Family of armed robber outraged that store clerk shot and killed their brother in self-defense: 'Yes, he's robbing them — oh well!'

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In your universe, person A robs person B by saying "pretty please". Meanwhile in the real word threats and violence are used. It is the violence or threat of violence that people respond to with sometimes deadly force. Not the property.

You think resisting a criminal is a nonsensical premise. You also think defending your own life is defending property.

Your response relies on the sociopathic libertarian worldview, any threat to your property is necessarily a deadly threat to you.

Your response relies on the insane worldview, criminals are nice people who never hurt anyone.

Fortunately, in many parts of the civilized world, burglars and robbers are not automatically assumed to be threats to life. In those parts of the world, something that is foreign to those who value property over life is used- the rule of reason.

It is not property that the criminals get shot over. It is the threat to life that they use to acquire the property.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Robbers are by definition a threat. Even if they have no weapon and it's just a strongarm robbery people sometimes die.

BS.

Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is also quite a bit of evidence that we like to find reasons to shoot people. Starting with this simple common law "castle principle", we get stuff like "stand your ground" laws, which basically make it legal to start an altercation and then shoot the other person when it doesn't go as you expected. Fortunately, STG laws are not widely accepted and quite a few people found themselves in a lot of trouble, after shooting someone. Present case law suggests that a STG defense is more likely to succeed if you are the only surviving witness, and there's no video tape of the incident.

It's leftist garbage like this that causes the trouble with SYG laws.

Except in cases where people used it as a reason to create an issue.

SYG says two things:

1) You don't have to retreat even if that's a safe option. This isn't that big a deal, the number of times you know retreat to be safe is low.

The trouble is, the cases where people decide to make a deal of something because they know they are armed and if something happens, they can get away with killing the person. I doubt very much that a significant number of legit self-defense cases led to incarceration, so much as to justify the SYG in the first place.

I think what's confusing you is if you start an incident...

That is about it.

 

[fast]

When one points a weapon at anyone, one is inviting violence. It doesn't mean that any resulting death is not unfortunate. Nor is uncommon for the family of a victim of a shooting (justified or not) to bemoan the death of their relative.

IMO, the notion that protection of property is a justification for killing a person means that property is more important than life. I find that notion repugnant.

For me, it’s not the robbery itself that is worthy of death; it’s the immediate threat of a life-ending scenario playing out that captures my attention. It doesn’t matter WHY the gun wielding person is there pointing a gun to one’s head. Statistics may very well demonstrate that acquiescence more often yields a better scenario, but I retain the right of self-preservation and have no qualms in others exercising their right to do as they please when confronted with such a threat.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is also quite a bit of evidence that we like to find reasons to shoot people. Starting with this simple common law "castle principle", we get stuff like "stand your ground" laws, which basically make it legal to start an altercation and then shoot the other person when it doesn't go as you expected. Fortunately, STG laws are not widely accepted and quite a few people found themselves in a lot of trouble, after shooting someone. Present case law suggests that a STG defense is more likely to succeed if you are the only surviving witness, and there's no video tape of the incident.

It's leftist garbage like this that causes the trouble with SYG laws. People believe you and shoot when they aren't allowed to so they get in trouble.

SYG says two things:

1) You don't have to retreat even if that's a safe option. This isn't that big a deal, the number of times you know retreat to be safe is low.

2) It prevents the reflexive arrest of someone claiming self defense. Note that it does not keep them from being later charged, it simply avoids arrest first, ask questions later.

I think what's confusing you is if you start an incident and then leave and the guy comes after you that you are allowed to defend yourself.

STG laws exist so that a person who possesses a gun may kill someone when there was an opportunity to avoid doing so. I agree that being arrested for murder might be an inconvenience for some people.

 

[laughing dog]

When one points a weapon at anyone, one is inviting violence. It doesn't mean that any resulting death is not unfortunate. Nor is uncommon for the family of a victim of a shooting (justified or not) to bemoan the death of their relative.

IMO, the notion that protection of property is a justification for killing a person means that property is more important than life. I find that notion repugnant.

For me, it’s not the robbery itself that is worthy of death; it’s the immediate threat of a life-ending scenario playing out that captures my attention. It doesn’t matter WHY the gun wielding person is there pointing a gun to one’s head. Statistics may very well demonstrate that acquiescence more often yields a better scenario, but I retain the right of self-preservation and have no qualms in others exercising their right to do as they please when confronted with such a threat.

So, you agree with the 1st sent of the post to which you responded. How about the rest of it?

 

[laughing dog]

Robbers are by definition a threat. Even if they have no weapon and it's just a strongarm robbery people sometimes die.

BS.

Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.

It is not a threat of deadly violence, so he is wrong. Saying I am going to grab the money out of your hand is not a threat of deadly violence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.

It is not a threat of deadly violence, so he is wrong. Saying I am going to grab the money out of your hand is not a threat of deadly violence.

Does it need to be 'deadly', isn't the threat of physical force enough?

 

[laughing dog]

Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.

It is not a threat of deadly violence, so he is wrong. Saying I am going to grab the money out of your hand is not a threat of deadly violence.

Does it need to be 'deadly', isn't the threat of physical force enough?

Not to justify a deadly response in my eyes. Moreover, in this thread, at least poster is equating entry into the home with a deadly threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does it need to be 'deadly', isn't the threat of physical force enough?

Not to justify a deadly response in my eyes.

If this is individual judgment, then fine. I thought this was about specifically the definition of "robber".

Moreover, in this thread, at least poster is equating entry into the home with a deadly threat.

That road has been over traveled here. It has become a ditch.

