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

I thought facepunch was heavily against the death penalty, which is basically what this guy got.

[QUOTE=notxmania;33970506]could you explain how the state of that particular wendy's is relevant in this case?[/QUOTE] Because it's Friday night and I have nothing to do.

Unnessecary is what this was.

the fact that the owner went outside [i]with his gun[/i] shows that he either had intent to kill the robbers, or was at least prepared to shoot them. people keep saying he may have gone outside to "make sure they were gone" but i don't see that happening, to be honest. a rational person would have just stayed inside where it was safe and called the police.

[QUOTE=notxmania;33970815]the fact that the owner went outside [i]with his gun[/i] shows that he either had intent to kill the robbers, or was at least prepared to shoot them. people keep saying he may have gone outside to "make sure they were gone" but i don't see that happening, to be honest. a rational person would have just stayed inside where it was safe and called the police.[/QUOTE] Now, I have no source, but from what my brother told me, the manager went to check the plate on the car, one robber aimed at the manager, and the manager shot the robber. But I don't know how true that is.

[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] [QUOTE=Sanius;33970432]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[/QUOTE] I think your having trouble reading the bit where the robbers pointed the gun at him while they were outside, and even if he went outside with the intention of shooting them, he still acted in self defense in the end. Whatever the case, I mourn the death of the robber, he didn't hurt anyone but he knew what he was getting into.

[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] Yes, he is a true idiot for getting back the money he works for, maybe if those lazy fucks would do the same they wouldn't have to rob. He pointed a gun at the owner and took his property = Money, you have a right to defend your property and to try to retrieve it. Would it be wrong for a women who's purse was taken to chase the person and hit at him even if he ran out of the mall where it occured? Or if a guy gets in a taxi, gets the ride and then walks out, does the driver have a right to get his money? You people really need to see it from the owner's point of view and get the fuck off of your high chair, stop looking down at people like this, it's pathetic. A man fights to get back his money he works for, the money that pays his employees, pays for himself and you argue that a punk with a gun getting shot is a crime, and the money he was taking is okay as long as he makes it off of the property? People like you make me sick to see how far society has degraded to where a robber has more rights then the victim. Next thing you'll start saying a rape victim should pay for the stitches she gives the attacker as she scratches him. Fuck you.

[quote]When the worker walked outside with his own weapon, police say one of the men pointed a weapon at him and he was shot and killed.[/quote] He got held up at gunpoint and robbed. he got his own gun, and tried to get the money back. When he was once again threatened, he defended himself. He was protecting himself and his property.

The manager would have been fine if he didn't go outside, even if he had no intention of attacking the robbers. The fact the he went outside armed is more than enough for the prosecution to turn this against him, regardless of the criminals' actions at that time.

[QUOTE=notxmania;33968532]he clearly just thought the robbers deserved to be killed for taking his property. Fuck him.[/QUOTE] The Robbers threatened to kill him for HIS property, Fuck them.

Legally it's a grey area, but personally I give less than a shit about the robbers.

[QUOTE=Omali;33970529]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.[/QUOTE] Exactly, which is why I don't really feel that bad for the robbers, but I don't think the owner made the right call in this case. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;33969861]How do you know the robbers raised their guns first? Now you're just grasping.[/QUOTE] It actually says in the article that the robbers drew their weapons first: [QUOTE]When the worker walked outside with his own weapon, police say one of the men pointed a weapon at him and he was shot and killed.[/QUOTE] Of course, that's just what the owner told the cops. I guess we'll never know for sure what really happened.

[QUOTE=Gundevil;33971064]Yes, he is a true idiot for getting back the money he works for, maybe if those lazy fucks would do the same they wouldn't have to rob. He pointed a gun at the owner and took his property = Money, you have a right to defend your property and to try to retrieve it. Would it be wrong for a women who's purse was taken to chase the person and hit at him even if he ran out of the mall where it occured? Or if a guy gets in a taxi, gets the ride and then walks out, does the driver have a right to get his money? You people really need to see it from the owner's point of view and get the fuck off of your high chair, stop looking down at people like this, it's pathetic. A man fights to get back his money he works for, the money that pays his employees, pays for himself and you argue that a punk with a gun getting shot is a crime, and the money he was taking is okay as long as he makes it off of the property? People like you make me sick to see how far society has degraded to where a robber has more rights then the victim. Next thing you'll start saying a rape victim should pay for the stitches she gives the attacker as she scratches him. Fuck you.[/QUOTE] You can't really equate this case with your examples, because the owner grabbed at gun and the only way he could have "got his money back" would be for him to shoot the robbers. Surely you don't equate property with human life? Yes, "a punk with a gun getting shot" is a crime, it's not like he's any less of a human because he's a criminal, which you seem to suggest in your post.

I'd say this a gray area, but the owner is probably still in the right, if only just barely.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;33971419]It actually says in the article that the robbers drew their weapons first: [/QUOTE] The owner managed to shoot first so he probably went out with his gun drawn right?

[QUOTE=RAG Frag;33971652]The owner managed to shoot first so he probably went out with his gun drawn right?[/QUOTE] Would you go out unarmed after getting robbed?

[QUOTE=notxmania;33971521]Surely you don't equate property with human life?[/QUOTE] The robbers sure as fuck did.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;33971923]The robbers sure as fuck did.[/QUOTE] yep which is why they shot the o-- oh wait

[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] Holy fucking commas.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33969243] 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.[/QUOTE] If he shot the guy in the back yeah, but one of the robbers pointed the gun at him so he was right to fire He wasn't right to pursue but the actual decision to fire wasn't wrong

[QUOTE=Bassplaya7;33971905]Would you go out unarmed after getting robbed?[/QUOTE] Most people wouldn't go out at all, but if he went out with his gun drawn that fucks him for claiming self defence in court?

