Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
The robber didn't actually ever physically harm anyone. The shooter killed someone. If the robber had been disarmed, alive, he would not have been executed for the crime of robbery. The crime of robbery doesn't come with a death sentence. The shooter took the law into his own hands, and executed someone who deserved jail time - not death.
Vigilante justice only encourages people to be violent, it doesn't solve crime. It IS a crime. You don't fight fire with an atom bomb, you don't fight robbery with death.
|
Sorry, but the fact that the robber with what appeared to be a lethal weapon was killed while committing a felony, did NOT shoot anyone first has nothing to do with the issue. If he was pointing a gun at you and someone else shot him, the shooter would be legally justified. In this case, the robber was brandishing the gun, put folks in fear of their lives and was shot down like the criminal he is/was. The shooter should not be charged, period. I would venture that thousands of Villagers carry guns for protection. They are not "vigilantes." It is ridiculous to suggest that someone should ever attempt to disarm a dangerous criminal. A felon is NOT owed anything. When he chooses to commit a crime, he knows there will be consequences and may result in his death.