Robber fatally shot in Miami Burger King holdup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John L. Lucci

For example, children not only are they at risk in this sort of scenario for getting caught in the crossfire, but what of the psychological trauma of watching someone being shot and dying? Would this be something you would want your kid spontaneously experiencing without your guidance beforehand?

---

John, Well thank God I was raised and so gently exposed to the trauma of The WW2 movies containing actual footage of war. The Hollywood Cowboy and Indians/ Bogart-Cagney gangsta flicks. While Korea was in swing, it was play army or any of a dozen style battles in the neighborhood. Once old enough for the draft, there was no amazement for me at home or over in Nam that ones life might be taken at any moment. Traumatized....Heck no, just aware of real life. I get traumatized while I watch the grand kids giggle as they feed newborn mice to their pet snakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7.62 NATO

John, Well thank God I was raised and so gently exposed to the trauma of The WW2 movies containing actual footage of war. The Hollywood Cowboy and Indians/ Bogart-Cagney gangsta flicks. While Korea was in swing, it was play army or any of a dozen style battles in the neighborhood. Once old enough for the draft, there was no amazement for me at home or over in Nam that ones life might be taken at any moment. Traumatized....Heck no, just aware of real life. I get traumatized while I watch the grand kids giggle as they feed newborn mice to their pet snakes.

---

I'm only repeating what was given for the rationale in the described scenario in my Texas CHL class. I never said that I agreed with it (although I do follow and understand the logic conveyed).

is to be preferred to death.

This appears, from facts presented, to be nothing but self defense. No law in this country requires you sacrifice your life because injury to a bystander MIGHT occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2571

is to be preferred to death.

This appears, from facts presented, to be nothing but self defense. No law in this country requires you sacrifice your life because injury to a bystander MIGHT occur.

---

2571 I just read the article again and I really can't say I see it like you do.

Also, the law may not require you to sacrifice your life because of injury to a bystander but it will hold you accountable for your actions. If an innocent bystander is killed or injured, especially in a public place, the law will hold you liable, certainly civilly and possibly criminally. Castle Doctrines will not save you on that one.

Reminds me of a simunition exercise (using blue Glocks that fire mini-paintball rds.) exercise they gave us in a 3-gun match at Tac Pro. This was a "Bank Holdup." A Fort Worth SWAT officer threw down his gun and said "No way!" - opted out. This type of scenario is not often appreciated by "open carry" advocates... By the way I opened fire on the bad guys and while I got one, I had a nice group built under my right armpit by them.

Gentlemen, I can't figure out the details of what occured from the article. All we know is that somehow a gunfight occured between a CPL holder and an armed robber in the middle of a fast food establishment with many bystanders. Multiple shots were exchanged and the only casualties were the CPL holder and the robber. Both particpants were wounded - one fatally. It is impossible to draw many firm conclusions from this sketchy informaion. We can infer that it was probably a less than ideal location to initiate an armed response to a hold-up but we know nothing about the potential motivation for the CPL holder to respond as he did. We do know that this incident bears out three things I have repeatedly stressed over the years - 1) don't expect an armed assailant to run away just because you confront him with a handgun (don't underestimate your opponent); 2) if shooting starts, your only protection is to disable your assailant before he injures of kills you; and 3) don't expect your assailant to be incapacitated by the first shot. Rick

I certainly agree with Rick G. although I do not carry the kind or armament I suspect he does.

In answer to a recent castle doctrine comment. There's no law in the US that would hold you liable for damages incurred in defense of your own life. Such would be contrary to public policies and the very nature of our system of justice. The old common law felony murder was the solution to that problem -- the felons involved were liable for evils they could have logically foreseen. Similarly, the felon would have been liable civilly on the same type of transferred intent theories, not the innocent guy that had to protect himself.

Well, I've said enough. Glad the kids were ok. Glad the ccw holder didn't die. Glad the POS got wasted.