Concealed carry: customer thwarts armed robbers, might face charges

[Amelia]

No Decision Yet On Charges Following Shooting At Aldi's - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee




More about what happened at the store and reactions:

Customer Stops Grocery Store Robbery By Shooting Suspect, Police Say - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee

Prosecutors to talk to man who shot robbery suspect at Aldi store - JSOnline

 

[George Costanza]

No Decision Yet On Charges Following Shooting At Aldi's - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee




More about what happened at the store and reactions:

Customer Stops Grocery Store Robbery By Shooting Suspect, Police Say - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee

Prosecutors to talk to man who shot robbery suspect at Aldi store - JSOnline

Wow! Some really intricate legal and moral issues involved here.

First off, it appears (to me, anyway) that the shooter was within his legal rights to draw down on the bad guys because at least one of them was displaying a weapon (a shotgun). It doesn't matter that the shooter was not the person being robbed. Deadly force can be used to defend against deadly force against others.

Now, having said that, last time I looked, vigilantism is against the law - which puts two different aspects of society on a collision course with each other in a society that allows concealed carry of weapons. Suddnely, in such a society, there are a whole lot of potential vigilantes walking around all over the place, aren't there? And what happens when they act as such? That would seem to be the question in this case.

I'm not sure I think that our society would be better off with a bunch of armed, potential vigilantes out there. Which is worse - that a store gets robbed or that people die? Now, we are getting into a philosophical position where reasonable minds can certainly differ.

I don't think that the "prohibition against guns" in the store in this particular case is going to mean anything. Under the facts of this case, I say shooter wins. But, that is not to say that I endorse such activity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No Decision Yet On Charges Following Shooting At Aldi's - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee




More about what happened at the store and reactions:

Customer Stops Grocery Store Robbery By Shooting Suspect, Police Say - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee

Prosecutors to talk to man who shot robbery suspect at Aldi store - JSOnline

Wow! Some really intricate legal and moral issues involved here.

First off, it appears (to me, anyway) that the shooter was within his legal rights to draw down on the bad guys because at least one of them was displaying a weapon (a shotgun). It doesn't matter that the shooter was not the person being robbed. Deadly force can be used to defend against deadly force against others.

Now, having said that, last time I looked, vigilantism is against the law - which puts two different aspects of society on a collision course with each other in a society that allows concealed carry of weapons. Suddnely, in such a society, there are a whole lot of potential vigilantes walking around all over the place, aren't there? And what happens when they act as such? That would seem to be the question in this case.

I'm not sure I think that our society would be better off with a bunch of armed, potential vigilantes out there. Which is worse - that a store gets robbed or that people die? Now, we are getting into a philosophical position where reasonable minds can certainly differ.

I don't think that the "prohibition against guns" in the store in this particular case is going to mean anything. Under the facts of this case, I say shooter wins. But, that is not to say that I endorse such activity.

Shooting someone who is committing a robbery is not vigilantism, tracking them down later and shooting them is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No Decision Yet On Charges Following Shooting At Aldi's - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee




More about what happened at the store and reactions:

Customer Stops Grocery Store Robbery By Shooting Suspect, Police Say - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee

Prosecutors to talk to man who shot robbery suspect at Aldi store - JSOnline

Wow! Some really intricate legal and moral issues involved here.

First off, it appears (to me, anyway) that the shooter was within his legal rights to draw down on the bad guys because at least one of them was displaying a weapon (a shotgun). It doesn't matter that the shooter was not the person being robbed. Deadly force can be used to defend against deadly force against others.

Now, having said that, last time I looked, vigilantism is against the law - which puts two different aspects of society on a collision course with each other in a society that allows concealed carry of weapons. Suddnely, in such a society, there are a whole lot of potential vigilantes walking around all over the place, aren't there? And what happens when they act as such? That would seem to be the question in this case.

I'm not sure I think that our society would be better off with a bunch of armed, potential vigilantes out there. Which is worse - that a store gets robbed or that people die? Now, we are getting into a philosophical position where reasonable minds can certainly differ.

I don't think that the "prohibition against guns" in the store in this particular case is going to mean anything. Under the facts of this case, I say shooter wins. But, that is not to say that I endorse such activity.

