Pizza Hut employee shoots would-be robber

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

A police report said Spencer Simmons, 44, attempted to rob the Pizza Hut on Broadway Street at about 11 p.m. Wednesday.

The report said Simmons pointed a .25 Raven Arms semi-automatic handgun at the store’s cashier and demanded money. The cashier loaded about $720 into a small bag.

Simmons wasn’t aware that a delivery man, Michael Shaker, had heard the commotion and snuck to the back as well, the report said.

“Seconds later, Simmons left the register area, and walked to within six to seven feet of his location,” the report said.

According to the report, Shaker gave Simmons a verbal warning but Simmons “lifted and swung his gun up towards” Shaker. Shaker fired one round from his personal 9mm Kel-Tec, hitting Simmons in the back of his head, the report said.

http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/local/local_story_358172439.html

[Orrex]

1. I wonder what Pizza Hut's policy is re: employees carrying guns while on the premises

[bbinacan]

2. Who cares. n/t

[Orrex]

3. Well, the shooter probably should, for one.

He'll probably be fired outright, and for good reason. And he likely won't be eligible for unemployment compensation.

Additionally, the robber will likely sue Pizza Hut; that suit will fail, but then he'll sue the shooter, and that suit will have a pretty fair chance of success.

It's also possible that Pizza Hut will sue the shooter, and I'd give that lawsuit about a 50/50 chance of success.

[bbinacan]

5. And that sums

up what is fucked up about this country today.

[Orrex]

6. How so?

Because the shooter was (very likely) in violation of company policy? Seems pretty reasonable and straightforward to me.

[eqfan592]

8. Hmmm, let's see....

....be in violation of company policy, or be a sitting duck and possibly end up dead? Not a hard choice. This is one of the reason why I don't buy from Pizza Hut anymore. Their policy is regressive on this issue.

[Orrex]

11. Good luck finding a pizza business that encourages the discharge of firearms on its property

A great many stores and businesses have a policy that states, in effect "let the robber have whatever he wants, and don't interfere." Do you refuse to patronize all of those businesses, too?

[PavePusher]

13. Yes, I do. n/t

[Pavulon]

17. And now we have discovered the difference between policy and law.

the law does not dictate he can not carry a weapon there (probably) so fuck what pizza hut says. I am sure he can find a job at papa johns, since he is still alive.

[Orrex]

21. The restaurant is private property; do you contend that the property owner has no rights?

And I'm pretty sure that Papa Johns has a very similar "don't shoot" policy, as do most national chains.

[Pavulon]

25. Sure, if they had a no firearms sign they can now go get a trespass warrant, if he refuses to leave

they are a public place, they cant ban blacks or jews because of their corporate status. Unless there is a criminal statute in place banning weapons (court rooms, banks) they have no recourse. Like I said, I would trade a mc job for my life.

[Orrex]

28. That bit about "job vs. life" is a red herring.

If he's an employee, then he's subject to company policy. If he's carrying a weapon in violation of company policy--a policy to which he explicitly endorsed (in writing) when he took the job--then he has no recourse when they fire him.

[Pavulon]

51. His recourse is to live another day.

not saying he may not be fired, just saying policy and law are different. Personally I would choose to make a shit wage at another job after being fired.

I know people who break that policy in many jobs, from manufacturing to reconstructive surgery. Wage is replaceable, life not so much.

[Orrex]

53. No one is arguing otherwise.

I've never said that he shouldn't have pulled the trigger, nor have I said that I wouldn't have done the same thing (find me posts to the contrary, if you can).

I've just pointed out that the company will likely fire him, and the company will be right to do so (in accordance with policy).


For that matter, it's also entirely possible that he could be charged with at least one count of attempted homicide in the 3rd degree.

[Pavulon]

56. Why would he be charged with a crime unless he put the guy on his knees?(nt)

[Orrex]

59. He discharged a weapon in proximity to innocent bystanders

Any of whom could quite possibly suffered injury or death as a result.

If you shoot the guy standing next to you on a bus full of 40 passengers, you can bet that you're going to face at least 20 counts of attempted murder.

[Pavulon]

64. Nope, that is not how it works.

site ONE CASE where this has happened. Lexis nexis is free at the library, knock yourself out.

There is NO LAW that says you can not fire a weapon in self defense in a public place.

[Orrex]

73. So you can shoot whoever the hell you want as long as you can claim that someone pulls a gun on you?

That's exactly what you're asserting.

[Pavulon]

76. yeppers. the law around defense is well established.

go point a gun at a guy in a gun store or at a police officer. see how that goes.

[Orrex]

81. Did the alleged robbery take place in a gun store? Was the shooter a police officer?

If not, then I don't see why you keep bringing them up.

[Pavulon]

88. If you point an alleged gun, expect to be shot alleged dead

those are ground rules. Police or pizza delivery guys, point a gun at a person, be prepared to kill or be killed. You can expect them to be in play wherever you go. This ends when the police find a gun on the dead guy and justifiable homicide is handed down.

