[imardmd1]

And has the person who fired the warning shot at the perpetrator been arrested yet for the “unlawful” discharge of a weapon, thereby endangering the rest of the patrons?

In fact, if the holdup is over, no shots were fired so far, and the robber is leaving, you are just asking for big trouble--maybe jail time for yourself. No sarcasm.

Nobody likes a back shooter.

[Quickgun]

Here in Texas, the law reads that deadly force can be used to retain property, if the victim has reason to believe that there is no other way to recover it. I know it's not that way in other states, and that law is vague, but in certain circumstances, you could legally shoot a perp in the back. I'll have to research this, it may read that it has to be on ones own private property, not sure about a public place...

[SampleMan]

I know what the law is, but the reality is that when someone threatens your life, that feeling doesn’t just evaporate when they turn their back.

From personal experience with a gun pointed at me, I’d say that my natural inclination was to shoot the perp on sight, even several hours after the incident.

The fight or flight mechanism is very base and it is expecting too much of the average citizen to not fire just because the perp turns away.

[Zippo44]

Au contraire! I think many of these thieves would benefit from a shot to the back. Your objection to backshooting obviously originated in your viewing of way too many tv westerns in your youth. In actual fact, westerners generally preferred to shoot rattlesnakes and other vermin from the back, minimizing risk to the good guy.

[Lancey Howard]

Are you saying the guy should have let the robber get away? Or are you saying the man should have pulled out his gun while the robber was already holding a gun to the man’s family?

Personally, I would have shot the sonuvabitch in the back of the head. More than once.