Store owner: 'You never turn your back on someone when you're robbing them'

Well since you have it all figured out perhaps you will tell me why the system "returns" them while they are dangerous.

 

I guess you can't expect the police to protect you. They weren't there. Maybe police are there to fill out paperwork and harass store clerks.

That clerk would be celebrated in my town. I'd shop there just to support him.

 

Maybe the liberals will assert the perp should've been asked to turn around so he could be shot in the front? I can quite understand why you guys need to carry guns.

 

How do you figure I didn't answer the question:

Q: What did he gain?
A: He got his money back.

Pretty straightforward. Like I said, if you do not like the answer, do not ask the question.

 

Any thief/burglar who commits a crime against another individual is rolling the dice and should expect to be shot at. So yes, if someone robs me they can expect to eat a couple rounds of .45.

 

I do not know, nor do I claim to 'have it all figured out'. But, I view it as the single worst failure of our government to fulfill its enumerated obligation to "insure domestic tranquility".

For our criminal justice system to release KNOWN VIOLENT criminals back into the peaceable public, is egregious, and is directly responsible for the further violence these people perpetrate. The vast majority of violence perpetrated on the peaceable public is at the hands of repeat, habitual offenders. Those, in most, if not all cases, should have remained segregated until they have been verifiably rehabilitated.

The robber in the OP is a perfect example. This store owner should never have been put into a position to have to defend himself, because this robber should not have been at large in our peaceable public spaces at all.

If we, The People, really want to "do something" that will cause our society to become less violent, then we should start by segregating those who initiate violence from the peaceable, and keeping them segregated until they no longer pose a danger.

For as long as violent offenders are released by our flawed criminal justice system, over and again, to perpetrate their repeated violence on my community, I will feel compelled to keep and bear arms against them... and I am grateful that my right to do so shall not be infringed.

 

Yes, but it's not what the thief would want, so his life was saved by the store owner. You got a problem with that? Or are you just grasping at straws trying to justify your ridiculous argument?

 

Yeah, I do have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with the store owner protecting himself and his store. If some guy sticks a gun in my face, I'd shot him. I do have a problem with him shooting the guy in the back when he was leaving. The threat was gone at that point. He got his money back....eventually but unfortunately could have created a problem for himself with the shooting. Let the police do their job. They got the driver fast enough. I have a problem with all the posters with the attitude to shoot and shoot to kill. They are (IMO) as big a problem as the thief. That outlook helps nothing.You call my argument ridiculous yet your answer is shoot and let god sort it out.
"The one who throws the first punch is the one that has stopped thinking"

 

Depends on the state.

 

Robbery is a violent crime. It is threatening to kill somebody, so yes, robbery=death sentence, in the act of robbing. The robber in this case had a gun and threatened the store owner. This also wasn't the first time this guy robbed the store. Also, the robber didn't die.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/crime/store-clerk-shot-armed-robber-in-east-price-hill-police-say

 

Well, the store owner is not facing charges.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...man-alleged-robbery-east-price-hill/77681396/

 

Killing life threatening violent felons while they are committing their criminal act represents a significant net social gain.

 

Good to hear

 

The one who threw the first punch was the thief by robbing the store, and you're his accomplice by sticking up for him. Where were the police when he was robbed the first time? Where were the police when he was being robbed this time? They got the driver because the store owner stopped the thief and he was identified.
You object to the shop owner's use of a gun but have yet to object to the thief using one.

 

Read again, I don't have a problem with the owner's use of a gun. I have a problem with when he used it.
You do know that police are mostly reactive, not proactive.....nature of the job.

 

The difference, in my opinion, is he can't leave that store and then go rob another, or some person on the street. Law abiding citizens should presume that violent criminals will attack others and when you are presented an opportunity to injure or cull them, you take it. It's hard enough tracking these guys down. If they reveal themselves you take that opportunity to put them down. It's the moral thing to do operating under the presumption that the next victim may not be as fortunate as yourself.

If you let a violent criminal flee when you can otherwise stop them any innocent bloodshed is on your hands.

 

You think people won't talk? And won't know the owner is armed?

(*)(*)(*)(*), if it was me, I'd put a sign in the front door letting everyone know I was armed.

For the same reason you WOULDN'T put a sign in your window that says "I'm not armed, no worries".

Like we do in schools, and theaters.

 

No, the blood would not be on my hands and what you're saying has a lot of presumptions. Not the best way to solve a problem but it does help you rationalize your argument. With that outlook you can always presume you're right.......even when you're not

 

"Like we do in schools, and theaters." Like we have for years and years.
From what I've read, that neighborhood is not the best so I really don't think it would be a stretch that everyone would think the store owner would be armed. Most criminals aren't too smart and this one probably didn't care if there was a gun or not, he had his gun and got the drop on the owner.....then the dumb took over.
If I'm a criminal and see a sign stating there is a gun it really wouldn't matter. Unless the person in the store is standing at rest with their weapon all the time I'm going to go in and shoot first and take the money.

 

Yes, it is presumptuous and no, criminals do not get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Why do criminals have a right to life and safety ? Who cares if he was leaving ? He was leaving after committing a major crime. My thanks to Mo for doing what needed to be done.

 

The first punch was the robbery smart guy.

 

Because they have rights.....that's why this is America

- - - Updated - - -

No, not really.

 

But in this case he is right.

- - - Updated - - -

So the thief did throw the first punch.

 

Throwing the 1st punch in your analogy is "using force first": Armed robbery by definition is use of force. It is entirely the first punch.
You're just a pacifist.