[gorknoids]

http://www.wimp.com/badthieves/

[JiroZero713]

Smart Mother right there.

Doesn't even look it....and that's a good thing. Bad guys don't know what hit them. Most of them are cowards anyway....and that accomplice got hit square in the spine....paralyzed immediately.

[ScottG]

Murtha's an ex-Marine isn't he??

[falseharmonix]

while I support the man's right to defend himself against an armed attacker, I must say watching that video makes me wonder about a few things...

The accomplice (the one without a gun) was shot in the back, while attempting to flee. IMO, he is no longer a threat (not to mention that he was never armed, or if he was, never drew a weapon on the viewing area of the tape).

Is shooting someone in the back legal? I can't imagine that it is.

Also, I have to wonder where the first round ended up that the jeweler fired (the one that shattered the glass door).

[1861]

looks like a total rightous shooting to me .

Or as they say in Illinois , PAY TO PLAY!

[Kent E]

How does he know what's going to happen? How does he know the guy isn't armed? I say you rob a store at gun point YOU GET SHOT!

[falseharmonix]

Originally Posted by Kent E

How does he know what's going to happen? How does he know the guy isn't armed? I say you rob a store at gun point YOU GET SHOT!

Well, he didn't (and I don't) know that he wasn't armed. I do know that he never brandished a weapon in the camera's view (but again, this doesn't mean he wasn't armed).

But what I do know is that he was shot in the back while fleeing. He wasn't returning fire, and he didn't 'appear' to be reaching for a weapon. I'm not trying to say the shooting was not justified. I totally agree with the force he used. I just think that someone who is running away from you is no longer a threat.

[gorknoids]

Originally Posted by falseharmonix

while I support the man's right to defend himself against an armed attacker, I must say watching that video makes me wonder about a few things...

The accomplice (the one without a gun) was shot in the back, while attempting to flee. IMO, he is no longer a threat (not to mention that he was never armed, or if he was, never drew a weapon on the viewing area of the tape).

Is shooting someone in the back legal? I can't imagine that it is.

Also, I have to wonder where the first round ended up that the jeweler fired (the one that shattered the glass door).

I thought about that, also. I concluded that turning your back on an armed victim does not give you some sort of magical immunity. The first round doesn't matter. All that mattered was that the victim lived.

[SGT-MILLER]

Have any of you ever been in a gunfight?

I seriously doubt that the store owner was in a logical state of mind at the moment.

His body was pumped full of adrenaline and he was experiencing the "fight or flight" syndrome.

Basically he was pulling the trigger until his gun was either empty or his brain got a chance to register things again. That's why people have tunnel vision or things slow down during a big threat. The brain is having problems digesting all the info and body chemicals at once.

Probably shouldn't become internet tactical experts on this issue, people. The Marine (once a Marine always a Marine) acted in a way to defend his life. End of story.

[CA357]

Originally Posted by SGT-MILLER

...Probably shouldn't become internet tactical experts on this issue, people. The Marine (once a Marine always a Marine) acted in a way to defend his life. End of story.

'Zactly...