Learning Respect For The Second Amendment, The Hard Way

**Jumper_Dad** · Jul 18, 12, 08:32 PM

I agree, all firearms training teaches to keep firing until there is no longer a threat. I have no issue at all with how this went down. Nor would I have had an issue if it had went worse for the robbers.

When I first saw the video of the guys with their hoodies up I thought that this was going to be a Travon Martin 2.0.

**Voice of Reason** · Jul 18, 12, 08:45 PM

I love it! I keep watching that video over and over. But I can't believe he missed with all those shots. I have zero concern for what happens to any armed criminal.

**Bluegrasscard** · Jul 18, 12, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

I love it! I keep watching that video over and over. But I can't believe he missed with all those shots. I have zero concern for what happens to any armed criminal.

I counted 6 shots. With the way they were moving after the first shot its not to surprising that there we no hits. They had no desire to engage. They just wanted out - fast!

**2 Humped Camel** · Jul 18, 12, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by Lucky Charms

I also would have questioned that had the robber not been armed with a gun himself. Dude, your a 71 year old. That guy could have rolled over and popped off a round. I know I'm not taking that chance! Would you??? Curious.

Had he found the mark with that last round into the back of a guy who was running away and had fallen down that is no longer self defense IMO. I can buy getting caught up in the moment but the two armed criminals were clearly no longer a threat after the first two rounds. The last round was completely unjustified in any self defense scenario even by the broadest definition.

**Voice of Reason** · Jul 18, 12, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by 2 Humped Camel

Had he found the mark with that last round into the back of a guy who was running away and had fallen down that is no longer self defense IMO. I can buy getting caught up in the moment but the two armed criminals were clearly no longer a threat after the first two rounds. The last round was completely unjustified in any self defense scenario even by the broadest definition.

Perhaps true, but I don't care. When you threaten people with a weapon, anything that happens to you after that is justified. That may not be the legal view but that is my view.

**2 Humped Camel** · Jul 18, 12, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

Perhaps true, but I don't care. When you threaten people with a weapon, anything that happens to you after that is justified. That may not be the legal view but that is my view.

I understand that which is why I said I don't have any problem with what he did but in a legal view, I thought it was against the law to shoot a fleeing offender.

**Lawnboy13** · Jul 18, 12, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by coldweatherfan

Love it. Good job by the patron.

Hope these two do time.
Attachment 36952
Henderson and Dawkins

and they they look like such nice boys.

**Lawnboy13** · Jul 18, 12, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by 2 Humped Camel

Had he found the mark with that last round into the back of a guy who was running away and had fallen down that is no longer self defense IMO. I can buy getting caught up in the moment but the two armed criminals were clearly no longer a threat after the first two rounds. The last round was completely unjustified in any self defense scenario even by the broadest definition.

I get what you are saying, however until your in "the old man's shoes, I got no problem with it.

I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6 any day.

**coldweatherfan** · Jul 19, 12, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by 2 Humped Camel

Had he found the mark with that last round into the back of a guy who was running away and had fallen down that is no longer self defense IMO. I can buy getting caught up in the moment but the two armed criminals were clearly no longer a threat after the first two rounds. The last round was completely unjustified in any self defense scenario even by the broadest definition.

There has been more than one occasion when a criminal has turned and taken a shot or turned around and come back in. The guy did the right thing, he stayed engaged until they were completely gone.

**coldweatherfan** · Jul 19, 12, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by 2 Humped Camel

I understand that which is why I said I don't have any problem with what he did but in a legal view, I thought it was against the law to shoot a fleeing offender.

Only in certain states.

**Run To State** · Jul 19, 12, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad

Had one of these guys have died after being shot "in" the cafe'...how big of an issue would it be to you? What if it was the guy with the bat, not the guy with the gun, that died...would that be an issue?

No issue. You telling me the guy with the bat couldn't have killed someone?

**bballfamily** · Jul 19, 12, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by 2 Humped Camel

Had he found the mark with that last round into the back of a guy who was running away and had fallen down that is no longer self defense IMO. I can buy getting caught up in the moment but the two armed criminals were clearly no longer a threat after the first two rounds. The last round was completely unjustified in any self defense scenario even by the broadest definition.

That is a big problem we have in this country today, worrying about the bad guys. They committed the crime and so what if he is shot in the back? One less piece of trash to deal with. We need to worry more about the honest people and less about the criminals. We need to get over the do-gooder feelings about how to treat criminals in the act of a crime.

**coldweatherfan** · Jul 19, 12, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by 2 Humped Camel

I understand that which is why I said I don't have any problem with what he did but in a legal view, I thought it was against the law to shoot a fleeing offender.

Florida law allows self defense against "retreating" criminals - National self-defense | Examiner.com

A Florida court of appeal recently ruled that Florida’s “stand your ground” law allows a crime victim to use deadly force against an attacker who is “retreating.” Allow me to explain why this ruling is correct:

Florida passed its “stand your ground” law out of recognition that the old law favored criminals at the expense of their innocent victims. When the law may impose a severe penalty upon crime victims who defend themselves against criminals, those victims will hesitate to act. Those crime victims who thoroughly know the law will stop to double and triple check whether their self defense action will perfectly meet the law’s intricate requirements for justified self defense. Those crime victims that don’t know the law will also hesitate, often not shooting when they should, out of fear that they might end up prosecuted for murder. That hesitation gives the ruthless criminal, who doesn’t care about the law or the victim’s life, an opportunity to harm that victim.

**Bluegrasscard** · Jul 19, 12, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by coldweatherfan

Florida law allows self defense against "retreating" criminals - National self-defense | Examiner.com

As noted. If he still has a gun he can turn stop 'fleeing' anytime and re-engage. It looks the gun holder loses gun when he falls by the door. But man would not have seen that. And even though it 'appears' the bat wielding robber did not have gun he could have. Until they were out the door there is no reason to 'let down'.