Holding @ Gunpoint, Shot in Back

D

Double Naught Spy

New member
As these topics come up frequently, I thought this was an interesting story. A pawnbroker was holding a robber/shoplifter at gunpoint, but things got out of hand. Gunpoint, as it turns out, isn't as simple as it sounds (which as been the point of several threads). A fight ensued with another individual helping the pawnbroker. The robber breaks free and is shot in the back as he ran. Lethal force was apparently justified in the situation.

The robber was arrested and the pawnbroker was not.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us...17/pkg-pawn-shop-shooting-caught-on-tape.wsvn

http://www.local10.com/news/Police-...fter/-/1717324/17011076/-/s9xe9r/-/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLNW7NwluxQ

While the article says the gun was fired during the scuffle, it is stated in the vids and appears in the vids that the gun was fired when the combatants were separated.

Of course, why you would hold somebody at gunpoint and have a gun on a table within reach is beyond me...but that apparently was the case.

This took place in Miami, Florida.
 
An infamous thief, when asked why he robbed banks said, "cuz that's where the money is." My point is why rob a pawn shop--I know they keep sometimes large sums of cash on hand, but if they sell guns, everyone behind the counter is packing a sidearm. If this particular perpetrator survived--he was lucky.

As an aside, in Texas, the recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" actually allows a homeowner or any resident to now stand up to those who break into their homes. They are authorized to protect themselves, their families and their possessions with lethal force if needed. This, in contrast to previous law that said the resident must flee and hide in their own home away from any assailant. Thank God, Texas now realizes that a man must have the right to stand up to criminals and protect themselves inside their own homes.
 
It's just words, but the Castle Doctrine isn't what says you don't have to retreat if you can. The negation of the duty to retreat is typically referred to as a Stand Your Ground law.
 
An infamous thief, when asked why he robbed banks said, "cuz that's where the money is." My point is why rob a pawn shop--I know they keep sometimes large sums of cash on hand, but if they sell guns, everyone behind the counter is packing a sidearm.
Click to expand...

LOL, you really don't know about pawn shops or read the article I see. You could make the same argument about mom and pop convenience stores or any other non major corporate small business and possibly be right. All these businesses get robbed and some types get robbed often. So "Why?" is a non-issue.

Maybe you missed it, but the guy was actually shoplifting a drill when he was caught. He wasn't robbing for money.
 
This is an interesting incident. I find it interesting that the pawn guy allows the guy to advance on him while at gun point, then physically tries to stop the BG when the BG grabs the gun. Then shoots the guy as he's running away. I'm not trying to second guess his actions, but trying to figure out what the tipping point was for the pawn guy. It's difficult to tell from the video what the BG is actually doing when he gets shot.

To me, the zenith of the threat would be when the BG advanced and advanced again to grab the gun. But I could only imagine that the situation in real time one might not process all the factors and changing gears from detaining someone to using lethal force probably wouldn't come easily.
 
I find it interesting that the pawn guy allows the guy to advance on him while at gun point, then physically tries to stop the BG when the BG grabs the gun. Then shoots the guy as he's running away. I'm not trying to second guess his actions, but trying to figure out what the tipping point was for the pawn guy.
Click to expand...

As you have alluded, there's no way for us to know why someone would hesitate vs. act.

But I'm afraid that some might hesitate due to the publicity the surrounds some shooting cases -- such as the Trayvon Martin incident -- and the resulting fear that they might become become the the subject of a media circus.

I'm surely not suggesting that anyone should hesitate to defend himself when facing potential death or great bodily harm. Just saying someone might.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top