Not if the idiot journalist was correct in that the victim shot the criminal after the robbery.
During the robbery attempt would be legal and that's probably what really happened.
The man yelled for the robber to stop. When the robber turned around and pointed his gun, the man fired at him, hitting him in the head, Lantz said.
“Not if the idiot journalist was correct in that the victim shot the criminal after the robbery. During the robbery attempt would be legal and that’s probably what really happened. “
If the robber already has a gun in your face its probably not a good idea to go for yours. Depends on circumstances.
Regarding his shooting the guy after the robbery. I assume you are saying he was no longer in danger and therefor had no cause to use deadly force.
I disagree, he had been robbed and a reasonable person would feel danger until the robber was no longer in the area. So they were still in danger. Second, it is not against the law to tell a robber to stop. Once the robber points the gun at you then you are free and clear to shoot.
Depends on state laws of course. I can’t see any charges for something like this in Florida.
That written report seems to conflict a bit with the local televised news report and conference. The way I heard it, The victims were in the car, the perp pointed a gun at the victim/driver/wife’s face, and then the passenger/victim took his gun out and shot him. The police were interviewed and said the victims did get their money.
I think the (good) guy will be ok. the story very carefully says that the victim got out of his car and called for the robber to stop, at which time the robber turned and pointed his gun at the victim. That’s all the good guy needed. Once somebody points a gun at you you can blow them to Kingdom Come and it’s entirely alright because it’s self defense.
Nobody on this board has commented on the comments to the story posted at the Kansas City Star. They’re almost as much fun as the ones posted here (good gun control, needs a bigger gun, etc).
i think it depends on the states law. if defense of property is allowed, then he should be good. i would think that if it only allows for defense of life, he might have an issue since the physical threat was over and the driver initiated the subsequent contact.
i think this was a good shoot. i like the story. but you never know about some ADA who wants to make a name.
You can never tell from the way newswriters put these things together.
But if he shot the perp in the head, it’s good shooting in my book.
"...Police said it appears the man who was shot was trying to rob people near the Bank of America ATM. One of the two victims pulled out a handgun and shot him in self defense. Minsky's Pizza manager, Aaron Ness, told FOX 4 he isn't surprised by the crime scene. He said people used to wait by the Bank of America drive thru to rob people. This time it was the ATM, and the victim fought back. Both a man and woman were in the car withdrawing money from the ATM. Police are not saying who pulled the trigger. ..."
It is legal because he shot the criminal in response to the criminal pointing a gun at him.
The criminal was armed and still a threat to others. A liberal prosecutor might try and argue that since the criminal was leaving the victim had no reason to confront him. Depending on the laws there, that might make things a little tricky unless the victim was careful to describe how he felt the criminal was still an immediate threat to him or others, but I doubt he's going to face charges.
From the article “The man yelled for the robber to stop. When the robber turned around and pointed his gun, the man fired at him, hitting him in the head, Lantz said.”
A gun was pointed at him. He was justified in shooting. I hope they don’t bring charges.