Shooting someone who is committing a robbery is not vigilantism, tracking them down later and shooting them is.

Don't bother the left with facts. They ignore them.

 

[The Gadfly]

No Decision Yet On Charges Following Shooting At Aldi's - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee




More about what happened at the store and reactions:

Customer Stops Grocery Store Robbery By Shooting Suspect, Police Say - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee

Prosecutors to talk to man who shot robbery suspect at Aldi store - JSOnline

Wow! Some really intricate legal and moral issues involved here.

First off, it appears (to me, anyway) that the shooter was within his legal rights to draw down on the bad guys because at least one of them was displaying a weapon (a shotgun). It doesn't matter that the shooter was not the person being robbed. Deadly force can be used to defend against deadly force against others.

Now, having said that, last time I looked, vigilantism is against the law - which puts two different aspects of society on a collision course with each other in a society that allows concealed carry of weapons. Suddnely, in such a society, there are a whole lot of potential vigilantes walking around all over the place, aren't there? And what happens when they act as such? That would seem to be the question in this case.

I'm not sure I think that our society would be better off with a bunch of armed, potential vigilantes out there. Which is worse - that a store gets robbed or that people die? Now, we are getting into a philosophical position where reasonable minds can certainly differ.

I don't think that the "prohibition against guns" in the store in this particular case is going to mean anything. Under the facts of this case, I say shooter wins. But, that is not to say that I endorse such activity.

The only regrettable thing here, George, is that we have two live criminals rather than two dead ones. The recidivism rate among dead thugs is exactly zero, and here, a citizen had a chance to send two of them to hell...legally. Personally I like my violent felons one way;in a body bag. (I think we should put a bounty on them, myself). Now, in this case, what we have, is a thug, shot in the act of committing a violent felony, with a firearm. Seems to me, that is exactly what concealed carry laws are supposed to allow. The fact that charges are even being discussed is, frankly speaking, ludicrous. All I see, is somewhat inadequate marksmanship, and/or inadequate choice of a weapon. Oh well, no one is perfect.

 

[MikeK]

If the shooter in this case is properly advised he will insist he believed the life of the store clerk was in imminent danger and his action was unavoidably necessary to prevent the clerk from being killed. That will weigh heavily in his favor in spite of any other considerations.

The store's anti-gun policy exists for the sole purpose of defense in lawsuits. In this case I strongly doubt the store will be foolish enough to protest the shooter's action because there was no collateral harm to anyone and the outcome was 100% positive.

Based on the issue being made of this shooter's action I'm assuming Milwaukee must be an anti-gun state, like New York, New Jersey, etc. Because I'm sure if the same thing happened in a state like Arizona, Texas, etc., it would get two or three inches on Page 3, ten seconds on the six o'clock news and nothing more.

 

[George Costanza]

No Decision Yet On Charges Following Shooting At Aldi's - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee




More about what happened at the store and reactions:

Customer Stops Grocery Store Robbery By Shooting Suspect, Police Say - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee

Prosecutors to talk to man who shot robbery suspect at Aldi store - JSOnline

Wow! Some really intricate legal and moral issues involved here.

First off, it appears (to me, anyway) that the shooter was within his legal rights to draw down on the bad guys because at least one of them was displaying a weapon (a shotgun). It doesn't matter that the shooter was not the person being robbed. Deadly force can be used to defend against deadly force against others.

Now, having said that, last time I looked, vigilantism is against the law - which puts two different aspects of society on a collision course with each other in a society that allows concealed carry of weapons. Suddnely, in such a society, there are a whole lot of potential vigilantes walking around all over the place, aren't there? And what happens when they act as such? That would seem to be the question in this case.

I'm not sure I think that our society would be better off with a bunch of armed, potential vigilantes out there. Which is worse - that a store gets robbed or that people die? Now, we are getting into a philosophical position where reasonable minds can certainly differ.

I don't think that the "prohibition against guns" in the store in this particular case is going to mean anything. Under the facts of this case, I say shooter wins. But, that is not to say that I endorse such activity.

Shooting someone who is committing a robbery is not vigilantism, tracking them down later and shooting them is.

