Shoot or No Shoot?

[Tejas]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e7b_1341495485

Robber pulls gun and aims at clerk, shoot or no shoot?

[slackmaster]

1. The clerk would have been justified in shooting the guy

Until his mommy grabbed the toy gun.

[EX500rider]

2. I'd say shoot..

....to late after the clerks dead to find out if the gun is real or not.....play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[4th law of robotics]

3. Everybody step back, that's a 100% hardcore badass right there

ahahahahahaha.

He's going to have fun in jail.

[gejohnston]

4. I wouldn't shoot

His finger is not on the trigger or even inside of the trigger guard. There is a good chance I would be able to tell if it was a toy.

[EX500rider]

6. If you could tell it was a toy gun that's one thing...

.....but waiting till he puts his finger on the trigger is too late usually.

[spin]

5. It is always unwise to point a toy gun at a cop, a citizen or a criminal ...

The cop might simply chose to shoot you with his firearm and if you are lucky enough to survive you will probably spend some time behind bars. If you point a toy gun at some citizen on the street or the clerk in a store he might be armed and once again if you survive the incident you will probably end up in jail.

If you are an honest citizen but believe a toy gun might protect you, that might be a very foolish decision.

[Starboard Tack]

7. Shoot whom? A simpleton with a toy gun?

Take the kid's TV away and send him back to school.

[gejohnston]

9. the question is

does the clerk know that? Many people can't tell the difference between a real one and a toy, mostly people who are not familiar with guns. A cop would have shot him and it would be ruled justifiable.
The clerk would have no way of telling the mental capacity or intent. We and she only learned that after the fact.

The question is, what would you do based on what the clerk knew at that moment?

[Starboard Tack]

15. Having watched the video a few times, I would have laughed.

The girl did not appear to be freaked out. The kid had his finger nowhere near the non-existent trigger. A smart cop would have spotted it immediately. A dumb cop, of which there are many, would've shot him. Fortunately, mom was there.

[gejohnston]

18. no she didn't

Like I said before
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117249228#post4
It would depend on how far the cop was from the kid.

[Clames]

10. Simpletons with toy guns have gotten themselves hurt or killed.

Poor decision making kids and their enablers these days...

[Starboard Tack]

16. All the more reason to teach kids never to mess with handguns.

Telling your kid that a handgun is a valid tool for self defense is foolish and untrue.

[gejohnston]

19. what does self defense have to do with it?

I guess you could say he was defending the neighborhood and planet from junk food and CO poisoning one gas station at a time.

[Starboard Tack]

30. Has nothing to do with it. I was off topic again.

My point is that routinely carrying handguns around has nothing to do with self defense. Has a lot to do with being sucked into the fallacy that it will help overcome an irrational fear of others and a sense of personal inadequacy. It also demonstrates very poor decision making.

[Clames]

20. Well they are a valid tool for self defense...

..and that is a perfectly true and valid statement. Telling my kid otherwise would be horribly irresponsible and there is enough garbage out there to worry about getting into their heads without adding such crap.

[Starboard Tack]

31. Good luck with that kind of thinking.

Hopefully, if you have kids, they'll be able to think for themselves.

[Clames]

32. Don't need luck. I had an excellent upbringing...

...to use as an example. My kids won't be brainwashed anti-gun zombies, just well adjusted responsible individuals that understand the importance of logic and hard work and that no level of financial success means they are above getting their hands dirty when needed.


Seems some won't be as fortunate but that's life I guess.

[Lizzie Poppet]

33. Um...do you have any support for that assertion?

There's a whole bunch of verifiable data that would seem to contradict that claim. What self-defense measures would you deem superior, and on what grounds?

[Starboard Tack]

35. Show me your verifiable data.

Using any kind of gun for self defense should be an absolute last resort, which means every other option should come first. Here are a few of those options in order of preference.
Situational awareness
Personal demeanor
Avoidance techniques
Do not present yourself as a target
If you need help from others, call for it (Whistle, alarm, strobe light etc.)
If you need a tool carry CS, Stun Gun, Taser.

If none of those work, you really should examine your lifestyle and other choices you've made. If you can't navigate this world without carrying a handgun everywhere, you need a lot more help than any gun can offer.

N.B. I am not talking about home defense. Just public places. A handy 12 gauge will suffice for home defense.

Think about this. If you take a life out of fear for your life, you will probably spend the rest of your life questioning your decision. That is if you have a conscience and are not a sociopath. Even though it may have been a legal or righteous shooting, you will suffer from making such a drastic decision. To a degree, you will have destroyed rather than defended yourself. If you carry, you play a very dangerous game and any sense of security you might feel by carrying a handgun is illusory. The chances of it helping you are far outweighed by the chances of it destroying your life and the lives of others.

[Lizzie Poppet]

39. You're changing the argument.

You didn't initially say anything about a handgun being someone's first (or even early) option. You stated, "
Telling your kid that a handgun is a valid tool for self defense is foolish and untrue." I agree with almost all of what you state in the first section of above reply, with the exception of choice of tools. So which do you mean when you claim that a handgun is not a "valid tool for self defense?" A first resort or a last resort?

