Did the gun grabber present an imminent threat? Probably not. Yes he presented a long term threat but considering that he is now out on bail (accepting facts presented in this thread) that threat has not gone away.
I can't agree with all of this. First off is the fact that the thief
was an imminent threat. There is no justifiable "good" reason for stealing a pistol. Arguably the thief might have not been an immediate threat (at a specific moment), but he absolutely was an imminent threat as well as a long term threat.
Ok, so he's out on bail now, that the threat is back on the street is the responsibility of the Judge who granted bail. NOT the guy who DID STOP the threat, that day.
The assistant manager, while acting in good faith to prevent harm, gained nothing in the long term and took on substantial risk.
I do agree with this, however, something was gained by taking the risk. The thief was stopped, he didn't get away with that gun, on that day. He didn't get to use that gun on anyone, that day, or on any other day. Maybe the thief will steal another gun, successfully, and maybe use it for evil, on another day, but he didn't get to do it on that day, he was stopped.
Sometimes, taking "substantial risk" for a short term gain IS the right thing to do. I think not taking an action that could have short term gain, for fear that it won't have long term gain is a very,very poor choice when people's lives are at risk.
Would you sleep soundly if you had failed to act, and because of that someone innocent died? What if the thief that you could have stopped, and didn't even try to, shot someone in the parking lot after getting past you? What if that someone was your wife or child ??? Would you still say it wasn't worth taking the risk because you couldn't see any long term gain???
How about an active shooter situation? Would you say it wasn't worthwhile to try and take him down, because he wasn't shooting at the moment you had the opportunity?? Would you let him go on, doing what he wanted, shooting other people, or would you DO something if you had the means??
Rabid dogs must be stopped. Not doing so, when you could, because the dog isn't trying to bite YOU at the moment isn't, in my opinion. the right answer.
Now I'm not saying throw your life away in a vain attempt, that would be stupid. But if you're the guy one the spot, and you decide, in the few seconds available, that you could act, successfully, then I think it would be moral cowardice not to.
On the other hand, if, in the limited time available, you decide that nothing you could do would matter, and would only add to your personal risk, its not cowardice to do nothing, its prudence.
None of us was there, none of us had to make that decision in a few seconds time, and so, none of us should armchair quarterback his decision.
Just my opinion, and worth every penny you paid for it.