Good point. My choice of the term "viglante" was probably not well taken. That does not change the fact that, generally speaking, police officers are the preferred method for taking crime-commiting felons into cusdtody and/or stopping crimes in progress, not armed citizens who presumably do not have the training or experience to do the type of job a police officer could.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow! Some really intricate legal and moral issues involved here.

First off, it appears (to me, anyway) that the shooter was within his legal rights to draw down on the bad guys because at least one of them was displaying a weapon (a shotgun). It doesn't matter that the shooter was not the person being robbed. Deadly force can be used to defend against deadly force against others.

Now, having said that, last time I looked, vigilantism is against the law - which puts two different aspects of society on a collision course with each other in a society that allows concealed carry of weapons. Suddnely, in such a society, there are a whole lot of potential vigilantes walking around all over the place, aren't there? And what happens when they act as such? That would seem to be the question in this case.

I'm not sure I think that our society would be better off with a bunch of armed, potential vigilantes out there. Which is worse - that a store gets robbed or that people die? Now, we are getting into a philosophical position where reasonable minds can certainly differ.

I don't think that the "prohibition against guns" in the store in this particular case is going to mean anything. Under the facts of this case, I say shooter wins. But, that is not to say that I endorse such activity.

Shooting someone who is committing a robbery is not vigilantism, tracking them down later and shooting them is.

Good point. My choice of the term "viglante" was probably not well taken. That does not change the fact that, generally speaking, police officers are the preferred method for taking crime-commiting felons into cusdtody and/or stopping crimes in progress, not armed citizens who presumably do not have the training or experience to do the type of job a police officer could.

And yet you know full well the chance a cop is at a crime scene AS IT OCCURS is pretty damn slim. Someone should start a recall petition on the DA for even considering charging the man. Deadly force is authorized to save or protect others lives.

 

[George Costanza]

Shooting someone who is committing a robbery is not vigilantism, tracking them down later and shooting them is.

Good point. My choice of the term "viglante" was probably not well taken. That does not change the fact that, generally speaking, police officers are the preferred method for taking crime-commiting felons into cusdtody and/or stopping crimes in progress, not armed citizens who presumably do not have the training or experience to do the type of job a police officer could.

And yet you know full well the chance a cop is at a crime scene AS IT OCCURS is pretty damn slim. Someone should start a recall petition on the DA for even considering charging the man. Deadly force is authorized to save or protect others lives.

Yes, cops are rarely there when the crime occurs. We call that too bad. We also call it too bad when some amateur John Wayne who thinks he is going to be a do-gooding hero, gets his gun taken away from him by the bad guy, and shot with it.

Right, tough guy?

 

[Katzndogz]

Good point. My choice of the term "viglante" was probably not well taken. That does not change the fact that, generally speaking, police officers are the preferred method for taking crime-commiting felons into cusdtody and/or stopping crimes in progress, not armed citizens who presumably do not have the training or experience to do the type of job a police officer could.

And yet you know full well the chance a cop is at a crime scene AS IT OCCURS is pretty damn slim. Someone should start a recall petition on the DA for even considering charging the man. Deadly force is authorized to save or protect others lives.

Yes, cops are rarely there when the crime occurs. We call that too bad. We also call it too bad when some amateur John Wayne who thinks he is going to be a do-gooding hero, gets his gun taken away from him by the bad guy, and shot with it.

Right, tough guy?

And how many times has that happened?

 

[jerryh60]

Carriers of concealed handgun licenses, in Texas anyway, go through a more severe background check than any other normal citizen. It prevents those that have no business having one from getting one. There is always gonna be that 10% in anything. But most learn to shoot responsibly and carry the same way. Most states have laws against brandishing, which is using pulling your gun and using it to just scare someone. The law states that you must be in fear of your life or someone elses before you ever draw your weapon. And I agree with Gadfly, you never aim to wound, you shoot to kill and eliminate the threat to your life.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good point. My choice of the term "viglante" was probably not well taken. That does not change the fact that, generally speaking, police officers are the preferred method for taking crime-commiting felons into cusdtody and/or stopping crimes in progress, not armed citizens who presumably do not have the training or experience to do the type of job a police officer could.

And yet you know full well the chance a cop is at a crime scene AS IT OCCURS is pretty damn slim. Someone should start a recall petition on the DA for even considering charging the man. Deadly force is authorized to save or protect others lives.

