Wendy's Owner Shoots And Kills Masked Gunman During Robbery - Polidicks

good, you don't get to point a gun at someone without someone else pointing one at you

[QUOTE=Ridge;33968874]I'd rather take him seriously than risk finding out if he really means it.[/quote] True, and it would be more understandable had he reacted as the threatening with a gun was going on. [QUOTE=Ridge;33968874]But seeing as the employee chased the guy down and shot him, still a bad move. He is the aggressor at that point.[/QUOTE] And then that's the rub. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;33968920]good, you don't get to point a gun at someone without someone else pointing one at you[/QUOTE] He was already leaving, chasing after him and gunning him down isn't legal and isn't right. Like I said, at the end of the day the robber stole some money and property, whereas the employee killed a man.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33968923]True, and it would be more understandable had he reacted as the threatening with a gun was going on. And then that's the rub. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] He was already leaving, chasing after him and gunning him down isn't legal and isn't right. Like I said, at the end of the day the robber stole some money and property, whereas the employee killed a man.[/QUOTE] robber pointed a gun at him from outside

It's not just about being the aggressor too. If he starts a shootout in the parking lot, there is no way for him to know that all shots fired will damage only the guilty. Some innocent bystander could easily get hit by a stray round. This alone is good enough reason to not fire a gun unless you really have no choice. In this case it sure sounds like the Wendy's guy WANTED to get in a gunfight.

[QUOTE=Ridge;33968874]I'd rather take him seriously than risk finding out if he really means it. Good shoot![/QUOTE] reminder that like a fourth of Ridge's posts are in the gun thread and he secretly yearns for the day he finds an excuse to take the life of another human using one of his many firearms.

The robber was walking away, he shouldn't have been killed. Most of you guys vehemently oppose the death penalty, it doesn't make sense you would appraise this.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33968950]robber pointed a gun at him from outside[/QUOTE] Why did he chase him outside in the first place rather than call the police?

Fresh, never frozen.

Wait, he shot the guy when he was escaping? Doesn't that legally put the owner at fault then? I thought you could only shoot someone if you felt your life was in danger at that moment? If they were leaving, the store owner's life wasn't in danger, no matter if the guys robbing the store were low-lives or not. It would be different if these guys were in the restaurant, pointing a gun at your face, and THEN you shot them. Maybe it's different in certain places, but I'm pretty sure you can't shoot someone running away without suffering heavy legal repercussions. Oh wait, the guy pointed a gun at him again? Well, I dunno then.

Just like the owner could have just stayed there and called the police, the robbers could have just put their hands up and given back the money. Instead, they decided to raise their gun again and they got shot for it.

Owner was right to have shot that guy, he robbed him and threatened him at gun point, he did nothing wrong by going aftter them. You rob someone, you better realize that you could get killed.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;33969126]Wait, he shot the guy when he was escaping? Doesn't that legally put the owner at fault then? I thought you could only shoot someone if you felt your life was in danger at that moment? If they were leaving, the store owner's life wasn't in danger, no matter if the guys robbing the store were low-lives or not. It would be different if these guys were in the restaurant, pointing a gun at your face, and THEN you shot them. Maybe it's different in certain places, but I'm pretty sure you can't shoot someone running away without suffering heavy legal repercussions. Oh wait, the guy pointed a gun at him again? Well, I dunno then.[/QUOTE] Supposedly, the two guys held the employee at gunpoint so he would give them the money, then they went outside. After they had left, the employee went after them with a gun, at which point one of the robbers pointed his gun at the employee again. Then the employee shot the robber, and the other one ran off. The crux of it is the employee going outside after the employees with his gun, with the intent to shoot. He could have stayed inside and called the police, with the robbers having already left, but he went and chased after them. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;33969215]Owner was right to have shot that guy, he robbed him and threatened him at gun point, he did nothing wrong by going aftter them. You rob someone, you better realize that you could get killed.[/QUOTE] It would be understandable if he had actually made a move [I]while they were threatening him,[/I] but after they left there was no threat on the employee's life, therefore he lost the claim to self-defense.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33969243]Supposedly, the two guys held the employee at gunpoint so he would give them the money, then they went outside. After they had left, the employee went after them with a gun, at which point one of the robbers pointed his gun at the employee again. Then the employee shot the robber, and the other one ran off. The crux of it is the employee going outside after the employees with his gun, with the intent to shoot. He could have stayed inside and called the police, with the robbers having already left, but he went and chased after them. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] It would be understandable if he had actually made a move [I]while they were threatening him,[/I] but after they left there was no threat on the employee's life, therefore he lost the claim to self-defense.[/QUOTE] Yeah. it doesn't sound like the owner has a foot to stand on here. I mean, it sucks that the guys robbed the place, and they should be punished, whatever, but going out with intent to kill AFTER they have left and are in the process of leaving the parking lot, and shooting a guy, is not good.

The owner was probably trying to take the robbers alive. Maybe he saw the gun being drawn and he had no choice but to shoot.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;33969325]The owner was probably trying to take the robbers alive. Maybe he saw the gun being drawn and he had no choice but to shoot.[/QUOTE] That is the job of the police. When a civilian takes that into their own hands, they don't have a basis for doing it. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=T2L_Goose;33969307]Yeah. it doesn't sound like the owner has a foot to stand on here. I mean, it sucks that the guys robbed the place, and they should be punished, whatever, but going out with intent to kill AFTER they have left and are in the process of leaving the parking lot, and shooting a guy, is not good.[/QUOTE] Right, not a leg to stand on.

