Would-be robber shot dead inside Philadelphia dollar store: Police

[Dial H For Hero]

https://6abc.com/philadelphia-shooting-robber-shot-girard-street-dollar-store/11678913/

PHILADELPHIA -- Philadelphia police say a would-be robber was killed inside of a dollar store on Thursday night.

It happened around 8:30 p.m. at the Dollar General located at 9th Street and Girard Avenue.

Police say a man tried to rob the store when he was shot in the head. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The store manager, who is licensed to carry, shot and killed a man who said he had a gun and ordered the cashier to empty the register, according to investigators.

(Excerpt)

[Buzz cook]

1. Seems a bit excessive

The death penalty for robbing a dollar store.

[Dial H For Hero]

4. Would it have been less excessive had he been robbing a Neiman Marcus?

“Boss, this guy is robbing me at gunpoint. Help!”

“I’m not going to shoot someone for threatening your life over a lousy hundred bucks. It would be different if you had some real money in that drawer. Just give it to him and hope he doesn’t kill you.”

[Buzz cook]

16. How frequently are people killed by armed robbers?

Are the odds better if you give them the money and let them go or if you pull a weapon on the robber?

And yest the death penalty is excessive for any robbery. Even for stealing an election.

[Dial H For Hero]

17. I'm not sure of the likelihood of a "typical" robber injuring or killing their victim(s).

If I am being robbed at weapon point and I am myself armed, I would have to evaluate the situation on a moment by moment basis. Should I conclude that my odds of avoiding being injured or killed would be bettered by using my own weapon, I would do so.

As for the morality of it, as long as my life is being threatened by an armed assailant I have every right to defend myself up to and including lethal force.

[Buzz cook]

18. And if the robber were

captured instead of killed at the scene, should he get the death sentence?

[Dial H For Hero]

19. Once he is no longer a threat, the judicial process takes over.

Accordingly he’s not to be given the death penalty (presuming he killed someone) until he’s had his day in court and exhausted his appeals.

[Buzz cook]

23. And how threatening?

Are there levels of threat?

What standard do we use?

Does the shop keeper have a responsibility to not use excessive force.

Does the shop keeper have a duty to retreat?

[Lucid Dreamer]

24. Jurisdictions may vary in the answer to these questions.

>Are there levels of threat?
Yes. To justify use of deadly force most places require that there be a threat of death or Great Bodily Harm [or Severe Bodily Injury, or some other similar wording].

>What standard do we use?
Innocence.
Imminence
Proportionality
Avoidance [or Retreat] in some jurisdictions
Reasonableness

>Does the shop keeper have a responsibility to not use excessive force.
Depends on jurisdiction

>Does the shop keeper have a duty to retreat?
Depends on jurisdiction

For a very good coverage I suggest The Law of Self Defense by Attorney Andrew F. Branca.
He goes into the details of the elements and standard pertaining to the use of deadly force and the elements necessary to present in a court of law.
A comprehensive index covers each state and the differences needed for a successful defense.

-- I am not a lawyer

[DashOneBravo]

7. Well that's an easy fix

You could make it where no one is killed. Stop robbing places.

[LiberatedUSA]

10. Isn't that what the robber was there with a gun to threaten to do?

Enact a death penalty, if the money isn’t handed over? Are you from the “one laying dead on the floor is morally superior to one explaining to the cops why the robber is dead” school of thought?

[bottomofthehill]

2. As the kids now say

Fuck around and find out.

[AndyS]

3. As of yesterday . . .

Total shootings=9,769
Children under 12=221
Accidental shootings=313
Defensive gun use=249

When good guys with guns shoot more bad guys on purpose than other people by accident get back to me and we can both celebrate.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. I infer those are year to date numbers.

From what I've been reading it seems near impossible to agree on what exactly is a defensive gun use let alone quantify that somewhat moving target. Can you share an opinion on what should qualify?

[AndyS]

6. I'd say something that can be verified. Otherwise it's just opinion and opinions are

like assholes: everybody has one and they all stink.

