Armed robber shot by Pokemon Go player he tried to rob - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50783244]It's not the robber getting shot that I'm concerned about, but the bystander. If you are in a one on one scenario and want to gamble with your own life to protect your cellphone, then that's your call, but in escalating the situation to an all out gunfight in a public space while your friends stand by you could be spending somebody else's life. A phone is a few hundred dollars, I like to think that the life of a friend is worth a fair bit more.[/QUOTE] On the flip side, imagine making that decision not to intervene only to watch the robber shoot your friend anyways, and knowing that you could have done something but didn't. It's not a clear-cut decision by any means and I don't envy having to make that call.

I only have one life. I will protect it from idiots who want to rob me who threaten my life. I cannot believe people seriously want others to roll the dice with their life on if the robber will not kill them.

It's incredibly easy to sit on the sidelines and talk about what people should or should not have done. I just hope the dude shot in the stomach has a speedy recovery, and good health insurance.

[QUOTE=nox;50781829]Here are 2.1 million instances where a robber didn't kill their victim[/QUOTE] Why exactly should anyone be required to take that chance? Why blame the victim? It's not their fault they got robbed. It's not their fault if they get killed. It's the criminal who made a decision to put someone else's life in danger. Let the aggressor deal with the consequences of their actions.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50787530]Why exactly should anyone be required to take that chance? Why blame the victim? It's not their fault they got robbed. It's not their fault if they get killed. It's the criminal who made a decision to put someone else's life in danger. Let the aggressor deal with the consequences of their actions.[/QUOTE] Because literally anyone with sense will tell you that complying with a gunman is the safest and wisest way to ensure your safety. Any sheriff will tell you this. The reason I'm focusing on the victim is because in a group of people you're risking the lives of more than just yourself if you decide to get aggressive. Personally, I find that to be more of a risk than taking your chances and hoping you're left alone after being robbed. This situation could have ended much worse, but it could also have ended without someone going to the hospital for a serious gunshot wound. [QUOTE=Kigen;50785402] I cannot believe people seriously want others to roll the dice with their life on if the robber will not kill them.[/QUOTE] I cannot believe you seriously want others to roll the dice with their life on whether or not you'll win an impromptu duel against an armed gunman of unknown skill.

it just seems like such a queer thought. the thought that once someone starts robbing you, you should ensure safety and be wise by letting it happen. i guess you probably didn't need that phone, wallet and car that much anyway.

If I was carrying, the reason I'd probably pull out the gun and start shooting is that if we're being robbed like that then there's a good likelihood of them doing a quick search on us. Even a basic pat down will mean they find my gun. That will escalate things right there. I wouldn't see it as me escalating things, I'm not the one who started the robbery. That's the escalation that involved the other people, everything after that is fair game.

If I had a gun and someone was trying to rob me at gunpoint and I found a chance to use my gun, I'd use it. You cannot convince someone with a gun pointed to their head that the other person absolutely won't shoot it so long as you do as they comply, it is merely a hopeful thought. If someone has a gun pointed at you, assume that they are going to use it and defend yourself accordingly; it's what cops do, and it works for them.

[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;50787735]it just seems like such a queer thought. the thought that once someone starts robbing you, you should ensure safety and be wise by letting it happen. i guess you probably didn't need that phone, wallet and car that much anyway.[/QUOTE] No totally you're right, you should fight them and assume they're incompetent with a gun and that you can easily defeat them. Life is just a game and is worth risking over something that can be bought with your next paycheck.

[QUOTE=nox;50787797]No totally you're right, you should fight them and assume they're incompetent with a gun and that you can easily defeat them. Life is just a game and is worth risking over something that can be bought with your next paycheck.[/QUOTE] You're risking your life by assuming that the person who already has a gun pointed at your head isn't gonna use it so long as you do what they say.

[QUOTE=Natrox;50781897]I suppose next time someone gets robbed at gunpoint, they'll first pull up statistics on how many of these robberies end in homicide before they decide to defend themselves![/QUOTE] [i]Holy shit.[/i] Do you know what's fucking nuts? When I got robbed the guy who tried to do it asked me [i]"Do you know what the crime index is in this area?"[/i] as one of his intimidation questions to try and size up if I was worth it. That was after he asked me for my car and the keys to the store but before he asked me if [i]"I had an angel with me that night"[/i] I shit you not. I should've said something cool like "It's about to be one 1% less." but I was scared shitless. By the way, I scared him off when he realized I was armed.