Yes, cops are rarely there when the crime occurs. We call that too bad. We also call it too bad when some amateur John Wayne who thinks he is going to be a do-gooding hero, gets his gun taken away from him by the bad guy, and shot with it.

Right, tough guy?

I don't have a hand gun so even if I had concealed carry I couldn't. But I promise you if I ever observe a crime occurring and I have the means to stop it I will try. As should any law abiding citizen. Before we had organized police forces we the citizens acted in the best interest of other citizens, through crime control and militia duty.

 

[Ernie S.]

Wow! Some really intricate legal and moral issues involved here.

First off, it appears (to me, anyway) that the shooter was within his legal rights to draw down on the bad guys because at least one of them was displaying a weapon (a shotgun). It doesn't matter that the shooter was not the person being robbed. Deadly force can be used to defend against deadly force against others.

Now, having said that, last time I looked, vigilantism is against the law - which puts two different aspects of society on a collision course with each other in a society that allows concealed carry of weapons. Suddnely, in such a society, there are a whole lot of potential vigilantes walking around all over the place, aren't there? And what happens when they act as such? That would seem to be the question in this case.

I'm not sure I think that our society would be better off with a bunch of armed, potential vigilantes out there. Which is worse - that a store gets robbed or that people die? Now, we are getting into a philosophical position where reasonable minds can certainly differ.

I don't think that the "prohibition against guns" in the store in this particular case is going to mean anything. Under the facts of this case, I say shooter wins. But, that is not to say that I endorse such activity.

Shooting someone who is committing a robbery is not vigilantism, tracking them down later and shooting them is.

Good point. My choice of the term "viglante" was probably not well taken. That does not change the fact that, generally speaking, police officers are the preferred method for taking crime-commiting felons into cusdtody and/or stopping crimes in progress, not armed citizens who presumably do not have the training or experience to do the type of job a police officer could.

Police officers are great at taking felons into custody, but they really suck at preventing crimes in progress, unless you consider that Horatio Cain is always in the bank building as a robbery takes place.
Armed citizens prevent crime more than police, probably by a factor of 100:1 by virtue of their sheer numbers.
Back when I lived in Albuquerque, it was common to see perhaps 1/3 of the men in the bank doing business, carrying a gun on their hip. Not many would be bank robbers would go up against those odds.

 

[George Costanza]

I don't have a hand gun so even if I had concealed carry I couldn't. But I promise you if I ever observe a crime occurring and I have the means to stop it I will try. As should any law abiding citizen. Before we had organized police forces we the citizens acted in the best interest of other citizens, through crime control and militia duty.

Well, good for you, Gunny. I don't totally share your view on this. First off, "law abiding citizens" are not required to stop crimes in progress. They are only required to abide by the law - and the law imposes no such duty on them.

I once tackled a guy who was running from the cops. Result? I got a broken finger out of the deal. I can't remember if the cops ultimately got the bad guy or not. Doesn't matter, really. If I had it to do all over again, would I? Hell no.

 

[Ernie S.]

Good point. My choice of the term "viglante" was probably not well taken. That does not change the fact that, generally speaking, police officers are the preferred method for taking crime-commiting felons into cusdtody and/or stopping crimes in progress, not armed citizens who presumably do not have the training or experience to do the type of job a police officer could.

And yet you know full well the chance a cop is at a crime scene AS IT OCCURS is pretty damn slim. Someone should start a recall petition on the DA for even considering charging the man. Deadly force is authorized to save or protect others lives.

Yes, cops are rarely there when the crime occurs. We call that too bad. We also call it too bad when some amateur John Wayne who thinks he is going to be a do-gooding hero, gets his gun taken away from him by the bad guy, and shot with it.

Right, tough guy?

Tough guy? Are you willing to try to take my gun from me? Neither are most would be felons.

 

[George Costanza]

And yet you know full well the chance a cop is at a crime scene AS IT OCCURS is pretty damn slim. Someone should start a recall petition on the DA for even considering charging the man. Deadly force is authorized to save or protect others lives.

Yes, cops are rarely there when the crime occurs. We call that too bad. We also call it too bad when some amateur John Wayne who thinks he is going to be a do-gooding hero, gets his gun taken away from him by the bad guy, and shot with it.

