warning or bullet?

[Nraman]

The man was in his store, his castle. The woman could sue him for emotional damages I suppose.
That incident is completely different from being in a QT or similar as a customer. The way I see it the perp is pointing the gun at the clerk. The clerk does not carry a weapon and his duty is to comply and give him the money. The owner of the store wants the clerk to give the robber the money. I see it as a stretch to assume that the best course of action is to start shooting, considering that the vast majority of robberies ends with the loss of money.

 

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

More backpedaling. I don't believe I've said those things. Would you be so kind as to point out where I have said these things about the SDA and CCW? (beyond saying that they aren't germane, that is.)
Do you have any case law, or codified law that supports your theory in any way?

Thanks for finally admitting you are wrong and I'm right. It took you long enough!!! No need to grovel....just knowing that you know you are wrong is enough for me.

 

[LightningCrash]

Thanks for finally admitting you are wrong and I'm right. It took you long enough!!! No need to grovel....just knowing that you know you are wrong is enough for me.

Do you feel that you have anything at all to add to the discussion besides conjecture?

 

[LightningCrash]

Ok you keep pointing out "are attacked". If a perp points a gun at me or others then that is an attack. I am not going to wait for him to start shooting to respond. That is to late to be of any benefit to anyone.
Just my opinion YMV

Did you also notice that the OP said he was talking about shooting the robber in the back?

 

[beast1989]

I'm not getting in the middle of the on-going argument because I think there needs to be more clarification with the law, but, regarding the video, I don't remember anything in the video stating rather the CC'er was charged, sued, or whatever might have happened to him, did it? Personally, I feel he put the Woman and her baby in a bad situation; it's a good thing he didn't miss the first couple of shots as the Woman and Baby were in-between them at first.

You must have not been in tune with the rest of this thread or seen my other post. The last sentence of my post that you quoted summarizes the way i feel about the situation this thread is about.

"I don't remember anything in the video stating rather the CC'er was charged, sued, or whatever might have happened to him"
and the above quote right there ^^^, is one of the reasons why i said what i said.

 

[beast1989]

More backpedaling. I don't believe I've said those things. Would you be so kind as to point out where I have said these things about the SDA and CCW? (beyond saying that they aren't germane, that is.)
Do you have any case law, or codified law that supports your theory in any way?

Would there be any case law if the ccw'er was using there weapon in its legal capacity?

 

[beast1989]

Ok you keep pointing out "are attacked". If a perp points a gun at me or others then that is an attack. I am not going to wait for him to start shooting to respond. That is to late to be of any benefit to anyone.
Just my opinion YMV

Yea we are trying to get that point drilled through LightningCrash's thick skull. He might as well stop carrying (if he does) b/c he will never use it at this rate. Holding a gun to someone's head is not enough "attacking" for this guy...

It would be a shame if all the customers in the store got killed during a robbery and the investigator on the scene finds that one of the victims was ccw'ing and never used it. I think he/she would see the holstered weapon and shake their head.

 

[jarhead983]

... But if it escalates to where life is threatened i would act accordingly.

OK, I've read every post and my questions are: 1) What are these signs of escalation that some have mentioned as the catalyst for them to act, and more importantly, how much time do you think you have to act before someone is shot after it appears to be more than a simple robery? 2) Why is Dawkins V State being argued? The determining factor against Dawkins was that they didn’t prove that Bradley was facing death or grave bodily harm. There was nothing but conjecture that it was more than a fist fight. They argued that Bradley was in grave danger but the jury didn’t believe it, rather from the facts or bias, it doesn’t matter, the burden was on the defendant to prove that the use of deadly force was prudent. Remember Dawkins is night and day different from the OP, the brandishing of a weapon leapfrogs this to an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm.

I would not be able to live with myself if someone else’s death was the minimal catalyst for me to act. The perpetrator forfeited any right to a warning when he pointed that gun at someone. I cower to my wife and mom; no one else gets a free pass. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not about bravado, it’s about refusing to be a passive victim. Every time a robber gets by with “just a few dollars and a beer” they are embolden. They start seeing everyone as sheep that they can fleece at will. Every psychopath started out with nickel / dime crimes, they build up to the big crimes because they got by with it because no one stopped them. Hell it’s hard enough to get anyone to even testify to what the saw, let alone to stop them. I won’t be a victim on my knees when the bullet comes and I won’t give them a sporting chance..

 

[LightningCrash]

Given the OP's premise... you are safe, drawing from concealment, the robber is paying attention to the clerk , and you can shoot him in the back. Which legislation do you think protects your actions in this case? How would you argue your defense?

Even the practicing lawyer in this thread didn't feel confident leaning one way or another on it.

 

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

OK, I've read every post and my questions are: 1) What are these signs of escalation that some have mentioned as the catalyst for them to act, and more importantly, how much time do you think you have to act before someone is shot after it appears to be more than a simple robbery? 2) Why is Dawkins V State being argued? The determining factor against Dawkins was that they didn’t prove that Bradley was facing death or grave bodily harm. There was nothing but conjecture that it was more than a fist fight. They argued that Bradley was in grave danger but the jury didn’t believe it, rather from the facts or bias, it doesn’t matter, the burden was on the defendant to prove that the use of deadly force was prudent. Remember Dawkins is night and day different from the OP, the brandishing of a weapon leapfrogs this to an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm.

I would not be able to live with myself if someone else’s death was the minimal catalyst for me to act. The perpetrator forfeited any right to a warning when he pointed that gun at someone. I cower to my wife and mom; no one else gets a free pass. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not about bravado, it’s about refusing to be a passive victim. Every time a robber gets by with “just a few dollars and a beer” they are embolden. They start seeing everyone as sheep that they can fleece at will. Every psychopath started out with nickel / dime crimes, they build up to the big crimes because they got by with it because no one stopped them. Hell it’s hard enough to get anyone to even testify to what the saw, let alone to stop them. I won’t be a victim on my knees when the bullet comes and I won’t give them a sporting chance..

^^^This!!!!! Had me worried for awhile. Thought LightningCrash might have turned everyone here into pacifists.