I appreciate your cautions about the psychological implications of using deadly force n self defense, at least as a general warning (I have actually given the mater considerable careful thought, as I'm not only a CCW permit holder, but also have had a considerable amount of education in ethical philosophy, although the later is not quite my academic specialty). I consider it the duty of anyone contemplating carrying a weapon for self defense to give these matters due consideration...just like I consider it their duty to practice diligently if they choose to arm themselves. The rights and safety of innocent people must be paramount. In addition, one has to incorporate the fact that most sane people will be to at least some degree traumatized by the act of killing another human being, even in the most justified of circumstances. even relatively non-empathetic people like me. One can, however, very reasonably come to the conclusion that accepting that damage constitutes the "path of least harm."

That, however, is where we likely will begin to disagree. I do not consider your assertion that "any sense of security you might feel by carrying a handgun is illusory" to be correct. I'd have to see a very convincing factual argument to that effect. Additionally, that the "chances of it helping you are far outweighed by the chances of it destroying your life and the lives of others" is the case would require similar proof.

Oh, and one last thing about those 12ga shotguns. While they are indeed undeniably effective, when one is considering the ramifications to the shooter of killing in self-defense, then it needs to be understood that a shotgun is far more lethal than any handgun. The person shot will have a considerably greater chance of being killed by a shotgun than by a handgun. And it's kinda hard to call for help when holding a shotgun on an intruder who has wisely surrendered...they're not exactly one-hand weapons unless you're a heck of a lot bigger and stronger than I am!

[GreenStormCloud]

38. In a previous post he has claimed that a "firm voice" is sufficient. N/T

[virginia mountainman]

34. Yea that clerk was going to kill him with his change...

Another brilliant "on topic" post!

[Hoyt]

12. But our gun culture friends just can't miss out on an opportunity to try out their lethal weapons.

[Starboard Tack]

36. Hopefully not. I don't take them too seriously.

There is a lot of bluster out there.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. isn't it illegal to pull a toy gun on someone? isn't that akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre

the INTENT to deceive and rob goes to motive.

[Starboard Tack]

17. Yes. It is the same as having a real gun in the eyes of the law.

Very foolish behavior.

[Hoyt]

11. As it turns out, shooting would have been wrong. You guys can have all your silly rules-of-thumb

you plan on using in the highly unlikely event a situation occurs, but more often than not, you'll be wrong.

Some might feel like a tough, big shot -- but they would have been wrong in this case.

Plus, the last similar case we had like this here, the cowboy shot at the robber -- but missed and killed the young girl clerk.

[ManiacJoe]

13. Unfortunate, yes. You will need to explain your logic on "wrong".

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. With this one the only logic is Gun! = Wrong! n/t

[Clames]

23. That would imply there was logic being used at all.

n/t

[Tejas]

21. You feel lucky? Well do you?

Since, as you state so confidently, you feel the odds are against someone following through on impulse, care to try it? You might think you're right, and in a sense you would be, but only right up to the point that a police officer blows your brains out for pointing a firearm at him or anyone else.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. Hoyt, I believe the law would be on the side of cashier. Had he decided to defend himself against

the toy gun it would be easily argued that he was well within his legal rights.

Please note I did not say anything about moral right and wrong and I never said HOW the cashier might choose to defend himself against the INTENT OF THREAT.

The intent to deceive is what started this. How it ended was lucky this time.

Highly Unlikely event? How so? You just witnessed it. That brings the odds down somewhat, wouldn't you agree?

[permatex]

24. C'mon.

You know that it doesn't matter what the LAW would say, it only matters what HOYT would say.
If it were me with that gun in my face and all the perp wanted was the money, then I would give it up but I would try to get the best description I could for the police.
Now if I determined by the thug's actions that my life was in danger, then yes, I would draw and shoot. The onus isn't on me to determine if the gun is real or fake, the onus is on me to survive.
Simple way for a thug not to get shot or killed, don't commit violent crimes.

[Meiko]

26. How true

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. maybe ---

but not in My World

[Meiko]

25. If you are savvy enough

to know that the gun is not real of course you wouldn't shoot, but not everyone knows everything there is to know about guns. Let's say I believe the gun to be real. There is another customer in the store so that changes things. I would not start a gun fight with a robber and take the chance of hitting an innocent person, at this point I don't know she is related to the robber. So rather than shoot someone accidentally I would just have to comply with the bad guy's request for money and hope to hell he doesn't shoot me. If she wasn't in the store the robber would be a dead man. I am not going to be prosecuted anyway, I thought the gun was real and I responded.

[sarisataka]

28. Since he did not have his finger on the trigger

were I the clerk I would have just taken it away.

At a farther distance it looks real enough that I would not blame someone who acted as if it was real.
It is good that they charged him, next time he might have been more serious.

[Kennah]

29. Tejas, I am not sure what you are asking.

Are you asking whether the clerk would have been justified in shooting?

Are you asking whether someone else, either a police officer or a private citizen with a legally concealed gun, would have been justified in shooting?

Or are you asking whether I would shoot if I were legally carrying in there while browsing the potato chips?

Yes, Yes, No.

If you intended something else, my bad.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. No shoot - yet.

Most robberies end with no bloodshed. Even if you shoot him in the brain, unless you sever the brainstem, he will have reflex spasms and may shoot the clerk as he spasms. With a heart shot he will have 15 to 30 seconds of consciousness left - plenty of time to get off a bunch of shots, killing the clerk and you.

If starts to move everybody to a back room or lock the door, then it is time to fight.

Be ready if things go bad but otherwise stay calm and be an accurate witness.

BTW - Just read the article. Funniest holdup yet.