That is the standard I have been held to for the 40 years I've "discussed" gun issues. I see no reason to change the standard now.

edit to clarify:
The definition of DGU isn't really in question. WIKI says:"Defensive gun use (DGU) is the use or presentation of a firearm for self-defense, defense of others or, in some cases, protecting property." I'm good with that. The issue is how are such things counted? Simply asking if a DGU occurred in the last year isn't sufficient because gun owners have a vested interest in inflating the number. To be kind, they may tend to 'puff' a bit and create what statisticians call 'false positives'. Hence my need for verification.

[The Mouth]

8. Hell, I had a Defensive Crossbow Use

Seriously.

Had a burglar trying to get into my garage.

Have a crossbow, with improvised tactical light (AKA duct taped flashlight).

They peed their pants.

Didn't need to fire.

I don't like burglars, the only 'good' thief is one rapidly assuming ambient temperature.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. I'd have to agree but...

I've always had a problem justifying policy and regulations based on surveys and statistics. I also see that there are 3 problems with DGU statistics.

One is the surveys of folks about DGUs where some percentage of people respond with a positive for an incident where a crime was averted because the subject smacked the perpetrator with a briefcase containing an unloaded black powder pistol.

Also a problem is the idea that police reports and perpetrator body counts are the only actual instances of DGUs.

The other problem is folks that want to justify their campaigns for more or fewer restrictions based on those, IMO, invalid collections of data from either end of the spectrum. IMO, there is ample evidence for many valid and justified DGUs. Setting the standards for who can carry open or concealed and where is a great topic for discussion as is the type of training and other requirements that should be enforced. (I'm not a fan of systems where anyone who can legally own a gun is allowed to carry with no licensing requirements.)

YMMV

[AndyS]

11. The Gun Violence Archive uses

news reports as a source. More accurate and better sourced than even the FBI crime report as so many jurisdictions don't report. The algorithm searches hundreds of sources and cross references to eliminate duplicates.

They settled on this method precisely because there are no other sources.

As for not liking policy based on research and statistics what else is there? Wishful thinking? Thoughts and prayers?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. re: "...what else is there?"

There is always the human right to life, the right to self-defense. I'm in favor of controls that assure we don't sell guns to violent gangs at the 7-eleven counter with no BGC. I think it should take more than pulse to be allowed to carry. I don't think gun laws are analogous to driving uphill. If you aren't getting somewhere as fast as you need to, you just mash the gas. Not all gun laws should be like the flood gate of a dam.

[AndyS]

13. "What else" referrs to what to base

policy on. Other than provable and repeatable data there is only wishful thinking.

There has always been a right to self defense but it has morphed to right to kill (SYG).

As for a right to life, why are gun owner's right to life more important than the rest of us. If that's not the case why are there 3900 gun deaths and only 250 DGUs yet gun regulations being loosened?

For decades I have had to offer iron clad evidence for my statements yet now rhe rules are different for the gunners?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Yes, I know that "what else" referred to.

IMO, gun regulations need to comport with basic rights first and then to what case law has determined as reasonable.

"...why are there 3900 gun deaths and only 250 DGUs yet gun regulations being loosened?"

I would guess there are a number of reasons:
I've not heard of any deaths resulting from a traditional duel and I infer that most of the killers work hard to surprise their victims and chose those they expected to be unarmed and/or unprepared to defend themselves.
I also suspect a small fraction of gun owners are actually carrying often.
Of the fraction that carry, I suspect that while many folks train some and practice, not many train for the kind of situations that some police and SWAT units do.

I don't feel I'm up to the fast reactions and instantaneous decisions that may be required for firearm defense nor can I afford what I see as the most necessary.

I would a agree that there are things that can be done to improve the situation. I also like an awareness and responsibility campaign of some kind.

[AndyS]

15. I'm sorry, I can't let this go.

Up thread (#9)you said, "IMO there is ample evidence . . ."

Here you respond that "I suspect" twice after "I would guess".

WTF?

PLEASE show me the 'ample evidence' and back up your suspicions and guesses with something besides WISHFULL THINKING. I've had to do that every time I post anything.

BTW thanks for admitting that having a gun doesn't make someone omnipotent or invulnerable.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Replies

PLEASE show me the 'ample evidence'

Well you mentioned 249. I think 249 qualifies as "many". I think the number is higher but let's work with your number. I don't think all of those 249 resulted in a lifesaving level event. I do think the number of lifesaving level events included among that 249 is much more than 0.

