Man at ATM fires back at would-be armed robber

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/local_news/charlotte/628167/man-at-atm-fires-back-at-would-be-armed-robber ^

[G Larry]

The bandit had a gun pointed at the citizen. The armed citizen could have emptied his weapon on the bandit and nobody else is in a position to suggest that he should have known he was no longer a threat after being shot twice in the leg.

[Niteranger68]

Let me be blatantly clear. If the perp is still breathing, you have not stopped the threat. If he is still armed (you know he had one gun, You don't know if he was carrying another) you have not stopped the threat. If there is any chance of future retaliation, you have not stopped the threat. If I were sitting on the jury in any case where a person shot and killed a 'person' who had assaulted (attacked, tried to rob, etc) them, I would find the person not guilty due to self defense. See what I am saying?

I completely understand what you are saying, it's just doesn't jibe with the laws in my state. We are debating the way thing are vs the way they should be. If you shoot an armed attacker, he falls down seriously wounded, his arms spread out on the ground, and his weapon falls beyond his reach, you do not have legal grounds to finish him off. There is a fine line between personal defense and retribution. Now, if we were all guaranteed 12 John O's on the jury, we might act differently. But when I think of a 12 person jury, I think of those morons on the OJ jury. I don't want to trust my freedom to 12 random citizens.

[Niteranger68]

The bandit had a gun pointed at the citizen. The armed citizen could have emptied his weapon on the bandit and nobody else is in a position to suggest that he should have known he was no longer a threat after being shot twice in the leg.

The local DA and a jury will certainly be in a position to decide whether you acted legally or not.

[John O]

If you shoot an armed attacker, he falls down seriously wounded, his arms spread out on the ground, and his weapon falls beyond his reach, you do not have legal grounds to finish him off. There is a fine line between personal defense and retribution.

Sad but probably true. However, if you think he can reach his gun before you do. Bang!

Now, if we were all guaranteed 12 John O's on the jury, we might act differently.

Don't need 12. Just one. And you have to plan to be one if you ever get called for jury duty. The juror makes the law. There is no authority higher than he.

[G Larry]

Oh....”certainly”?

The conditions I described and you repeated, don’t put the DA or the jury in a position to decide anything with any more certainty than the information provided by the victim.
The victim is under no obligation to assert the armed threat ended with 2 shots to the leg.

“Your Honor, the gun was in his hand, not between his legs.”

[Niteranger68]

Don't need 12. Just one. And you have to plan to be one if you ever get called for jury duty. The juror makes the law. There is no authority higher than he.

I'm aware of jury nullification and believe in its purpose, but if only one juror is "on your side" that's a hung jury which is a mistrial and you can absolutely be retried. That one juror doesn't necessarily end it for you. I just believe there is a successful way to defend yourself and avoid legal trouble and the same time. In the process of protecting my life, I don't want to lose my wealth and/or freedom.

[Niteranger68]

Oh....”certainly”? The conditions I described and you repeated, don’t put the DA or the jury in a position to decide anything with any more certainty than the information provided by the victim. The victim is under no obligation to assert the armed threat ended with 2 shots to the leg. “Your Honor, the gun was in his hand, not between his legs.”

Your theory works great...in the absence of forensic evidence, other witnesses, or surveillance cameras.

[KenD]

According to the local TV news this morning the perpetrator shot at the victim and missed before the victim drew his gun and shot the perpetrator.

I"m going to guess here that NONE of us would be a dead aim when we were being shot at.

[P8riot]

That’s where training and muscle memory come in. Granted, not everyone trains to that extent, but I’d hazard a guess that many of us are very good instinctive shooters. Specially those of us with combat military and/or law enforcement backgrounds.

[G Larry]

You can “if” this to death.

As long as there is no clear evidence that the threat was stopped, and I then went over a planted a kill shot, I can shoot until my gun is empty.

[John O]

You can “if” this to death.

As long as there is no clear evidence that the threat was stopped, and I then went over a planted a kill shot, I can shoot until my gun is empty.

seems that emptying the clip would be the only safe thing to do. (ever seen friday the 13th?)

[P8riot]

not if he has buddies around