Robbers forgot to read sign ""Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

[deuse]

Police don't make mistakes. Didn't you know that ?

I.......must......resist

Are you a member of The NTPA

 

[Morgoth]

This story could only have been improved by the shopkeeper shouting "You just got served" as he fired the last shot.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

This story could only have been improved by the shopkeeper shouting "You just got served" as he fired the last shot.

Thank you, come again would have been better perhaps ?

 

[Morgoth]

Perhaps, but only because I read that in the voice of Apu.

 

[Dolph]

A good example of self defence, much better than the ones usually trotted out.

 

[scorza]

A good example of self defence, much better than the ones usually trotted out.

But he still should have been arrested and charged with murder right? Public interest and all that?

 

[Jokester]

But he still should have been arrested and charged with murder right? Public interest and all that?

Sounds like he was:-

The 72-year-old wholesaler of commercial restaurant equipment had been up all night, questioned by police about how he'd drawn a shotgun and killed two of four armed robbery suspects who entered his Kaplan Brothers Blue Flame store Thursday afternoon.

Edit: Arrested I mean, obviously nor charged with anything once the facts had been established

 

[Dolph]

But he still should have been arrested and charged with murder right? Public interest and all that?

Arrested, yes (and he was). Charged would depend on the facts of the case. If it's clear cut self defence, then what would charging him achieve apart from wasting taxpayers money. If it's not clear cut, then it should go to a trial for a jury to decide.

 

[scorza]

Sounds like he was:-

He could have been questioned as a witness. The only arrests mentioned in that article are for two of the surviving robbers.

Edit: Arrested I mean, obviously nor charged with anything once the facts had been established

Police shouldn't show any sort of discretion when dead bodies and shot guns are involved.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

They drew their weapons first and as such the shopkeeper had every right to defend himself. They had their chance to leave and chose not to take it so they got exactly what they deserved. They displayed overtly aggresive behaviour by pistol whipping one of the staff members and still chose not to leave when told there was no money. I feel that the outcome would have been several dead employees had the owner not acted as he did. Well done to him for saving the lives of innocents. Well done to the Police for not filing charges against him.

The law in this country could learn a thing or two from the Yanks, most notably, personal defence and long sentences for violent and repeat offenders.

 

[Bumhucker]

Seems pretty reckless to me. Starting a gunfight where unarmed bystanders could easily be hit? He can say he sensed they were about to shoot but he didn't know. I wonder how he would have felt if an employee had died, knowing the fight might never have happened.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not showing sympathy for the deceased.

 

[Alasdair]

I definitely think he did the right thing and shouldn't be charged.

Had this been in Britain, he would have been charged with murder and the surviving robbers would claim their human rights had been infringed due to their enforced disability after being shot. A no win no fee lawyer would then take up the case, the armed robbers would receive a community sentence and live the rest of their lives sponging off the welfare state and the compensation they received. Meanwhile, the guy would be doing a life sentence (parole in perhaps 4 years though as we're nice like that) after being convicted by a jury of imbeciles picked at random and influenced by the tabloid coverage proclaiming the robbers as innocent victims.

In America, the guy defending himself would be free to live out his life, and the robbers would be doing 25 to life.

</rant>

 

[Wicksta]

Had this been in Britain, he would have been charged with murder and the surviving robbers would claim their human rights had been infringed due to their enforced disability after being shot. A no win no fee lawyer would then take up the case, the armed robbers would receive a community sentence and live the rest of their lives sponging off the welfare state and the compensation they received.

Seriously, why do people come out with **** like this? You do realise where the 'no win no fee' lawyers first came from don't you?

 

[Alasdair]

Seriously, why do people come out with **** like this? You do realise where the 'no win no fee' lawyers first came from don't you?

Fair enough, but we seem to have an embedded culture of rehabilitation and giving the offender too many rights, whereas the Americans have a far more punitive penal system. Each has their benefits, however it is clear that our approach does not dissuade people from re-offending.

 

[Angilion]

Seems pretty reckless to me. Starting a gunfight where unarmed bystanders could easily be hit? He can say he sensed they were about to shoot but he didn't know. I wonder how he would have felt if an employee had died, knowing the fight might never have happened.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not showing sympathy for the deceased.

As far as I am concerned, if someone pulls a weapon during an attack, they are intending to use it.

Robbery with violence and with the robbers holding guns is, to me, an immediate threat of death. The level of reasonable force in defence is therefore extremely high. Escape in such a situation is impossible, so the use of reasonable force is justified.

He didn't know that the robbers weren't about to kill everyone in the shop. They were certainly threatening to, in a manner that was obviously serious.

So I see this as reasonable force, going on the available evidence. If it was a criminal trial, I'd want to see more evidence before making a judgement.

I think it's regrettable that two people died, but that it was a morally justifiable course of action and arguably the least bad course of action available to the shopkeeper.

 

[Angilion]

They drew their weapons first and as such the shopkeeper had every right to defend himself. They had their chance to leave and chose not to take it so they got exactly what they deserved. They displayed overtly aggresive behaviour by pistol whipping one of the staff members and still chose not to leave when told there was no money. I feel that the outcome would have been several dead employees had the owner not acted as he did. Well done to him for saving the lives of innocents. Well done to the Police for not filing charges against him.

The law in this country could learn a thing or two from the Yanks, most notably, personal defence and long sentences for violent and repeat offenders.

The personal defence laws in the UK are very strong. The only relevant difference is the legality of gun ownership. UK law does recognise killing in defence of self or others as being reasonable force in some cases, and yes there are established precedents for exactly that.

 

[Angilion]

Fair enough, but we seem to have an embedded culture of rehabilitation and giving the offender too many rights, whereas the Americans have a far more punitive penal system. Each has their benefits, however it is clear that our approach does not dissuade people from re-offending.

Their's doesn't work very well either, even if you don't object to things such as people being jailed for life for stealing part of a pizza (and no, I am not exaggerating - that's a real case).

 

[Energize]

Not likely.
You are allowed to use reasonable force to DEFEND yourself. Which this man was doing. You can not shoot people in the back or chase people to hurt them.

It was only recently that someone was prosecuted for killing someone in self defence despite the attacker carrying a weapon and breaking into the defendants home after threatening him with a uzi. So I wouldn't be so sure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7937587.stm

 

[Meridian]

It was only recently that someone was prosecuted for killing someone in self defence despite the attacker carrying a weapon and breaking into the defendants home after threatening him with a uzi. So I wouldn't be so sure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7937587.stm

I would guess that this was the important point:

Mr Batchelor, the court was told, decided to arm himself with a legally-owned shotgun at his home and not call the police, but to "resolve the matter himself".

That is, he was effectively waiting for a chance to kill the man threatening him. That is self defence only by a stretch.


M

 

[Meridian]

Oh - and for us literary pedants, the thread title (and the quote in the story that it's from) is a miss-quote.


M