[QUOTE=notxmania;33968532]Important to note here that the owner [i]followed the robbers outside after they were done.[/i] His life was no longer in danger, he clearly just thought the robbers deserved to be killed for taking his property. Fuck him.[/QUOTE] You don't know his motive. Who's to say he went out to actively pursue them? He could have been for example peeking outside to make sure the assailants had left and weren't bringing back friends or something, held onto his gun because, you know, he had just kinda been threatened by two armed men, and got a barrel in his face immediately upon opening the door and reacted accordingly. Had the robbers decided to run for it upon seeing him or just hurried up and left after getting what they wanted they likely wouldn't have been shot at, as shooting someone in the back even if they just robbed you at gunpoint will absolutely screw you in court. I mean, it's a shame that anybody had to die and I'm not saying the robber deserved to be killed, but I'm not going to demonise the shop owner for making a split second decision in a situation where his life could have been in immediate danger. The series of events leading to the killing are unfortunate, but unfortunate shit kinda has a way of happening when someone with a gun decides to use it in a hostile manner.

The fact of the matter is the employee killed a man, and the robber did not. Even if the robber's accomplice is charged for the robbery (as he should be), the employee needs a voluntary manslaughter charge, or something that accounts for the fact that he pursued the criminals [I]with his gun,[/I] with the intent to shoot if need be, and killed one of them. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;33972021]If he shot the guy in the back yeah, but one of the robbers pointed the gun at him so he was right to fire He wasn't right to pursue but the actual decision to fire wasn't wrong[/QUOTE] At that point in time, when the robber was pointing the gun at the employee, no the employee wasn't in the wrong to fire. However, to disregard the fact that he was pursuing fleeing criminals would be disingenuous.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33972181]The fact of the matter is the employee killed a man, and the robber did not. Even if the robber's accomplice is charged for the robbery (as he should be), the employee needs a voluntary manslaughter charge, or something that accounts for the fact that he pursued the criminals [I]with his gun,[/I] with the intent to shoot if need be, and killed one of them. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] At that point in time, when the robber was pointing the gun at the employee, no the employee wasn't in the wrong to fire. However, to disregard the fact that he was pursuing fleeing criminals would be disingenuous.[/QUOTE] If the robber pointed a gun at him then regardless of whether he pursued him or not you cannot and should not charge him.

Who said he had the intent to kill? The sames goes to the robbers, who said they had the intent to kill? Nobody, it's just a matter of pressing fear and power. Now, you and I never were robbed at gunpoint I can fairly assume, so how do you know that you wouldn't react that way? Unless you know that you don't have nothing in your pants and would just cry out in your corner, I am fairly sure that if you had a gun, and logically, wanted to get the robbers caught faster, you'd open the door, to see if they had a car, and to see if they were gone, for your safety and other customers safety. Come on now, if you say that you'd be better off staying alone, alright, your choice. But you really seem to think that this guy really did want to kill the robber, which I find sickening. You have a gun, keep it on you, as you peek out, either pursuing them or not, gives you more safety, the robber happens to aim at you, you shoot.

[QUOTE]I still feel bad though, that guy probably had no idea his life was going to end that night and probably had no intention of actually shooting the owner. [/QUOTE] If you bring a gun to a gunfight, you can expect to get a bullet in your ass at some point. The way to avoid this is to not perpetrate an armed robbery. Pretty sure there's plenty of precedents. [QUOTE]the employee needs a voluntary manslaughter charge, or something that accounts for the fact that he pursued the criminals with his gun, with the intent to shoot if need be, and killed one of them.[/QUOTE] Hardly. Acting in self defense is not and never has been a criminal offense. The only criminal stipulations apply to whether or not the weapon is legally owned and licensed.

[QUOTE=WolvesSoulZ;33972258]Who said he had the intent to kill? The sames goes to the robbers, who said they had the intent to kill? Nobody, it's just a matter of pressing fear and power. Now, you and I never were robbed at gunpoint I can fairly assume, so how do you know that you wouldn't react that way? Unless you know that you don't have nothing in your pants and would just cry out in your corner, I am fairly sure that if you had a gun, and logically, wanted to get the robbers caught faster, you'd open the door, to see if they had a car, and to see if they were gone, for your safety and other customers safety. Come on now, if you say that you'd be better off staying alone, alright, your choice. But you really seem to think that this guy really did want to kill the robber, which I find sickening. You have a gun, keep it on you, as you peek out, either pursuing them or not, gives you more safety, the robber happens to aim at you, you shoot.[/QUOTE] I'm a supporter of self defense but it seems really odd that the employee would pursue the robbers with a gun after they left.

[QUOTE=ChilColdCoolaid;33972304]I'm a supporter of self defense but it seems really odd that the employee would pursue the robbers with a gun after they left.[/QUOTE] For all we know he could have had the gun as protection in case the robbers pointed the gun at him, which they did, and was merely going outside to make sure they'd gone.

[QUOTE=ChilColdCoolaid;33972304]I'm a supporter of self defense but it seems really odd that the employee would pursue the robbers with a gun after they left.[/QUOTE] You're assuming he deliberately pursued him with the idea of shooting/doing self justice, it's your view, but I try to see above that, and see what I would do and what would be logical to do, ie, making sure they were gone / trying to get their plate. Having the gun, as a mean of protection, just in case.

[QUOTE=27X;33972298]Hardly. Acting in self defense is not and never has been a criminal offense. The only criminal stipulations apply to whether or not the weapon is legally owned and licensed.[/QUOTE] I can hardly call it self-defense when the guy ran in pursuit of the robbers with his gun on him.