2 men found out why they decided to rob the wrong place

[rexmitchell]

http://www.ocala.com/article/2012071...20719790?tc=cr

Good for this guy.

[Hawkeye]

Yikes, once they started running away I would have thought he should/would stop shooting personally. They were booking it and he was chasing. The whole thing seems justified to me but as soon as they start running I am done shooting cause shooting someone in the back can't look good.

[Biker Dash]

Seems legit to me. Personally, had the robbers died in this incident, I would feel no loss. THEY were threatening others in a manner which placed the lives of innocents in severe jeopardy.

[rexmitchell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Yikes, once they started running away I would have thought he should/would stop shooting personally. They were booking it and he was chasing. The whole thing seems justified to me but as soon as they start running I am done shooting cause shooting someone in the back can't look good.

I see your point and if it was a trained LEO, I would say that would be expected. However, they encountered a terrified old man who was worried about his life and a dozen others. He was trying to make sure they couldn't get back up to fight.

[Goliath616]

keep pulling the trigger until it's empty or they aren't moving anymore....if, and it's a very big if here, the police decide to prosecute, he could plead temporary insanity

[goalie]

Wow! That was great. I did not think the old man did anything wrong. He merely chased them out of the store until it was certain there were no others in jeopardy.

[bajakirch]

LEOs are trained to fire until there is no longer a threat of death or great bodily harm. If they still had weapons in hand, or the shooter could reasonably believe they still had the ability to act in a harmful manner, he was probably justified in continuing to fire.

Of course, the court of public opinion may differ on this.

[Goliath616]

Originally Posted by bajakirch

LEOs are trained to fire until there is no longer a threat of death or great bodily harm. If they still had weapons in hand, or the shooter could reasonably believe they still had the ability to act in a harmful manner, he was probably justified in continuing to fire.

Of course, the court of public opinion may differ on this.

back many many moons ago (heh, that sounds funny) actually about 19 years ago, when taking a class that was required for me to carry a gun while working security, they told us "If someone comes into the place you are working (bank, grocery store, ect.) and is waving a gun around and threatening people, and you decide it is a "shoot" situation, shoot to kill not to wound"

the reason they told us this in because even though that person is committing a felony (armed robbery) if I/we shoot that person in the arm and they drop the gun, threat is over, no more shooting at them......so as it goes, the police show up and arrest the guy for the robbery and he goes to jail....now months later in court you find out that the bullet that hit his shoulder has rendered his whole are useless, he can now sue me for the loss of his mobility......and win, even though he was committing a felony when it happened.....

but if I shoot him and kill him, I can beat his family in a civil court over the death......now isn't that screwed up??

by the way, they stopped telling people this about three years later.....

[cbdallas]

Unfortunately, as much as I appreciate what he did, he'll probably get in trouble for it. What he did doesn't fall under a 'castle doctrine', which Florida has. You can blast someone in your home, car, boat, or your place of business, but that doesn't extend to this locale. Some district attorney will probably make an example out of him and it'll be up to a jury to decide if his actions were justified.

[Hawkeye]

Actually if you read the article he is not getting in trouble for it because he was legally carrying and acting out of the fear for his or another persons life, which is legal in that state.

“Based on what I have seen and what I know at this time, I don’t anticipate filing any charges,” said Bill Gladson of the State Attorney’s Office.

The people robbing didn't even have their gun loaded either... wow, talk about a stupid plan.

[rexmitchell]

Originally Posted by Goliath616

back many many moons ago (heh, that sounds funny) actually about 19 years ago, when taking a class that was required for me to carry a gun while working security, they told us "If someone comes into the place you are working (bank, grocery store, ect.) and is waving a gun around and threatening people, and you decide it is a "shoot" situation, shoot to kill not to wound"

the reason they told us this in because even though that person is committing a felony (armed robbery) if I/we shoot that person in the arm and they drop the gun, threat is over, no more shooting at them......so as it goes, the police show up and arrest the guy for the robbery and he goes to jail....now months later in court you find out that the bullet that hit his shoulder has rendered his whole are useless, he can now sue me for the loss of his mobility......and win, even though he was committing a felony when it happened.....

but if I shoot him and kill him, I can beat his family in a civil court over the death......now isn't that screwed up??

by the way, they stopped telling people this about three years later.....

Something similar is taught in CHL classes here, more or less, you shoot until they are dead, when they are dead they can't tell their side of the story, right or wrong.

[cbdallas]

...or heal from their wounds & sue you.

[bajakirch]

Originally Posted by Goliath616

back many many moons ago (heh, that sounds funny) actually about 19 years ago, when taking a class that was required for me to carry a gun while working security, they told us "If someone comes into the place you are working (bank, grocery store, ect.) and is waving a gun around and threatening people, and you decide it is a "shoot" situation, shoot to kill not to wound"

the reason they told us this in because even though that person is committing a felony (armed robbery) if I/we shoot that person in the arm and they drop the gun, threat is over, no more shooting at them......so as it goes, the police show up and arrest the guy for the robbery and he goes to jail....now months later in court you find out that the bullet that hit his shoulder has rendered his whole are useless, he can now sue me for the loss of his mobility......and win, even though he was committing a felony when it happened.....

but if I shoot him and kill him, I can beat his family in a civil court over the death......now isn't that screwed up??

by the way, they stopped telling people this about three years later.....

The reason they probably stopped teaching this method is that what you're describing is likely illegal in most states.

This is why law enforcement is instructed to "remove the threat". If dude tosses the gun away and I continue firing until he his dead, I've gone beyond the mandate of my authority.

[Goliath616]

Originally Posted by bajakirch

The reason they probably stopped teaching this method is that what you're describing is likely illegal in most states.

This is why law enforcement is instructed to "remove the threat". If dude tosses the gun away and I continue firing until he his dead, I've gone beyond the mandate of my authority.

that's why you keep pulling the trigger until the gun is empty (as a private citizen)...that way if there is trouble, you claim temporary insanity

in all honesty, after working as an armed guard for several years, I never fired my weapon except at the yearly qualification times....but we were also taught 2 shots, center mass....when I carried, I carried a .40 Ruger with Speer Gold Dot hollow points....I don't think many would live with 2 of those in their chest...

[ScrumDown]

Good for that old man doing what a person should do who is legally allowed to carry a gun.
As far as him getting procecuted, I don't see how it could happen. As quickly as that happened, I cannot see how in any one's mind that the threat was not over until they (the alledged robbers) had left the building.