 

[Bronzeage]

Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.

It is not a threat of deadly violence, so he is wrong. Saying I am going to grab the money out of your hand is not a threat of deadly violence.

Does it need to be 'deadly', isn't the threat of physical force enough?

Okay. Let's try it this way. You walk up to me and say, "I'm going to kick your ass."
I pull a pistol and shoot you in the chest. You're now dead and have no more influence on events.

What should happen next?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Robbers are by definition a threat. Even if they have no weapon and it's just a strongarm robbery people sometimes die.

BS.

Robbery is getting what you want via either the application of force or the threat of the application of force.

As for strongarm--we have a local case some years back. Teen with an iPad, a couple of guys in a vehicle decide they want it. They got the iPad, the kid fell and got run over. Dead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When one points a weapon at anyone, one is inviting violence. It doesn't mean that any resulting death is not unfortunate. Nor is uncommon for the family of a victim of a shooting (justified or not) to bemoan the death of their relative.

IMO, the notion that protection of property is a justification for killing a person means that property is more important than life. I find that notion repugnant.

For me, it’s not the robbery itself that is worthy of death; it’s the immediate threat of a life-ending scenario playing out that captures my attention. It doesn’t matter WHY the gun wielding person is there pointing a gun to one’s head. Statistics may very well demonstrate that acquiescence more often yields a better scenario, but I retain the right of self-preservation and have no qualms in others exercising their right to do as they please when confronted with such a threat.

The problem with the statistics is they can't consider the circumstances.

If you have a reasonably sane robber acquiescence is the right approach, you're very unlikely to be killed this way.

However, all too often the robber isn't exactly sane. They're likely hopped up on drugs, or facing withdrawal from drugs. When things don't go exactly their way the danger is considerable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is also quite a bit of evidence that we like to find reasons to shoot people. Starting with this simple common law "castle principle", we get stuff like "stand your ground" laws, which basically make it legal to start an altercation and then shoot the other person when it doesn't go as you expected. Fortunately, STG laws are not widely accepted and quite a few people found themselves in a lot of trouble, after shooting someone. Present case law suggests that a STG defense is more likely to succeed if you are the only surviving witness, and there's no video tape of the incident.

It's leftist garbage like this that causes the trouble with SYG laws. People believe you and shoot when they aren't allowed to so they get in trouble.

SYG says two things:

1) You don't have to retreat even if that's a safe option. This isn't that big a deal, the number of times you know retreat to be safe is low.

2) It prevents the reflexive arrest of someone claiming self defense. Note that it does not keep them from being later charged, it simply avoids arrest first, ask questions later.

I think what's confusing you is if you start an incident and then leave and the guy comes after you that you are allowed to defend yourself.

STG laws exist so that a person who possesses a gun may kill someone when there was an opportunity to avoid doing so. I agree that being arrested for murder might be an inconvenience for some people.

Being arrested for murder will be a headache for the rest of your life even if you're completely exonerated. That's why arrest first ask questions later isn't a good approach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.

It is not a threat of deadly violence, so he is wrong. Saying I am going to grab the money out of your hand is not a threat of deadly violence.

And nobody is going to get shot that way--by the time you're aware of the robbery the guy is running away and not a threat.

Got any more strawmen?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does it need to be 'deadly', isn't the threat of physical force enough?

Okay. Let's try it this way. You walk up to me and say, "I'm going to kick your ass."
I pull a pistol and shoot you in the chest. You're now dead and have no more influence on events.

What should happen next?

Assuming the threat appeared real (and credible) and not just words, nothing.

It's not exactly unusual for someone to die from a beating, thus the threshold of a lethal threat has been crossed.

 

[laughing dog]

Robbers are by definition a threat. Even if they have no weapon and it's just a strongarm robbery people sometimes die.

BS.

Robbery is getting what you want via either the application of force or the threat of the application of force.

As for strongarm--we have a local case some years back. Teen with an iPad, a couple of guys in a vehicle decide they want it. They got the iPad, the kid fell and got run over. Dead.

Cool story, bro. Are you seriously implying the kid should have started shooting because there might have been a one in a million accident?

 

[laughing dog]

Actually he is right. By definition, "robbery" requires force or the threat of force. Theft or stealing does not though.

It is not a threat of deadly violence, so he is wrong. Saying I am going to grab the money out of your hand is not a threat of deadly violence.

And nobody is going to get shot that way--by the time you're aware of the robbery the guy is running away and not a threat.

Got any more strawmen?

Cool made up story bro that misses the point. Suppose the victim falls down and the robber trips over him and crushes his skull. According to other cool story, this makes this possible deadly force.

 

[Bronzeage]

Does it need to be 'deadly', isn't the threat of physical force enough?

Okay. Let's try it this way. You walk up to me and say, "I'm going to kick your ass."
I pull a pistol and shoot you in the chest. You're now dead and have no more influence on events.

What should happen next?

Assuming the threat appeared real (and credible) and not just words, nothing.

It's not exactly unusual for someone to die from a beating, thus the threshold of a lethal threat has been crossed.

Congratulations. You've just issued a legally sanctioned license to kill. Not bad for a dead guy.

 

[Bronzeage]

And nobody is going to get shot that way--by the time you're aware of the robbery the guy is running away and not a threat.

Got any more strawmen?

Cool made up story bro that misses the point. Suppose the victim falls down and the robber trips over him and crushes his skull. According to other cool story, this makes this possible deadly force.

That would be felony murder. When a death occurs during the commission of a felony, whoever committed the crime, can be found guilty of felony murder, even if the death is an accident.