[QUOTE=nox;50787797]No totally you're right, you should fight them and assume they're incompetent with a gun and that you can easily defeat them. Life is just a game and is worth risking over something that can be bought with your next paycheck.[/QUOTE] man i don't know what your paychecks are like but replacing even my phone let alone a car with one is laughable it's a bit beyond the point, though. all im saying is that if you choose to not be robbed, you shouldn't get the blame when that situation is escalated. because you didn't escalate it. the person robbing you did, no matter which way you try and play it. [editline]28th July 2016[/editline] how come whenever a topic like this is bought up, the people who believe you shouldn't defend yourself always need to revert to condescending arguments? stuff like "yeah bro life is just a game" or "all you wanna do is be a bad ass!!" or even "you think you'll win in a shoot-out but you probably won't!!" like, i get it if you guys don't share the sentiment that possessions and valuables are worth fighting for, but you don't have to pretend like everyone who does think that way are childlike, retarded or hopped up on violence. just a mini rant.

Jeez I dunno, if a guy was holding me at gun point, and I had a gun on me. I don't know, I would probably use it. I don't want to risk losing my life. If I don't give him the stuff, I get shot, killed possibly. If I give him my stuff, I can get shot, killed possibly. It's just a hard decision. Even reading body language of the attacker isn't always going to be accurate, he may just be acting like a little bitch, scared of shooting people, but then boom, he will shoot you like he has done it before and feel no mercy. [editline]28th July 2016[/editline] Also don't forget, it's easier said than done. In an actual situation, I doubt you will be saying the same stuff you are saying here. Whatever you do in the situation, is risking your life, and anyone else's life who is with you. You may have a gun on you, but you may not use it cause you are too scared. You might use it, maybe you will just give the guy your stuff.

I don't want to sidetrack the argument because this regards Police conduct moreso but it's telling. They give an outspoken activist against police violence a firearm and ask him to confront potential criminals with a variety of different situations being played out. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g[/media] Now it doesn't prove their point for a police situation because they ONLY give him a gun and no other tools. But it is very telling regarding how actual people act in actual defensive situations where the only tool they have to defend themselves is a CCW. Take into consideration as well that those two were trying to roleplay police scenarios where they were attempting to outwardly confront and apprehend potential criminals. When someone is holding you at gun point demanding money because you happened to be minding your own business at the wrong time it is much clearer what the situation is and what the appropriate response should be. You're innocent. They are committing an active felony. They could potentially end your life and you have one shot to potentially save your existence and that means deploying your firearm to shoot and kill an armed robber. No matter what you are making the biggest gamble in your life. Shoot and kill him and potentially die anyway or comply and potentially die anyway. It's something you need to make the decision to do at the time with as much information as you have available to you. It's not easy to do and sometimes mistakes or accidents happen in the process. He will live with those choices.

as with most things, deciding to defend yourself with a firearm should be done on a case-by-case basis. sometimes, complying is the best option in your view. other times, using your firearm to defend yourself is the best. it is never a binary always use gun/never use gun scenario

[QUOTE=nox;50787598]Because literally anyone with sense will tell you that complying with a gunman is the safest and wisest way to ensure your safety. Any sheriff will tell you this.[/quote] [Citation needed] There's several things wrong with this statement. LEOs have a motive for saying this. The last thing anyone wants to do is go on record endorsing violent behavior. That's a huge liability, PR, and otherwise. Even if it's true, that statement cannot be taken as unbiased. Find a statistician that specializes in crime. [QUOTE=nox;50787598]I cannot believe you seriously want others to roll the dice with their life on whether or not you'll win an impromptu duel against an armed gunman of unknown skill.[/QUOTE] It's the aggressors fault if anyone else gets hurt. They accepted that blame the instant they decided to threaten the well-being of others. Felony murder rules are a thing. Never mind that this entire argument goes out the window when there are no bystanders in the immediate area, which is a substantial portion of muggings and robberies. Stop victim blaming and accept that some people have no desire, let alone a need, to back down. Your life is your most valuable possession. Telling someone they have no right to defend it is legitimately disgusting.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50787976] Stop victim blaming and accept that some people have no desire, let alone a need, to back down. Your life is your most valuable possession. Telling someone they have no right to defend it is legitimately disgusting.[/QUOTE] I feel the point in contention here is [I]which method[/I] of defending your own and bystanders lives is used. People keep posing this as though by a victim taking the decision they personally wouldn't take; it becomes a certainty that the victim gets shot. It's situational either way, and both choices carry risks.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;50778973]Hey dude, I work hard for my shit. It's not someone elses to take.[/QUOTE] What about taxes :ohno:

