F the robber! No sympathy for the devil. The robber had a family to feed? how about the dude who got robbed has a family to feed? How about if that robber got away with what was in the wallet, the guy's family would be out on the street with no food and their car repossessed and zero ability to get back on their feet financially? Is THAT worth a shooting?



If you are living pay check to pay check and your pay is stolen, you are well and truly screwed. Feelings of emasculation have nothing to do with it. If it's my life being ruined for a solid year or three because I have zero money to spare, or your life because you are trying to ruin mine, you're going to catch a hot one.

 

Yes. I wouldn't feel one ounce of sorry, and wouldn't lose a single night's sleep. Taking out the trash isn't for the faint of heart. There are a lot of other ways to feed your family if times are tough.

 

i'm not contesting that the guy was a scumbag. i'm just saying that this could set a legal precedent for other, less clear-cut, cases.



an eye for an eye, a hand for a hand.

this guy was fleeing. the physical threat was over, shooting at him is simply escalating the situation.

 

If you threaten my life,you just put yours on the line!...self defence imo.

 

Whoa whoa whoa, there is a "right" reason to ROB SOMEONE AT KNIFEPOINT????? Never, ever, ever, is there a "right" behind a completely and totally "wrong". Never.

Sure the government tries to do it and call it "right" or "fair" (stealing from the rich, giving to the poor), but that still does not make it right. Ever.

 

"and that the criminal did not cause any injury, only the threat of injury."

I disagree completely. Are you saying you have to be harmed before defending yourself? If so, wrong.





"it would be like shooting a shoplifter, kinda"

Man with a knife saying he's going to cut your throat = shoplifter? I fail to see your logic.



"maybe the guy needed money to pay a bill or buy food for his child, maybe he was robbing for the "right" reasons"

Threatening a life for the right reasons? Okay, I'm totally with you on a mother stealing a half gallon of milk from a store to feed her baby, but stalking a guy, assault and battery, threatening to take his life... that crosses the line.





"Yes. I wouldn't feel one ounce of sorry, and wouldn't lose a single night's sleep."

Yeah, but we all know you're crazy, Floyd.







The man was still only 3 steps away. It could be argued there was still a legitimate threat. I can dance like a ballerina, but I can still cut you.



Would you feel differently if he had been arrested 5 times before, or wanted for robbing 5 other people? Or for slashing someone the last time he robbed them? When a knife is held to your throat, and someone tells you they're going to cut you, you aren't worried about which direction the guy is facing when you fire your weapon, you're defending yourself even if he's three steps away.



In his shoes, I would feel bad that the guy died, it would be hard to live with, but at least I would be the one living.

 

It shouldn't be hard to live with and you shouldn't feel bad the guy died. It's tough words I know, but that is one less problem for society to have to cope with.



If you can't come to that conclusion in the comfort of your living room, carrying a gun is still a good idea, but you might have some psychological trauma after you have to use it.

 

they're actually some solid points guys, fair enough. what you said about being in the comfort of your living room is true, it is quite easy to preach, but when someone is threatening your sh*t, then its a different story. hmm.



i still think my point stands about the legality of this though. if someone is backing away, it is illegal to harm them; obviously this is more complicated when they are armed. the point i am making is that he did not shoot the guy while he was being threatened, he did it when the other guy was running off.



a point to remember is that he shot the attacker in the *head*. thats not an easy shot to take in the heat of the moment. maiming the attacker would have been an easier shot and still resulted in the return of the victim's wallet.

 

shoot to kill or don't shoot. I believe they teach this in the police academy? Don't shoot to simply wound - center mass.

But, as the witness stated, he was only 3 steps away. Not a hard shot.

 

Maim and you will find yourself in court. In TX if you take them out and you are justified you are free from civil liability under castle law. Also, the best chance for a hit is center mass. Fire for a leg, arm. etc etc and you have a good chance of missing and sending a round into who knows what. Gun control is hitting your target, center mass or nothing.



If I saw a shop lifter running off with water, bread, food, etc.. even if it was mine. I would not pull the trigger. I do not agree with stealing to feed your family, I agree with working or getting help from the many services that will provide food without breaking the law. However, that does not warrant a death penalty IMO.



Threaten my life and I have my .45 on me? I hope you are in good standing with whatever god you pray too, because I am about to help you meet him/her.



-BTW, I have pulled the trigger and been shot at.. on the flip side of that I have held fire in two situations when I could have pulled the trigger and was right in not shooting thanks to clues I picked up in about half a heart beat.. So not much arm chair bench racing type speculation from me on this one here.



Specific to this case, I like the message it sends to other knife welding assclowns to be honest. This guy was lucky he had witnesses saying the guy really did put a knife to his throat. If it had been in the middle of the night with no one around, and the guy had entry wounds in his back. That might be hard to explain since it is your word vs. a dead guys. I would say justified, but on the very very edge of it.