There’s a recent case where a pharmacist shot a robber. Two guys entered his store with guns and he pulled out his own. One fled immediately, but the other lay down on the ground. The pharmacist shot this guy. The surveillance video is on the web.
HT: American Thinker blog
The surveillance video is on the web.
I can’t tell when the retailer shot the robber, given that it is dark on my computer. I think it does make a difference if he shot him when he came in with a drawn gun versus shooting him once he is on the floor and disarmed. I would think that once the robber is disarmed, and he can be held with the shopkeepers gun pointed at him, then the shopkeeper should have called for police backup. The only extenuating circumstance would be if the shopkeeper was fearful the other robber would return or if he couldn’t get to a phone without taking his gun off the robber.
As to the issue in general, the Objectivist position is that one can only retaliate if one’s life or property are in immediate danger; so if he is pointing a gun at you or is still present after doing so and has not been disarmed, then one could shoot in self-defense, by my understanding. Texas law supports this interpretation (especially on or in your property).
The tricky part comes in as to determining when one’s life is in danger; as in stalking and harassment and you don’t know what they are going to do with you. That is, is reasonable fear a factor in making the determination that your life and limb might be in danger? Objectivism says to go by reason, not emotion; but if you are out in the middle of nowhere and surrounded by persons harassing and stalking you and indicating they might do more, then I think retaliatory force is justified, though you’d have to explain that to a jury.
I have had angry customers act threateningly to me, but after standing my ground, they backed off. One guy did throw a chair at me and put a hole in the wall, but when I asked him to leave, he did. Had it gone further in any of these cases, I think I would be justified in defending myself physically; or at least holding them there until the police arrived by making a citizen’s arrest (though that can be tricky as well).
I can’t tell when the retailer shot the robber, given that it is dark on my computer.
News reports said he shot him 5 times, and that the robber was alive when the ambulance arrived but died soon after.
I think it does make a difference if he shot him when he came in with a drawn gun versus shooting him once he is on the floor and disarmed.
Sure it makes a difference. I think it also makes a huge difference if he waited for a long while and then decided to shoot the robber as opposed to shooting him when his adrenalin was still flowing. The pharmacist claims he was still afraid the robber – who was on the floor completely healthy – might decide to do something with the gun he (presumably) still had.
The video shows the pharmacist walk by the place where the robber must have been. When he does so, he looks relatively unconcerned. Then (after calling the cops?) he comes back to the spot and shoots him. Many facts are unclear just from the video. I know that if I were on the jury, I’d likely have a hard time convicting if the penalty was severe.
The problem with the video is that we cannot see what the robber is doing, once he is on the floor. If he was reaching for his gun, then I’d say shoot him – and shoot him dead. Once the robber came in with a drawn weapon with the clear intent to commit armed robbery, the shopkeeper had a clear right to self-defense. However, if the robber was not going for his gun after going to the floor, then the shopkeeper should not have acted as judge, jury, and executioner. So, it all depends on what the robber was doing once he was disarmed. I understand that the shopkeeper was still afraid of what would happen before the police arrived – I certainly would be – but acting on fear alone or the need for retribution after the fact is exactly what the police and the court system is for.
Given the evidence, I’d need to have the specifics of when he actually shot the robber those five times; which I can’t tell from the video. In a court of law, those details would be brought out. It would certainly be different if there was a pitched gun battle, in which case self-defense would clearly be on the shopkeeper’s side. I think it would also make a difference if the robber was trying to get up and flee before the police arrived, since he was effectively under arrest at that time.
I don’t have any sympathies for the robbers. If the shopkeeper would have shot them dead as soon as it was clear that they were there to commit armed robbery, then they would have deserved it. I would think that so long as they are still armed and on his property, he could shot them at any time and it would be self-defense. The question is what could the shopkeeper do with them once they are disarmed and still on his property? I also don’t think one should expect the shopkeeper to act as a well trained police officer under that situation. In other words, if the robber was threatening him while on the floor, I’d say shoot the bastard.
