[imardmd1]

Your objection to backshooting obviously originated in your viewing of way too many tv westerns in your youth.

Has nothing to do with my personal history. It has to do with shooting someone not when he is threatening to someone else, but rather after he has ceases to be a threat to others (and to you) and is leaving the scene.

To shoot him then smacks of sniping at someone not to prevent the robbery, but to take advantage of a situation that will give you an excuse to wound someone just for retribution. That is not your job, it is the job of law enforcement. IMHO

[MortMan]

An armed robber ceases to be a threat when he turns his back and starts to leave?

Sorry - Once he is out of the building, down the street, and out of gunshot range (for him shooting back) is when the threat is over. Not one millisecond before.

[Magnum44]

...take advantage of a situation that will give you an excuse to wound someone just for retribution...is the job of law enforcement

Hmmm, was that sarcasm?

[Zippo44]

Until the individual who commited the armed robbery is no longer armed, he is a threat to my life. And most courts in rational states see it that way.

You can just sit there and wet your pants if you like.