It seems like in every thread that involves the a criminal getting arrested or put on trial facepunch wants to see blood, And so now someone dies and you guys dislike it?

[QUOTE=Medevilae;33969443]Mm. If you're threatened with a gun and in immediate danger on your own property you're allowed to fire in self-defense.[/QUOTE] The key phrase being self-defense. I seriously doubt that a jury will find that what he did was in self-defense.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;33969443]Mm. If you're threatened with a gun and in immediate danger on your own property you're allowed to fire in self-defense.[/QUOTE] Yes, that would be true, if he hadn't run after the robbers with his gun out. When you point your gun at the robber, and he points his back at you [I]after you've already gone after him and aimed,[/I] it's not self-defense anymore. They'd already left, he could've just called the police. Like imagine if someone pick-pocketed you, and then you go up and assault them to get it back. Sure, they should and probably will be charged with theft, but you'll still be charged with assault.

Either you guys never learnt to read or are plain stupid, all you seem to get is "The owner got robbed at gunpoint, wasn't shot, the robbers left, he shot them in the back", while in reality it's "The owner got robbed at gunpoint, wasn't shot, probably went out to see if they were gone, with his firearm, they were still there, he probably asked them to stop and give him back his property, the robbers raised their firearms at the owner, threatening him, so he shot first, saving his life." It's self defense.

[QUOTE=Sanius;33968472]The owner is an idiot, not a hero of any sort. He put his life in unnecessary risk and somebody died as a result.[/QUOTE] You could say that.. I could agree with that.. Yeah.. But I like it when people put their lives on the line like that. Surely I wouldn't call him an idiot not even a hero, but he's got some balls. He should feel proud, but it's not exactly something to brag about.

[QUOTE=WolvesSoulZ;33969793]Either you guys never learnt to read or are plain stupid, all you seem to get is "The owner got robbed at gunpoint, wasn't shot, the robbers left, he shot them in the back", while in reality it's "The owner got robbed at gunpoint, wasn't shot, probably went out to see if they were gone, with his firearm, they were still there, he probably asked them to stop and give him back his property, the robbers raised their firearms at the owner, threatening him, so he shot first, saving his life." It's self defense.[/QUOTE] Why did he go out to see if they were gone before calling the police? How do you know the robbers raised their guns first? Now you're just grasping.

[QUOTE=WolvesSoulZ;33969793]Either you guys never learnt to read or are plain stupid, all you seem to get is "The owner got robbed at gunpoint, wasn't shot, the robbers left, he shot them in the back", while in reality it's "The owner got robbed at gunpoint, wasn't shot, probably went out to see if they were gone, with his firearm, they were still there, he probably asked them to stop and give him back his property, the robbers raised their firearms at the owner, threatening him, so he shot first, saving his life." It's self defense.[/QUOTE] I'll admit this is what I want to believe happened, but frankly, there's nothing to support this or any other theory. If more evidence arises, then that will determine what happened. If he followed out with his weapon and they at any point in time raised their weapons to him, there's a justifiable point there.

[QUOTE=Sanius;33968472]The owner is an idiot, not a hero of any sort. He put his life in unnecessary risk and somebody died as a result.[/QUOTE] The owner reacted in a deadly dangerous situation. The robber was threatening to kill and died as a consequence to taking that risk. I don't see the problem here. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;33969482]The key phrase being self-defense. I seriously doubt that a jury will find that what he did was in self-defense.[/QUOTE] They pointed a gun at him and he shot because he thought his life was in danger. Self defense is plain as day here.

A couple of days ago by my house some guy walked into a Kroger grocery store held "something" to the back of an employees head and demanded money. When the robber got the employee to the room where they keep the safe another employee shot the robber in the face and killed him.

good on the owner, don't point a gun at someone if you don't wanna get shot

No Sympathy for the robber, but the Owner made a huge fucking mistake. I hope when they catch the other guy, the owner gets a fine at least.

[QUOTE=zombini;33970394]No Sympathy for the robber, but the Owner made a huge fucking mistake. I hope when they catch the other guy, the owner gets a fine at least.[/QUOTE] yeah I hope the owner gets a fine for ending a human life unnecessarily because, you know, that's a fitting punishment for the crime a fine

I'm actually within walking distance of the Wendy's, and it's some pretty scary shit. This city it getting worse and worse by the minute.

[QUOTE=Psycoace2;33970464]I'm actually within walking distance of the Wendy's, and it's some pretty scary shit. This city it getting worse and worse by the minute. Upload pics next time I go there Y/N? Obviously not of the crime scene, but the restaurant in general.[/QUOTE] could you explain how the state of that particular wendy's is relevant in this case?

You can disagree with the owner and not sympathize with the criminal at the same time. It's like I say on every thread like this, from the robber's side: If you do anything that directly puts people into a fight or flight situation, you have to recognize that while most people's brains will hit flight, you will eventually come across someone who will fight back.