Yes, I'm sure that's it.
If the gun had been real, the clerk had no way to know if the perp would have killed him after getting the second handful of money, so there’d be no witnesses.
FWIW, the deceased did look like the Fist Gay President’s son.
Considering Flint, MI is considered the worst city in America, beyond even Detroit, Oakland and Memphis, I’d say they were right to shoot.
Shooting anyone pointing a gun at you is the right decision.
If he had decided to go to w-o-r-k everything would have been OK.
“He was still clenching the money and the gun when he was on the floor,”
But did he have skittles in his pocket?
Hint to developmentally disabled robbers, don’t bring a squirt gun to a gunfight.
Over and out...
Liberals spent much of the 20th Century trying to undermine capital punishment, mostly because they just didn’t like it, because it made them feel bad.
But capital punishment, swift and sure, provided an element of fairness that we no longer have today. Accused of murder, rape or armed robbery, a person would stand before a judge and jury, and their peers would decide that they had committed a capital offense and should hang for it. 13 judges, as it were, any of which could have spared their life.
And it wasn’t just the hanging that was the deterrent, though it was what people assumed. It was the certainty of the trial, that judge and jury, and even the governor, who would in effect sentence them to death in the name of society.
“You mother still loves you, but you are a bad man and need hanging.”
If such a thing still existed, in a swift and sure form, resulting in a drop from gallows, would this man have still tried to armed rob a store?
He might have. Yet few armed robbers would consider that a clerk was armed. They might imagine themselves hanging, however.
In either case, liberals lose, and some of those that need killing get killed. The last armed robber legally executed was (not the actor) James Coburn, in 1964. Not executing them for robbery has not reduced the death rate of armed robbers one bit.
The “it was only a plastic gun” defense is pretty weak considering that many guns are largely made of plastic these days.
How about wishing your cousin wasn’t a dirtbag. How about apologizing to the clerk for the actions of your dirtbag son. I can’t stand how it’s always the innocent victim of the crime who is supposed to give the benefit of the doubt and worry about the rights of the criminal. As far as I am concerned if you try to rob someone you forfeit all of your rights including the right to life. The mentality of this cousin, the mom and the writers of the story is straight from the moral code of altruism. The clerk should have tried to ascertain the criminal’s motive and tried to figure out what was going on in his life that made him take such an action. After all if he was just trying to get his son back that makes it o.k. The clerk should have sacrificed himself for the poor little criminal. Give me a break.