Mother seeks vegence for her son

So in Charlotte, North Carolina a woman is demanding her son’s killer be charged with a crime. The only problem is her so was robbing a Pizza Hut at the time at gunpoint.

The male involved had lost job after job, including at the Pizza Hut he tried to rob, and decided to get a gun and go rob a Pizza Hut. Unfortunately for him one of the employees had a personal handgun and shot the criminal in the head. According to North Carolina law the shooting was perfectly justified the shooter acted in self defense because he had a reasonable fear for the life or great bodily injury of both himself and the other employees.

Should the shooter be charged?

According to the law in North Carolina, no. The shooter, in this case, was the victim and acted in self-defense.

The mother seems to be one of those for whom her precious little baby can do no wrong.

Nope. Her son was an idiot. If that’s anyone’s fault, it’s probably hers.

I have a feeling that that has a lot to do with how we got into this situation in the first place.

I was watching an episode of Lt. Kenda, Homicide Hunter. The episode featured an interview with the murderer, who claimed it was self defense.

Except the guy broke into the victim’s house with a gun and confronted the victim and his girlfriend, who were sleeping. The victim pulled out his own gun, so this shooter thinks he was justified in killing him. Despite breaking into the victim’s house with a gun. Some people just don’t get it.

Absolutely not.


The once-famous British wannabe-gangsters the Kray Twins of the 1960s were notorious for having a muvver like this. *
*My boys are good boys *

  • Violet, I believe… Not a common name now.

Given that the robber was threatening the store employees with a gun at the time, I’d say anyone in the vicinity has the right to use deadly force in defense of the innocent lives being threatened. North Carolina law agrees with this. So no, no charges for the person who shot the robber.

The mother of the robber doesn’t seem to understand that her son wasn’t killed as punishment for his crime; he was shot to mitigate the imminent threat he posed to public safety by pointing a loaded gun at people. That he died is tragic, but as the “Demotivational” poster says, “It could be that the purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.”

The article had this weird passage about another incident:

IOW, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, which was illegal regardless of whether he actually shot anybody. He wasn’t charged for killing the robber, which was entirely legal/justified. :rolleyes:

If I were going to rob someplace, I think I would pick one that I didn’t use to work at. Even if I did have a mask.

Try to branch out a little, wouldja?

Does anyone else get the impression that this guy was perhaps not the sharpest knife in the drawer? And yet he was able to convince one, possibly two women, to procreate with him. Apparently the smell of mozzarella causes feminine hearts to melt. Go figure.


Well, fried mozzarella sticks are an ooey gooey treat…but no. I would submit his baby mamas had issues themselves. Otherwise, why find someone who can’t hold a job attractive?

This reminds me of an instance from last year where a 54 year old woman caught someone breaking into her house and shot him “after a confrontation.” The burglar’s family was incensed, with one cousin telling people that the burglar had a good future ahead of him, and how else was he going to get his money for clothes and school? (Other than robbing people.)

Just saw on Google news where 3 people broke into someone’s house with masks, a knife, and brass knuckles. Unfortunately for them, the homeowner’s son had an AR-15. (It remains to be seen if anyone ties to sue him.)

Why the rolleyes? if the felon had killed the robber by grabbing a knife and stabbing him, or by taking away the robbers own weapon, and shooting him with that, he wouldn’t have been charged with anything. Sounds like the DA did the right thing. If he’d let him off for being a “hero,” that’d be carte blanche for felons to carry weapons with the excuse that they might need them for self-defense, and that argument that there’s precedent might even work with the right judge.

Some guy managed to kill himself with a soda machine, because he was trying to shake a free drink out of it, and it fell on him. His mother tried suing the distributor, lost, then went on a national crusade to get vending machines bolted down, and in that she succeeded, which is why you can’t jostle them when your soda (that you paid for) gets stuck.

I’m pretty sure his rolleyes are for the story, not the DA. They say that “Fast-Food workers who have killed robbers in North Carolina have been charged in the past”, but their only example is someone who was charged with something else, not for killing the robber.

Not to speak for Machine Elf, but because I almost posted the exact same thing, I’ll say the roll-eyes is because the article first makes it sound like he was arrested for shooting the guy,

when he was really arrested for having a gun as a felon.

That he killed a robber isn’t relevant at all, other than to make it obvious he was illegally in possession of a gun. He could have been charged with exactly the same thing if a cop had recognized him and saw that he had a gun.

Okay, that reminds me of the high-school prom king who bought a bag of pure, powdered caffeine on-line, ate a big spoonful of it, and dropped dead. Then his parents went on a campaign to outlaw selling pure caffeine because "“He thought caffeine was innocuous like the rest of us”. (I guess the moron didn’t fall far from the tree.)

You can speak for me anytime. :smiley:

Oddly though to American ears, I’m not sure that death is the wages of robbery with menaces.
In some softer, weaker countries one would give him the money, let him leave, then call the police.

He would be caught, because they usually are — this chap doesn’t seem a genius — but even if he got away I’d prefer a successful theft to a body on the floor.

The way I look at it, a little money or an iPad isn’t worth killing over. But the principle that one should be able to own their own property, and remain unmolested and unthreatened with harm over it is worth killing over.