Posted on 07/19/2018 11:16:33 AM PDT by Envisioning
Three employees were shot during a possible bank robbery in the Arlington Heights neighborhood of Fort Worth Thursday morning.
Fort Worth Police Department’s Officer Chris Britt said it happened around 9:20 a.m. at the Veritex Community Bank on Merrick Street.
Uuuhh. Thanks for clarifying that! Kosmo?? d;^)
If the guy on the ground makes a move that endangers you, he’s fair game. If the other guy comes back, and he presents a threat, he’s fair game.
You can’t bring out the gun, and for no other reason than that you have the drop on the guy, shoot the man on the ground more times.
Look, I can’t think of every instance that might have been a part of this. If the guy had a gun in his hand and it was pointed in your direction, you could assume he could raise it and shoot, you could state that.
I’m just saying you need to have a good answer when you are asked why you still felt threatened by someone on the ground, and you shot again.
If I’m the judge and you can convince me you were terrified, then I might be a lot more lenient. If you tell me you just did it to make sure you had killed him, I don’t think that’s going to fly.
I want the pharmacist to come out on top here, but there are some protocols to follow that make your story much more defensible.
I’m no expert, but if you have a business and have a gun there, try to study up on the things you can and can’t do to defend yourself.
Don’t just go buy a gun and never think about it again until you need it.
Not at all unusual in my area. In fact, my branch of the my bank is all female. Almost a year ago a different branch nearby was robbed and 2 female tellers were killed. Even if there were men working there they couln't have shot at the robber because they are not allowed to carry on the job.
I realize what “is” the situation nowadays, I’m just saying that what is is irrational.
What SHOULD be the case is what I’m inferring.
will do when I get home tonight
Thank you, and I apologize if I mischaracterized your take on things.
Fifty years ago, what that pharmacist did wouldn’t have been a legal problem for him, IMO.
That may be true. I don’t know. It is possible.
People screw up. What this guy tried to do was terribly wrong.
Once the threat has been eliminated, it then becomes two equal human beings again.
To shoot a man who is no longer a threat to you, is just wrong.
This guy might rethink his life and turn things around. If he’s no longer a threat, I think he deserves that chance.
If he makes a move again, demonstrates that he’s still a threat, take him out. You should.
No because he flinches, but because he had a gun and looked ready to use it. He’s fair game then.
“Adjacent neighborhood” wouldn’t be Como, by any chance?
The resident animals once set a house on fire for the Fourth of July and then shot at Firemen. Heavy gang presence there.
Whatever conclusion a jury comes to, a life sentence was way out of line. People who have just been traumatized by being robbed at gunpoint should be given some latitude for faulty judgement a mere minute after the traumatization.
I wouldn’t argue with that.
I don’t think the sentence he got was reasoned, but then I don’t know this case all that well.
Look, having a gun to protect yourself is only half the duty of a gun owner.
You have an obligation to keep yourself, your family, and associates safe, but it is also your duty to know the law and what you can and can’t get away with, and comply.
You can harm your family too, if you don’t abide by the law. You must know what you can and can’t get away with.
I’m saying that what you can do - “get away with” to put it roughly - has changed substantially over the past 50 years.
So, now even people like George Zimmerman, defending himself in the commission of an aggravated assault against him, get raked over the coals.
When it comes to George Zimmerman I agree. He was clearly in fear for his life.
The only thing they had going for them, was possibly an illegal concealed carry, or some other angle.
That failed.
He got railroaded by the press and the Left. Obama opened up his yap and offended about everyone with a few functioning brain cells.
Let’s go back to the pharmacy.
If it was your son and he tried to rob a place, was shot, and was laying in a pool of blood, unconscious, and there was no gun within ten feet of him, wouldn’t you be pretty upset if the pharmacist went and got another gun, came back and executed him by shooting him in the head?
I’m not trying to defend the kid per se. He deserved to go to the hospital and obtain medical care. Then he should have been tried in a court of law. And then he should have done 7 to 10 in prison > IMO.
If your son got in with the wrong crowd and was laying there, he wouldn’t deserve to be executed.
If he had become a threat again, and the pharmacist had came to the conclusion he had to be shot again, and he did, I think he would have been fair game.
While this may not be how it happened, it’s important to me to introduce a concept.
We generally don’t kick a guy when he’s down and out, even if he has done something terribly wrong.
By no means do I think the pharmacist should put his life on the line for this concept though.
As long as it is “REASONED”, you allow the guy to live.
I'll answer your question the best I can with what I am presented. If a son of mine descended to the level of armed robbery, no, I would not blame the pharmacist for what he did, although yes, I would admittedly be upset. This is not a "mistake" committed by my son. It is a blatant act of deadly aggression, not only toward a single individual, but toward society at large - every one of us.
Rockford has gone from the All American City. (In 1950 or so Life to a front page photo spread on life in Rockford the positive role model city. Today it is one of America's most violent and crime ridden. What happened? The answer will also lead you to why DT was elected.
What kind of holster set do you use?
Possibly a domestic dispute.
The pharmacist was stupid. He properly went down for the killing the unarmed robber. It should have been manslaughter because he did it in the heat of passion, rather than murder.
The 15 years that two members of the parole board voted for sounds about right. But he should have gone for a plea deal instead of gambling on a trial. (Stupid a second time).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.