I would definitely vote not guilty. (unless there’s evidence that the shopkeeper knew the robber was unarmed and not a threat-from the 911 call, or a confession-but that is very unlikely.)
For a conviction, it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the man was in fact no longer threatened, and acting specifically to punish the robber , and I’ve seen no such proof. In fact (if the video is real time) I can be pretty sure just based on what I already know from the tape that, as an untrained civilian, he did not have time to make sure he is safe.
Also, he seems to be holding a mid sized handgun (9mm, maybe 40 cal.). With those guns, if you wish to immobilize someone, it goes to reason that you shoot them four or five times (in fact cops empty an entire magazine of 12-13 rounds into suspects all the time). Fewer than four or five is ineffective, in an actual fight (as opposed to I guess an execution through a point blank head shot), so I would not hold that against the shopkeeper, quite the opposite: it’s a sign that he felt he was in a fight.
A fact to take into consideration also is the shopkeeper’s state of mind. Facing armed men is scary, and fear can distort perceptions to several degrees. Previous experience should also be taken into consideration (if, for example, the shopkeeper has been previously injured in past robberies).
You can think and plan ahead how you’d face danger, but until you face it you don’t really know how you’ll react.
Here’s another story along these lines: A person was wanted by the police as a person of interest in a child rape, but wasn’t charged with anything; the neighbors recognized him and come up behind him and began beating him with stick and rods. I think they were definitely out of line of taking the law into their own hands. In this case, there was no emergency situation at all, and they neighbors ought to have simply turned him in for questioning. The purpose of having established laws and courts is precisely to prevent vigilantism of this nature – and we still don’t know if he had anything to do with the child rape or why the police wanted to question him.
Here is a recent armed robbery caught on tape, with the robber having a shop owner gun turned on him, he swore to change his ways. I don’t think he should have been given money and food as a bribe, nor turned free without charges pressed against him, but the shop owner scared the mess out of hum. The gun wasn’t loaded, which is not a good thing to advertise on TV, and the shop owner was Muslim so he showed mercy. Is this a case of conversion by force?
Here is a recent armed robbery caught on tape, with the robber having a shop owner gun turned on him, he swore to change his ways. I don’t think he should have been given money and food as a bribe, nor turned free without charges pressed against him, but the shop owner scared the mess out of hum. The gun wasn’t loaded, which is not a good thing to advertise on TV, and the shop owner was Muslim so he showed mercy. Is this a case of conversion by force?
It’s a case on anti social behaviour. There is a good reason to send criminals to prison: to protect people’s rights. If you let them go, that is a sign of a lack of respect for this country’s values. (Though it’s not really a Muslim thing, it’s more of a liberal thing. I really doubt he let the guy go becaose of his religion alone.)
Here is a recent armed robbery caught on tape, … he showed mercy. Is this a case of conversion by force?
This reminds me of the early scene from Les Misrables, where the priest lets Jean Valjean steal his candles.
Forced conversion? Nope; if does not even qualify as conversion in the first place.
I watched the Muslim shopkeeper video again, and I had misunderstood what had happened. Those in that neighborhood knew that the shopkeeper was Muslim, as did the robber. It was because the shopkeeper showed mercy that the robber stated that he wanted to become a good Muslim.
There are those who think that if you show kindness to someone like a robber then he will change his ways. Les Miserable was trying to show this, and in that case, it worked out, but I don’t accept it as a general principle of ethics.
As to the Muslim letting the robber go showing disrespect for the laws of his new country, I don’t know that I’d go that far. He’s not legally obligated to press charges. I’d have to know more about him, such as does he want to establish Islamic Law?
I certainly don’t think the shopkeeper who shows mercy ought to be given the great TV coverage he got, as that promotes altruism and the idea that criminality is caused by poverty. That is a liberal stance, and it is wrong.
Here’s another story along these lines: A person was wanted by the police as a person of interest in a child rape, but wasn’t charged with anything; the neighbors recognized him and come up behind him and began beating him with stick and rods.
Local police have decided not to charge anyone in the crowd because emotions were running high and after all they didn’t kill him 