I don’t know how the law will view this, but at the moment of the shooting, the clerk used deadly force against an unarmed man who, from the very limited information in this article, did not pose a threat. The clerk may have had other options. A man is dead. The clerk is traumatized because he killed someone, and this will haunt him for the rest of his life. What’s the amusing part?
Seriously? If a gun is the only reasonable way to defend oneself against a hatchet, we are all well and truly fucked.
I am amused because an armed robber managed to get himself killed in one of the more humiliating ways possible in his profession. Tarantino would be proud. And the robber did so without physically harming anyone else.
He will not now be tying up umpteenth thousand of taxpayer dollars keeping his worthless ass alive—either in hospital or in jail or prison—nor is there now the possibility of the criminal justice system letting him go so that he can predate on other innocent people.
As for the clerk’s potential culpability in shooting the robber, nothing says the robber might not have had a second weapon. In a perfect world, perhaps the clerk could have taken the robber’s surrender. I doubt the clerk had a great deal of time to think about it.
It sucks for the clerk. It sucked for the clerk the second the robber decided to commit an armed robbery against him. This is one of the better ways that set of events can turn out.
How would you rather the guy defended himself instead?
A great way to not get a gun stuck in your face is to not go around threatening people with edges weapons.
Seriously? Do you somehow believe that a hatchet isn’t a deadly weapon, or that threatening someone with a hatchet is a joke? A gun might not be the only reasonable response, but it sure seems like one reasonable response.
This is a stupid and naive position to argue, written from the safety of wherever-you-were, and likely written by someone who has never been at the wrong end of an edge weapon-yielding person ready to do you harm.
Ahh, ignorance. It’s truly bliss. That’s why it’s taking (much!) longer than we thought.
What would you suggest, oh eschereal the ignorant?
Moderating:
This is a warning for personal insults. Disagree with the post but don’t insult the poster.
Loach,
I don’t know whether this goes in ATMB or here, but my question is, “Exactly which part of Bullitt’s post was objectionable?” The “stupid and naive position to argue” part? The “[poster name] the ignorant.”?
I’m trying to see what not to do. Thanks.
Got it. I think it’s clear to me where I crossed the line.
I’ll take a stab here:
ETA: >> The “stupid and naive position to argue” part?
That’s where I disagree with eschereal’s point which, Loach says, is alright to do.
Moderator Note
This is the Postitive Gun News of the Day thread, not a gun debate thread. Please stay on-topic. Feel free to debate the appropriate use of firearms to defend yourself in different situations, just not in this thread.
“eschereal the ignorant” is a pretty clear personal insult against eschereal. The general rule around here is attack the post, not the poster.
If you have further questions, feel free to open a thread in ATMB.
Look up the “21 foot rule”
a blade wielding attacker can typically close 21 feet and attack a victim before that victim has time to unholster their weapon and fire.
many law enforcement officers use the 21-foot rule in evaluating deadly force situations when they face a blade-wielding attacker…
I’m familiar with it. That’s why I posted what I did. Anyone dismissing this threat out of hand is being foolish and not to be taken seriously.
From nearly a month ago in Highland Home, Alabama: A man reportedly slashed a woman multiple times with a box cutter, then attacked her boyfriend as well. The boyfriend was armed with a handgun and shot the man three times; the alleged assailant with the box cutter was taken to a hospital, and police indicated at the time they planned to charge him with assault. (I don’t see any follow-up stories confirming or disproving that initial report; as the story from post #1557 demonstrates, the wheels of justice can sometimes grind a trifle slowly, even in what seems like a very open and shut case.)
From Altamonte Springs, Florida: Earlier this year a 29-year-old man (Vandrae Wright)–who was not a law-abiding or responsible gun owner–attempted to provoke another man (Tasheem Selwood) into fighting him; this included Mr. Wright lifting his shirt to show he was carrying a handgun. Mr. Selwood attempted to leave the area, at which point Mr. Wright drew his gun and pointed it at Mr. Selwood. At this point Mr. Selwood used his own gun to shoot and injure Mr. Wright. The police and state’s attorney have announced that Mr. Selwood was acting in self-defense and will not be charged (even though he apparently left the scene of the shooting–you can hardly blame him in a practical sense, but legally that might put you on shaky ground). Mr. Wright is facing charges of “attempted homicide, possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, carrying a concealed weapon*, tampering with evidence and firing a weapon in a public place”.
*Presumably that’s “carrying a concealed weapon without a license” since Florida is a “shall-issue” state where carrying a concealed weapon in public is not necessarily against the law; convicted felons, of course, are not eligible for concealed-carry licenses.
And rather astonishingly, this next one is not from Florida. A man near Saginaw, Michigan encountered a six-foot-long alligator (apparently an escapee from a neighboring exotic pet refuge); when the alligator lunged at him, he shot and killed it.
Unless there is evidence of previous law breaking or irresponsibility, presumption of innocence assumes he was a responsible gun owner, up until the moment that he wasn’t.
You seem to have missed the part where Mr. Wright is facing charges of “possession of a weapon by a convicted felon”. It is illegal under the laws of the United States[sup]1[/sup] and of the State of Florida[sup]2[/sup] for a convicted felon to have a firearm; a convicted felon with a gun is therefore not “a responsible gun owner”.
[sup]1[/sup]“It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year…to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
[sup]2[/sup]“It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm, ammunition, or electric weapon or device, or to carry a concealed weapon, including a tear gas gun or chemical weapon or device, if that person has been:
(a) Convicted of a felony in the courts of this state;
(b) Found, in the courts of this state, to have committed a delinquent act that would be a felony if committed by an adult and such person is under 24 years of age;
(c) Convicted of or found to have committed a crime against the United States which is designated as a felony;
(d) Found to have committed a delinquent act in another state, territory, or country that would be a felony if committed by an adult and which was punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year and such person is under 24 years of age; or
(e) Found guilty of an offense that is a felony in another state, territory, or country and which was punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year.”
Indeed, I did miss that part. Carry on.
From Jupiter, Florida, police say a 34-year-old man with a tire iron attacked a 19-year-old man; the 19-year-old shot and wounded the tire-iron-wielding assailant. The man who was shot has been arrested for aggravated assault; police say the shooter is not facing charges.
You’d think by now people would have figured out what you should bring to a gunfight…