[QUOTE=Gum100;50788137]I feel the point in contention here is [I]which method[/I] of defending your own and bystanders lives is used. People keep posing this as though by a victim taking the decision they personally wouldn't take; it becomes a certainty that the victim gets shot. It's situational either way, and both choices carry risks.[/QUOTE] If someone doesn't feel that a gun is necessary in that particular situation, or even in general, that's their choice. Nobody is saying that you must respond with lethal force. We are saying that you have the right to choose to do so. Nothing less. Nothing more. To do otherwise is to in some way imply, if not outright say, that people don't have the right to protect themselves when they are in danger.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50788295] To do otherwise is to in some way imply, if not outright say, that people don't have the right to protect themselves when they are in danger.[/QUOTE] And I don't dispute that people have the right to choose to actively defend themselves. However this situation is cloudier when there are bystanders/other victims brought into play, in that just because someone has the right to act in one way, doesn't mean it's the "right" way to act. Though as I previously said, without hard statistics, you can't really make a call either way.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50787976][Citation needed] There's several things wrong with this statement. LEOs have a motive for saying this. The last thing anyone wants to do is go on record endorsing violent behavior. That's a huge liability, PR, and otherwise. Even if it's true, that statement cannot be taken as unbiased. Find a statistician that specializes in crime. It's the aggressors fault if anyone else gets hurt. They accepted that blame the instant they decided to threaten the well-being of others. Felony murder rules are a thing. Never mind that this entire argument goes out the window when there are no bystanders in the immediate area, which is a substantial portion of muggings and robberies. Stop victim blaming and accept that some people have no desire, let alone a need, to back down. Your life is your most valuable possession. Telling someone they have no right to defend it is legitimately disgusting.[/QUOTE] You see though, defense of one's life is a double edged sword. Say Bob and I are being robbed by a gunman, the gunman takes our stuff and starts running, bob shoots him in the back because he doesn't want his property stolen, I'm absolutely going to blame Bob when the thief instinctively turns around and empties his entire magazine into both of us. You can't really cry victim blaming at that point. I never said you can't defend yourself against a robber, but if you drag me into the crossfire and get me harmed when I just want to diffuse an already bad situation you're just as shitty as the guy robbing me. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;50787976] There's several things wrong with this statement. LEOs have a motive for saying this. The last thing anyone wants to do is go on record endorsing violent behavior. That's a huge liability, PR, and otherwise. Even if it's true, that statement cannot be taken as unbiased. Find a statistician that specializes in crime. [/QUOTE] There is indeed a motive for saying this, it's because police would rather deal with petty theft over homicide every time a gas station gets held up.

[QUOTE=nox;50788520]the gunman takes our stuff and starts running, bob shoots him in the back because he doesn't want his property stolen[/QUOTE] In almost every state in the US that would be considered attempted murder, so I'm not sure why you're using an example that wouldn't be self-defense to argue that self-defense can be bad. I mean, the argument you're responding to is the idea that when there is a clear and present threat, use of lethal force in self-defense may be justified. You counter this with an example where there isn't a clear and present threat. That doesn't seem particularly relevant to the conversation.

[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;50787735]it just seems like such a queer thought. the thought that once someone starts robbing you, you should ensure safety and be wise by letting it happen. i guess you probably didn't need that phone, wallet and car that much anyway.[/QUOTE] If my choices are give my stuff to the robber and improve my odds of getting away unharmed, versus fight and still risk losing my stuff while significantly increasing my chances of getting harmed, yeah I think I'd go with the former option. I need my phone and wallet, but I need my life more.