Right, tough guy?

Tough guy? Are you willing to try to take my gun from me? Neither are most would be felons.

What the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about me wanting to take your gun away from you? I don't want your gun. Feel free to keep it.

I see your point - all I ask is that you see mine. For every guy like you who may be able to use a gun and not have to worry about having it taken away from him, I submit there are others, who are not as experienced as yourself and who, if they attempted to confront a bad guy with a gun in their hand, might be in real trouble.

 

[Ernie S.]

Granted. There are people carrying guns that lack the guts, ability, mindset to pull it out and fire. I have no such reservations. If I have the opportunity to use my weapon to save myself or someone else from harm, I will. There will be no time for anyone to take it away from me. If you do not have that mindset. It's best you don't carry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s perfectly appropriate to conduct an investigation given the circumstances. And this incident might have been outside of the scope of what lawmakers envisioned with regard to ‘protect yourself or others.’ They likely foresaw a husband and wife attacked in the street, not someone thwarting an armed robbery.

My hope is the armed citizen not face any charges, and lawmakers clarify the statute if they take issue with the citizen’s actions.

 

[koshergrl]

Wow! Some really intricate legal and moral issues involved here.

First off, it appears (to me, anyway) that the shooter was within his legal rights to draw down on the bad guys because at least one of them was displaying a weapon (a shotgun). It doesn't matter that the shooter was not the person being robbed. Deadly force can be used to defend against deadly force against others.

Now, having said that, last time I looked, vigilantism is against the law - which puts two different aspects of society on a collision course with each other in a society that allows concealed carry of weapons. Suddnely, in such a society, there are a whole lot of potential vigilantes walking around all over the place, aren't there? And what happens when they act as such? That would seem to be the question in this case.

I'm not sure I think that our society would be better off with a bunch of armed, potential vigilantes out there. Which is worse - that a store gets robbed or that people die? Now, we are getting into a philosophical position where reasonable minds can certainly differ.

I don't think that the "prohibition against guns" in the store in this particular case is going to mean anything. Under the facts of this case, I say shooter wins. But, that is not to say that I endorse such activity.

Shooting someone who is committing a robbery is not vigilantism, tracking them down later and shooting them is.

Good point. My choice of the term "viglante" was probably not well taken. That does not change the fact that, generally speaking, police officers are the preferred method for taking crime-commiting felons into cusdtody and/or stopping crimes in progress, not armed citizens who presumably do not have the training or experience to do the type of job a police officer could.

Unfortunately, police officers are not present at the time most crimes are committed.

And we have a right to defend ourselves from those who threaten us with harm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow! Some really intricate legal and moral issues involved here.

First off, it appears (to me, anyway) that the shooter was within his legal rights to draw down on the bad guys because at least one of them was displaying a weapon (a shotgun). It doesn't matter that the shooter was not the person being robbed. Deadly force can be used to defend against deadly force against others.

Now, having said that, last time I looked, vigilantism is against the law - which puts two different aspects of society on a collision course with each other in a society that allows concealed carry of weapons. Suddnely, in such a society, there are a whole lot of potential vigilantes walking around all over the place, aren't there? And what happens when they act as such? That would seem to be the question in this case.

I'm not sure I think that our society would be better off with a bunch of armed, potential vigilantes out there. Which is worse - that a store gets robbed or that people die? Now, we are getting into a philosophical position where reasonable minds can certainly differ.

I don't think that the "prohibition against guns" in the store in this particular case is going to mean anything. Under the facts of this case, I say shooter wins. But, that is not to say that I endorse such activity.

Shooting someone who is committing a robbery is not vigilantism, tracking them down later and shooting them is.

Good point. My choice of the term "viglante" was probably not well taken. That does not change the fact that, generally speaking, police officers are the preferred method for taking crime-commiting felons into cusdtody and/or stopping crimes in progress, not armed citizens who presumably do not have the training or experience to do the type of job a police officer could.

I actually agree with you, but the police are not capable of preventing crimes unless they happen to be there. If someone is chasing me with an axe I would much prefer some armed citizen to shoot him than wait around for the police to show up after I have been hacked into small pieces.