” It was then that he realized the 14-year-old was armed, and shouted to his father that he had a gun”
What is reasonable about that?
Clearly, a 14 year old kid should not be carrying a gun, but unless he pulled it out, that’s not gonna be a valid defense for this guy.
And how did they know the 14 year old had a gun unless he brandished it ?
Isn't possession of a firearm by a minor a criminal offense ?
Did the 14 year old point the firearm at the store owner or his son ?
There is much more to this story which needs to be made public before any reasonable comments about this incident can be made.
“You have to be defending someone’s life or your life. There has to be immediate danger to you.
‘Someone who is running away, has no indication the he is pointing a gun at anyone while he’s running away, he was shot in the back.”
That’s debatable and the case the defense attorney will have to make to the jury.
Let’s not repeat the narrative that the alleged shoplifter was shot over merchandise. Obviously not the case.
Unless the person had was attempting to use the gun to harm this man, simply possession of a firearm by someone, is not justification for shooting in self defense.
Given they haven’t shown any video of this situation, simple seeing someone has a gun on their person, even if they steal a bottle of water does not give you the right to use deadly force against them legally.
If this kid went for the gun and the store owner shot him, no problem. If however this guy shot without provocation, and no, stealing of a bottle of water is not provocation for shooting the thief, even if they have a gun on their person.
I am more than happy to wait to see if there is more information coming about this, if the thief went for his gun, the store owner acted in self defense. If he didn’t he committed murder.