The following video was posted in another forum, the members of which responded by laughing at the response of the robbers and saying they wish the shop keeper was a better shot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w7-KYWqzLo&feature=related
A proprietor of a jewelry shop was maced 12 seconds into the video, and at 15 seconds the robbers break the glass top of a display case and immediately run away. I would presume this is because the shop keeper reappeared armed at that point. At 19 seconds the shopkeeper is back in the picture with a handgun.
At 34 seconds the shop keeper fires a shot. Fifteen seconds have elapsed since the shop keeper came back into the picture, and 19 seconds since the robbers made their last aggressive move by spraying the shop keeper. During that time, the robbers, scumbags though they are, made only cowering gestures with no visible aggression, and appear to have attempted to leave the scene (apparently blocked by a door with an electronically activated lock that kept them in the store). Granting that the shop keeper was maced, during that same period he appears to be in full control of his faculties, excepting only that he wiped his eyes a couple of times.
Suppose his aim was better. Would it have been a justifiable shooting? Or did he fire out of anger or frustration?
Whether we like it or not, there are jurisdictions in which shooting someone nineteen seconds after their last aggressive move, after you prevented them from leaving the scene, would be a decision that led to a prosecution, and perhaps a successful one. I hope the shop keeper turned out OK legally, but it seems marginal to me. Opinions welcome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w7-KYWqzLo&feature=related
A proprietor of a jewelry shop was maced 12 seconds into the video, and at 15 seconds the robbers break the glass top of a display case and immediately run away. I would presume this is because the shop keeper reappeared armed at that point. At 19 seconds the shopkeeper is back in the picture with a handgun.
At 34 seconds the shop keeper fires a shot. Fifteen seconds have elapsed since the shop keeper came back into the picture, and 19 seconds since the robbers made their last aggressive move by spraying the shop keeper. During that time, the robbers, scumbags though they are, made only cowering gestures with no visible aggression, and appear to have attempted to leave the scene (apparently blocked by a door with an electronically activated lock that kept them in the store). Granting that the shop keeper was maced, during that same period he appears to be in full control of his faculties, excepting only that he wiped his eyes a couple of times.
Suppose his aim was better. Would it have been a justifiable shooting? Or did he fire out of anger or frustration?
Whether we like it or not, there are jurisdictions in which shooting someone nineteen seconds after their last aggressive move, after you prevented them from leaving the scene, would be a decision that led to a prosecution, and perhaps a successful one. I hope the shop keeper turned out OK legally, but it seems marginal to me. Opinions welcome.