Robber shot dead at walmart

Just thinking outside the box, who's says the shooter wasnt aiming at his trunk no one can say if he was a good, lucky or really bad shot or how close the robber was when he shot him. What if the robber knew the victim and made threats to return to his house ect if he reported the robbery.I did read that the victim had been robbed and beaten a few times before and at one time he had been beaten with a board, Im wondering if PTSD wont come into play if needed as a defense in court. To many facts still missing. All I can say is first off Im glad its not me and I cant say what my actual actions would be. I hope if it happens to be I fill his belly full of lead while he still has a hold of me so theres no question.

Tactical/legal compromise


Bad guy flees after robbing with scissors/knife (no gun involved).

For those in shape, run after him maintaining tactical distance. Hopefully, you have some aggressive FoF knife experience to help define/calibrate your tactical distance.

If he stops, turns etc threatens again with scissors/edge, I shoot him into the ground to neutralize him as a threat however is most efficient for me in the moment. Head, leg, pelvis, COM, all good in my book. Get him frozen on the ground ASAP.

This new threat greenlights lethal force (here in texas) like the initial first one did before he ran away.

If he stops but fails to present weapon/threatens verbally, I draw down. (he already used a deadly weapon to rob me even if he fails to present it now. I am reasonable to draw down). I yell/scream "Drop my wallet" multiple times. If he closes distance towards me without weapon, I shoot him into the ground per above. He already used deadly weapon and may pull it out when he closes enough space. I am reasonable to believe such. He just held it to my neck per the original news story. Texas no legal preclusion needed/stand ground law. Legally he shows deliberate indifference to my instruction and glock indexed on him.

If he runs/walks away again, I follow him with tactical distance.

At some point, get on cell phone and/or tell bystanders to call police.

Rinse, wash, repeat until threat neutralized, tired, you get your wallet back, police arrive.

Legally and tactically, my intention is to "run him into the ground" to get my wallet back by chasing him, making him tired, following him to help police catch him since he committied aggravated robbery on me. This is the key legal point/intention on my part versus running after him to shoot him to get my wallet back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bds9009

I'll probably get flamed for this... but how is it "right" to shoot and kill someone who isn't an immediate threat to your life? Because they've harmed you financially? That's a mightly slipperly slope. When he had him at knifepoint, of course, the threat is there as you have no idea what his intentions are. But as he's running away, it's more than obvious he isn't going to harm you.

I would say that in this case, the law and what's "right" meet up eye to eye 100%.

---

No, the law doesn't meet up eye to eye, and hasn't for a long time. Thieving vermin, who rob a man of the honest fruits of his labor, should be gunned down in the street. Period. I have no problems, morally, with what this victim did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaquero 45

No, the law doesn't meet up eye to eye, and hasn't for a long time. Thieving vermin, who rob a man of the honest fruits of his labor, should be gunned down in the street. Period. I have no problems, morally, with what this victim did.

---

I hope there aren't too many more carrying guns with your attitude. I see your point emotionally but realistically our 2nd amendment rights are still way to fragile to support very many of those type of shootings. Shoot to kill but only as a last resort. Feel free to club the sucker to death but keep your gun holstered in this case. Assuming the guy was well on his way in the other direction of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverickx50

I hope there aren't too many more carrying guns with your attitude. I see your point emotionally but realistically our 2nd amendment rights are still way to fragile to support very many of those type of shootings. Shoot to kill but only as a last resort. Feel free to club the sucker to death but keep your gun holstered in this case. Assuming the guy was well on his way in the other direction of course.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaquero 45

No, the law doesn't meet up eye to eye, and hasn't for a long time. Thieving vermin, who rob a man of the honest fruits of his labor, should be gunned down in the street. Period. I have no problems, morally, with what this victim did.

---

It's attitudes like this that give the anti's ammo against those of us that are responsible gun owners. A gun isn't a free pass for you to strike down the wicked. In this country, you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner because you own a gun. You own a gun to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones from an immediate lethal threat.

According to the witness in the video, he was already 8-10' away. Probably adequate time to recognize the absence of a direct threat. Having been robbed multiple times before, and hospitalized, the frustration of being in the situation again and losing another paycheck may have adversely affected his judgement. (You'd also think his situational awareness would be a bit better.)

That said, the good news was summed up in the comments:
"Two things have been accomplished here. First the prosecutor will never be reelected and second there is not a jury in Logan county that will convict the man who was robbed."

I also wonder if the shot wasn't to the neck, as the perp was able to run into the store where he later died. Sounds like he bled out with a intact nervous system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shawn89

Looks like he has several supporters ,,,,,Supporters hold rally for Logan murder suspect* - Police Briefs - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -

---

I hope enough of those supporters are on the jury to find him not guilty.

IMO anyone that robs one person with a deadly weapon has demonstrated that he will do it again. This should be seen as a clear case of self defense for this victim and also for all future victims of the scum bag.

I just watched some videos and it appears there are witnesses.

I would say a fair trial later this guy will be off the hook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bds9009

+1



It's attitudes like this that give the anti's ammo against those of us that are responsible gun owners. A gun isn't a free pass for you to strike down the wicked. In this country, you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner because you own a gun. You own a gun to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones from an immediate lethal threat.

---

I don't need you to tell my why I own a gun. And I couldn't care less what you think of my attitude. I have no problem MORALLY with what the victim in this case did. He might be in trouble LEGALLY, but maybe not, since there will more than likely be someone like me on a West Virginia jury.

If by "responsible gun owner" you mean "coward who is afraid to express his beliefs because of what somebody else might think," then yeah, call me irresponsible. I'm certainly glad that our founding fathers were not as afraid of "antis" as you seem to be. They gave the proper response to the attempted confiscation of arms by their overlords. I doubt that those men would have heeded your advice to "shut up before we lose our rights." :rolleyes:

If accounts of this story are true, this victim was attacked with an edged weapon and robbed. Violent encounters aren't games where you can call "time-out!" If a man initiates a criminal attack against a citizen going about his business, I say that the attacker should legally forfeit his right to considerations that a law-abiding citizen enjoys. If the attacker attempts to employ lethal force (edged weapon), he's not only a threat in the moment, but he is a threat to everyone around him, and should be dealt with as such.

Police officers are still legally allowed to shoot fleeing felons, if they determine that the felon has committed or attempted to commit a violent felony, and poses a significant risk of injury or death to innocent persons if he is not stopped immediately, and if there appears to be no other way to stop the violent offender immediately. Perhaps you prefer that the fleeing felon runs back into the Walmart or across the parking lot and takes a hostage while the police roll up, but I much prefer that the citizen who is lawfully carrying a weapon be allowed to stop the violent fleeing felon, by any means necessary.

This is a repost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tangoseal

This is a repost.

---

That would explain all of the REplies.:danceban::banana::haha:
Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Michael

update: Shooter released charges dropped

Excellent!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shawn89

update: Shooter released charges dropped

---

Good to hear. I hope any costs he may have incurred in defending himself can be recouped.

Michael

He was out on bail already his community chipped together and paid his bond, so they get their money back and he is free great ending id say