News of this sort of shooting rarely is publicly displayed. Yet, various researchers conclude it happens many hundreds of times annually in America.
Not interested in debating the moral aspects, or personal firearms possession philosophies. Consider the overall circumstances, and the decision made by the gun owner. Unknowns here include: number of persons present, general attitude and demeanor of the robber, amount of "gun smarts" possessed by the shooter, depth of training and his overall understanding of the implications.
Here's what I see. The District Attorney will be put under pressure by his Mayor and likely many others who view recent SCOTUS decision blocking Chicago's ban on handgun ownership as personally intrusive. He will in the very least, HAVE to charge the shooter with Discharge of a Firearm within City Limits. He may charge him with murder. If that, he will contend this: robber was masked. Therefore robber feared identification after his escape: he PLANNED to escape, intending to harm no one, merely get away with some dough. Therefore, he did not pose an imminent threat to the lives of those present. Had he INTENDED to kill, he would not have worn a mask.
The armed citizen might have thought the same way, depending on the depth (unknown) of his training regarding use of lethal force. The D.A. will attempt to present evidence that the shooter obtained legal carry status seeking just such an encounter. You may scoff at this, but it happens all the time. A carefully arranged "set-up" must be present, for failure to convict weighs very heavily on Law Enforcement credibility.
Or, the armed citizen, witnessing a possibly once in a lifetime, exceedingly frightening event, a robber pointing a handgun at a store clerk, quickly saw that the lives of any present could be in immediate jeopardy, that including his own life, and he acted accordingly, terminating a possible death-threat. Note that he did not injure any bystanders, and presumably awaited police arrival.
This would be a most interesting case to know the outcome of. What do you think? imp

Not interested in debating the moral aspects, or personal firearms possession philosophies. Consider the overall circumstances, and the decision made by the gun owner. Unknowns here include: number of persons present, general attitude and demeanor of the robber, amount of "gun smarts" possessed by the shooter, depth of training and his overall understanding of the implications.
Here's what I see. The District Attorney will be put under pressure by his Mayor and likely many others who view recent SCOTUS decision blocking Chicago's ban on handgun ownership as personally intrusive. He will in the very least, HAVE to charge the shooter with Discharge of a Firearm within City Limits. He may charge him with murder. If that, he will contend this: robber was masked. Therefore robber feared identification after his escape: he PLANNED to escape, intending to harm no one, merely get away with some dough. Therefore, he did not pose an imminent threat to the lives of those present. Had he INTENDED to kill, he would not have worn a mask.
The armed citizen might have thought the same way, depending on the depth (unknown) of his training regarding use of lethal force. The D.A. will attempt to present evidence that the shooter obtained legal carry status seeking just such an encounter. You may scoff at this, but it happens all the time. A carefully arranged "set-up" must be present, for failure to convict weighs very heavily on Law Enforcement credibility.
Or, the armed citizen, witnessing a possibly once in a lifetime, exceedingly frightening event, a robber pointing a handgun at a store clerk, quickly saw that the lives of any present could be in immediate jeopardy, that including his own life, and he acted accordingly, terminating a possible death-threat. Note that he did not injure any bystanders, and presumably awaited police arrival.
This would be a most interesting case to know the outcome of. What do you think? imp
