Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
He was on his way out of the diner. He was finished robbing people. He had succeeded in that part of his task - to threaten with a (fake) gun and rob them.
He wasn't shot until he had turned to leave the premises. He was shot multiple times in the back. On his way out. What the shooter did, was take the law into his own hands, and shot a man who had already committed his crime and had stopped committing it in order to leave.
In other words - he had ceased threatening anyone at the time he was shot. He was no longer threatening to kill anyone, shoot anyone, rob anyone, steal from anyone, hurt anyone. He had already done what he came to do, at that point, successfully, without anyone being physically harmed.
He should be alive, in prison, and charged with the crimes. He should not be dead by the hands of a civilian who had no authority to shoot someone who was no longer committing the crime for which "protecting" and "defending" would have been appropriate.
|
You don't have a clue if any of what you posted is true...
He still had the gun in his hand (fake doesn't matter), pointing it at people. He was still a threat. Someone could have moved suddenly, causing him to react (and shoot if the gun was real). The fact that the gun was fake is irrelevant.
The only issue that may be a problem (from the grainy video I saw) was that the man who shot him walked up to the perp (while he was laying on the floor) and shot him several more times.
The question for the courts will be was that excessive , or is there evidence that "a reasonable person" still considered there to be a threat...
Time will tell...