playing a part in this as well.
Maybe I’m assuming something I shouldn’t. Please correct any ignorance on my part before I continue.
[ul]
[li]I’m assuming the armed robbers had already committed the robbery and were fleeing when they encountered concerned citizen.[/li][li]I’m assuming concerned citizen who already called 911 had the choice to duck and cover or intervene, s/he chose to intervene.[/li][/ul]
Let me know if I’m getting it wrong.
“Anyone else who might have wandered by, in theory, would have been at their mercy!” That’s a justification for killing a motherfucker?
[QUOTE=muldoonthief]
Did the guy who shot them act unwisely? Maybe. Do the family members have any right whatsoever to complain that their “boys” were killed while in the act of committing a violent crime? Absolutely not.
[/QUOTE]
I appreciate that that’s your opinion, but it seems like that justification would hold up whether or not the concerned citizen had actually “unwisely” murdered the robbers. And it’s my opinion that if somebody murders your child, you have the “right” to complain.
That’s an interesting self-defense argument. Has it ever actually worked?
The “I could have left the scene but I stayed to prevent potential harm to unspecified others” argument, I mean; not the bizarre “the bad guys would have handed out candy lol” non sequitur.
Sometimes a motherfucker needs killed.
I’m familiar with that perspective. Sometimes we call it murder when it happens.
If you read the news article in the OP, you may have stumbled across this:
No, the justification for self-defense is evident in the news article linked in the OP. If you read that article, you may have stumbled across this:
It is interesting that you are entertaining the idea that armed robbers who turned their weapons on a bystander, and who were then shot after they threatened that person, are victims of murder. And once again, please note that there is apparently video tape of all this.
I was asking Bricker, because that isn’t what he said.
What I’m doing, to be specific, is entertaining the idea that that isn’t what happened.
I think this is the only thing you’ve said that I can agree with. The First Amendment absolutely protects the freedom of speech in a case like this.
But the facts presented to the press make it pretty clear that this concerned citizen was acting reasonably and in self-defense. He called the police. He gave the robbers a chance to peacefully wait for the police to arrive. He fired only when a specific threat was presented. Witnesses and video footage back up the story.
If these facts hold up under investigation, the guy deserves a medal. In the country that I want to live in, this is the appropriate response from bystanders at a crime.
So what? It’s still apparent that you’re throwing around terms like “murder” without even the slightest familiarity with the facts of the case.
Perhaps you can muse about a hypothesis that CIA racist hitmen descended from black helicopters to execute two kids who were unarmed and buying bubble gum from the shop. As long as you aren’t going to constrain your ideas to the apparent facts reported by the news, you might as well just invent things to your heart’s content in order to maximize your displeasure with this incident. Or, your comments could reflect what has actually been reported and is apparently backed up by video tape and eyewitnesses. Your choice.
What on earth? “So what?” You were quoting my post where I was responding to Bricker, that’s what. I’m familiar with the facts of the case. I don’t think you’re all that familiar with what I have and haven’t said at this point.
Thank you for that.
That’s silly. For one thing, these clowns had just clearly robbed someone at gunpoint, and threatened a bystander outside, who happened to shoot them.
It’s not like the bystander crouched behind the nearest potted plant and crept out to shoot them in the back of the head, execution style, as they made their getaway. THAT might be murder, but this is pretty clearly self-defense or something very close to it.
No. But that’s justification for not leaving.
If you’re there, and they threaten you with deadly force when they see you, THAT is justification for killing a motherfucker, or anyone else.
How interesting. Do you have an opinion on a similar right to complain if someone legally kills your adult child in response to your adult child’s threat of deadly force?