[QUOTE=nox;50788520]You see though, defense of one's life is a double edged sword. Say Bob and I are being robbed by a gunman, the gunman takes our stuff and starts running, bob shoots him in the back because he doesn't want his property stolen, I'm absolutely going to blame Bob when the thief instinctively turns around and empties his entire magazine into both of us. You can't really cry victim blaming at that point.[/QUOTE] Bob is going to jail for murder if he shoots someone in the back. See, when it comes to self-defense, the person who defended themselves must prove that their use of lethal force was justifiable. Not justif[I]ied[/I], justifiable. In your hypothetical scenario, Bob has not stopped an active threat to his life, he has just murdered someone. This distinction is taught to anyone who has a CCW (and is pretty common-sense anyway), so if Bob does this, he is an idiot who deserves to have the book thrown at him. Also, if someone's being shot at as they run away, their instinct is almost certainly [I]not[/I] going to be to turn around, face the person trying to kill them, and return fire. If they've actually been hit, even less so.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;50790026]Bob is going to jail for murder if he shoots someone in the back. See, when it comes to self-defense, the person who defended themselves must prove that their use of lethal force was justifiable. Not justif[I]ied[/I], justifiable. In your hypothetical scenario, Bob has not stopped an active threat to his life, he has just murdered someone. This distinction is taught to anyone who has a CCW (and is pretty common-sense anyway), so if Bob does this, he is an idiot who deserves to have the book thrown at him. Also, if someone's being shot at as they run away, their instinct is almost certainly [I]not[/I] going to be to turn around, face the person trying to kill them, and return fire. If they've actually been hit, even less so.[/QUOTE] don't know about your state but here in Texas you can shoot a fleeing criminal if they're taking your stuff and there's no other reasonable way to stop them zephyrs' point still stands though

[QUOTE=Gum100;50788365]However this situation is cloudier when there are bystanders/other victims brought into play, in that just because someone has the right to act in one way, doesn't mean it's the "right" way to act.[/QUOTE] People will value their own lives above those of others. You can argue about how people wouldn't have gotten hurt if x, y, or z till you are blue in the face. At the end of the day, the sole common factor is that nobody would get hurt if the aggressor hadn't made the [b]choice[/b] to endanger themselves and others. Once that event occurs, everything else is irrelevant. The sole root cause of the situation is the aggressor. Hurting an innocent is never something you should want to happen. It's simply an unavoidable consequence of violence. Innocent people get hurt. You can't stop that. It's perfectly reasonable to not want to be the one who gets hurt.

[QUOTE=space1;50780660]Nobody died, and the suspect is probably in custody. Don't get ahead of yourself.[/QUOTE] A bystander was shot in the stomach. It's worth examining the situation, if only to understand how it may have been handled with less risk to innocents.

[QUOTE=nox;50780319]There is no reason to believe that this particular robber is a psychopathic killer. There is literally nothing they can gain by murdering but a lot to lose going from armed robbery to multiple homicide, even low-level thugs understand risk vs reward; a wallet of cash isnt worth life in jail.[/QUOTE] Nothing to gain by shooting your victim after robbing them? How about not leaving a living witness.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50790748]A bystander was shot in the stomach. It's worth examining the situation, if only to understand how it may have been handled with less risk to innocents.[/QUOTE] It's impossible to prove what would have happened if the guy being robbed was unarmed and therefore couldn't fire back. Sometimes robbers just leave once they get what they want, sometimes they fire some rounds as they run away, sometimes they kill witnesses, sometimes they hang around and rape someone. No one can say. So this person shot in the stomach, as bad as that is, may actually have had their life saved by the armed guy who fought back.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;50791017]It's impossible to prove what would have happened if the guy being robbed was unarmed and therefore couldn't fire back. Sometimes robbers just leave once they get what they want, sometimes they fire some rounds as they run away, sometimes they kill witnesses, sometimes they hang around and rape someone. No one can say. So this person shot in the stomach, as bad as that is, may actually have had their life saved by the armed guy who fought back.[/QUOTE] Also, would-be robbers need to realize that there is a risk that someone MIGHT try to stop them so that they weigh up the risks themselves a little better first. If it is taught that everyone should just concede, then criminals will grow to expect that of their victims and become complacent. Also, the victim of the robbery comes under "innocents" as well. Any of them [i]could[/i] have been injured, whatever the outcome.