Don't get me wrong,I do advocate carrying.
Given the nature of the attack,the the proximity and dominance of the attacker I'm in doubt the victim would have been able to draw and fire.(Assuming the attacker would see the draw and take action)
Maybe,early on, but just grabbing the wallet was a "property crime"..,,,not "mortal danger" yet,right? Can't shoot somebody over the threat of a one on one unarmed man whoopin,right? Its only a wallet?
Had the victim drawn and fired before the punches,would he go free?How much time was there to decide? 2 seconds? Three?How fast do you decide to kill someone?
Once it started(2nd punch),the victim was owned.
Obviously,exposing your wallet/cash standing in line is a really bad idea.
Here is the sad part.
The person who could provide an intervention in this case would be an armed third party,(customer or employee.)
I'd like to think part of why we carry is to look out for each other...
But the question has been flogged pretty hard on TFL.
The message I get? Right or wrong? Its naïve and stupid for an armed citizen to intervene.It sucks to be the victim,but,I don't have my weapon to be a hero. While the victim gets beaten,perhaps to death,I have an opportunity to take my weapon and run away.
If I do intervene,I'll be arrested and prosecuted,and I'll lose my home and everything I own plus at least a year or two of hell to the courts.
I don't know the victim,he means nothing to me.
So,forget looking out for each other. Leave,and don't get involved. That's what cops are for.......
From reading discussions here,that seems to be what about 70% of TFL members would say,especially former LEO's.
And the 30 % who would shoot the SOB are regarded as reckless naïve wannabe heros who would probably miss and kill a mother pushing her baby carriage down the street and then be shot dead by an off duty LEO who thought the guy with the gun was bad..
Or do I misinterpret the thread responses I have read here?