I think Aesiron’s got a good summation of my OP.
CaptBushido: I’m no lawyer, but I could guess that once the person’s no longer a threat to you (i.e., leaving you {having his back to you}), you might get into some serious legal trouble if you shot him in the back. I guess if you could prove he was pointing the weapon at you while he was leaving, it would be a different story, though.
Hmm, if you look at it that way, Monty, then I suppose it just depends on the sensibilities of whatever particular region you’re in. I can’t imagine a local jury in my area sentencing any shopkeeper who kills a criminal in defense of the store’s property, regardless of whether he (the clerk) were in personal danger. Rural/urban, conservative/liberal split in the matter, I suppose.
You’ve got to be kidding.
A good way to get charged with a homicide of some sort I think. As far as I know, deadly force is only justified to protect a life.
It all depends on attitudes; in some areas, if someone uses a gun to commit a crime, they are seen as crossing a “line”, and using deadly force against them is simply considered self defense by law enforcement and juries REGARDLESS of the circumstances.
No, David, I’m not kidding. Folks in the Army actually do stand guard duty on a regular basis.
But getting back to the convenience store thing: I was, essentially, wondering if it would be better for the store owners (and even for the poor sods who are slaving inside the stores) if there were some other type of protection than the current video camera or no video camera.
A case in point in a town near here recently. A couple of armed guys broke into a church to rob the place. The minister killed both of them. Unfortunately, the autopsy showed that both had been shot in the back and outside the church. The minister has been charged.
Forgive me, I have long had a silly idea on this subject.
Let’s tax employers who have employees killed at the office. (Store, whatever.) Say a million bucks to cover police costs and all that.
This would change the economics in favor of reduving risk to the minimal-wage guys.
Heck, having two teenages on duty in the middle of the night would propably cut down on the murder rate.
Anyway, I am sure this is a bad idea. Anyone care to tell me why exactly?
Because then 99% of convenience stores and other places would shut down. And if you set the price at a million dollars, the mob can simply charge you a $900,000 protection fee.
Well, duh! If they did that, the stores wouldn’t be very convenient to rob, now would they?
Some people just don’t think these things through before asking a question, grumble, grumble, grumble…
Regarding that minister: sure he might have been CHARGED, I bet thats required, but was he CONVICTED?
Actually, I found the National Guardsmen reassuring. Had nothing to do with the rifle; rather, I felt that having them there made the baggage screeners less likely to steal my stuff or harass me. Guardsmen report to their unit commanders, not to the TSA or FAA, and if they saw someone doing something they oughtn’t be doing, they could and would report it appropriately without fear of reprisal. Several baggage screeners lost their jobs as a result of Guardsmen reporting their malfeasance.
Every 7-11, McDonald’s, etc, etc in the Philippines has at least one armed guard - usually a guy (or occasionally a rather masculine woman) with a revolver who opens the door for customers. Even Goldilocks Cake Shops in Manila have a couple - and they just sell cakes (nice ones).
IMO, it’s economics - minimum wages there are peanuts c/w the US, the risk of robbery is almost certainly a lot higher, law enforcement/insurance provisions much worse.