When good guys with guns shoot more bad guys on purpose than other people by accident get back to me and we can both celebrate.

I think part of being the good guys is not actually shooting folks.

One main point I'm making is that valid civilian DGUs fall mostly into 3 categories:
- Someone is found with a bullet hole and the legal system has either found him/her not guilty or declined to prosecute them.
- Law enforcement takes a report from a credible witness.
- A self-dense event takes place and goes unreported.

I surmise that the 249 cases you mentioned can't possibly include that last category since those are by definition unverifiable. In my professional world, verification is conducted by any of the following means: test, analysis, demonstration and inspection. Prefacing this by reiterating that polls and surveys are statistically unreliable, I would find it difficult to believe that everyone responding such polls and surveys beyond the 249 you list, is fabricating or exaggerating. This is my reasoned analysis.
From the CDC:

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html

My other main point is that a single life saved by a DGU use justifies maintaining DGUs as legal. I am unqualified to judge a randomly selected fellow citizen as not deserving of such a chance. If a person legally can obtain a firearm, I think they should be able to keep in their possession on their property. I think provisions should exist to qualify those who wish to carry in public.

As you said, guns don't confer any magic powers or divine levels of immortality. I believe "Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

[AndyS]

21. I give up.

You 'think' this and 'think' that. I can show with great statistical confidence that the more access to guns is limited the lower the death rate.

You 'think' one life saved by DGU justifies keeping DGUs legal. They are so why even bring that up? No one is discussing eliminating self defense.

I keep hearing that there are more DGUs than reported. Ok, suppose that's true. How can some mystical number be used to formulate policy? I 'think' we could cut homicides by 75% if I could just enact policy that I 'think' will work. Does my 'think' carry as much weight as your 'think'? I 'think' so but I'm not proposing policy on what I 'think'.

We agree that "Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation" which is why I oppose SYG in any configuration.

You've been courteous and we share some core beliefs so let's just end this conversation as our chief point of contention is what level of verifiable fact we should base policy on. Thanks for your sincere participation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. Can we just agree that...

...life is valuable and not to taken for granted and that it is after all an animating contest to better the general welfare and safety of society? I think we have different approaches to the same goal but not as different as some others I read of here.

Also, I don't mean to belittle statistics and hard data. I haven't slept well the last few nights, maybe week. I feel what I'm writing isn't as focused as I'd like.

Take it easy.

[yagotme]

25. Question...

Have you heard the opposite one of this?

Your statement:
"You 'think' one life saved by DGU justifies keeping DGUs legal. They are so why even bring that up? No one is discussing eliminating self defense."

Statements made by anti-gunners:
"If it saves one child, we need to ban xyz..."

Banning guns is VERY close to banning self defense. Not everyone is a black belt, tae-kwon-do, football linebacker super athlete. Those of us that are older, have health problems, or are being confronted with multiple assailants, need a little "equalizing".

[AndyS]

26. Self defense has always been legal in the home and out of it.

SYG removes the need to retreat when safe and reasonable to do so. No one is advocating for removing all firearms. As a member of Everytown and MDA I can say with absolute certainty that to say so while identifying as a member of either group can get you dropped from the rolls. If I were to advocate for the elimination of all semi auto magazine fed guns (which I personally would like) while at a meeting or wearing my MDA t shirt I would be chastised at least and dropped at worst.

The whole 'banning guns' and 'taking our guns' is nothing more than gun culture paranoia that has been fed to a susceptible audience since the gun makers took over the NRA in the '70s.

I have never used the 'one life' argument so please don't put words in my mouth (or in my posts). I have advocated for policies that have been shown to be effective in reducing gun violence and will continue to do so.

[yagotme]

27. Barely got past your first line.

"No one is advocating for removing all firearms." Well, yes, they have. Here's one:
“If I could have gotten 51 votes for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn em all in,’ I would have done it,”
Sen. Feinstein, 1995, interview on 60 minutes, in response to 1994 AWB.
1974: National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Quite the name of an organization. Maybe some took them seriously.

"I have never used the 'one life' argument so please don't put words in my mouth (or in my posts)." Well, yes, you did bring up the "one life" phrase.
"You 'think' one life saved by DGU justifies keeping DGUs legal." Your post #21.