[Orrex]

138. So if they find a gun on the dead guy, that's "case closed" in your mind?

You've got a pretty loose standard of evidence.

[Pavulon]

142. I mentioned video and work under the assumption the police

will investigate the scene to be sure the shooter acted legally and his accounts, and witness accounts match evidence. If the guy is on tape robbing the place and then on tape getting shot, done.

[Orrex]

144. Forgive me--I didn't see the part about the video in the post to which I replied.

But let's look at it another way. If the guy is on tape robbing the place, and is on tape attempting to exit the premises, and is on tape being confronted and shot, does that change anything, in your view?

[PavePusher]

159. Well, if, after being confronted...

(And why is it such a naughty thing to confront a criminal? This is legal for citizens in ALL 50 states.)

...the criminal attempts to complete his criminal act by threatening or appearing to threaten violence...

!Darwin Award!

Game over, no refunds.

[AtheistCrusader]

162. Not enough.

BUT, if I charitably extend your criteria with 'he drops his firarm and tries to flee' or in some way extends an intention to surrender, and the driver shot him in the back of the head, now we're in uncomfortable territory for the driver.

So, depending on what the video reveals (if anything), there is a chance the driver may have acted improperly.

If he did not act in self defense, or the defense of others, I would support prosecution. You can't shoot someone in the back of the head over property, in my state, and that is as it should be.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. Not just a gun.

You could be shooting someone armed with nothing more than hands and feet, as long as you are found to have been responding in self defense.

The language will vary from state to state. Here in Washington, you can even shoot someone in support of a police officer. We have a statute for that too.

The language you'll find in various state laws will vary, but the common thread will be language like 'reasonable apprehension' 'grevious harm' 'imminent harm', stuff like that. Check your local laws, look for Excusable Homicide, Justifiable Homicide, and the 'defenses' section of Homicide statutes.

The following is an affirmative defense to the technical violation of a Seattle Ordinance prohibiting the discharge of a firearm within city limits:

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.


<1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.>

[GreenStormCloud]

202. As long as you can prove that someone was directly endangering your life.

There was a case discussed here, not too long ago, about a CCWer that took down a robber in a Burger King. CCWer behaved stupidly, telling the robber to drop his gun. BG started shooting, hit CCWer, who then shot BG. No charges.

Another case, BG enters C-store, fires shotgun into ceiling. CCW shoots BG in brain with no warning. No charges.

In Virginia there was guy that open carried a .45LC, got into a gunfight in a C-store with the BG, both enptied their guns, BG was hit five times in the chest and died on the spot. No charges against the good guy.

There are numerous reports of CCWers shooting robbers with others around.

If my life is in immediate danger, the law does not expect me to die quietly. The company I work for may expect that, but it isn't going to happen. They can fire me afterwards, but I intend to be alive to be able to be fired.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

83. Why aren't cops charged with the same offense then?

Blathering poppycock.

[Orrex]

94. I agree--your post is blathering poppycock, but I'll answer it anyway.

Cops are formally and officially empowered to act in that capacity, whereas pizza delivery guys are not.

Clear?

[PavePusher]

100. Uh, so are "the people".

Look. It. Up.

[Orrex]

102. Oh, here we go.

Why don't you take a cop's gun away from him. Since we paid for it with our tax dollars, it's ours, right?

I'm sure they'll understand your reasoning.

[PavePusher]

109. O.K., now you really aren't making any sense. n/t

[slackmaster]

213. Non-sequitur

What are you trying to say, Orrex?

[X_Digger]

105. LOL! Cops have magical powers that make their shots not dangerous??

Seriously?

If cops 'got a pass' because they were on the job, then no cop could ever be charged with reckless endangerment, correct? (hint, do some googling.)

Hell, if your assertion were true, then any 7-11 clerk who shoots a would-be robber with customers in the store would be brought up on charges, right? Google is suspiciously silent on that..

[Orrex]

108. Who said that?

[X_Digger]

124. responded to wrong post. n/t

[X_Digger]

127. You intimated it.. here, let me quote..

He discharged a weapon in proximity to innocent bystanders

Any of whom could quite possibly suffered injury or death as a result.

If you shoot the guy standing next to you on a bus full of 40 passengers, you can bet that you're going to face at least 20 counts of attempted murder.

Cops aren't above the law. Honestly, the power some people think police have, the willingness to overlook bad judgment just because of a badge. Makes my jaw drop.

If what you said were true, then anyone walking beside someone and shooting a person pointing a gun at them would be charged with attempted murder.

Do you not realize how moronic that sounds, not to mention not backed up by fact? Just out of curiosity, how large is this magic circle within which nobody can be before one is not charged with attempted murder *giggle* *snort* *GUFFAW* when using legal justified force? (Sorry, I tried to type that without laughing, it didn't work.)

[AtheistCrusader]

164. You would be completely surprised.

In the State of Washington, the bar for a Police Officer to engage in a justifiable homicide is HIGHER than a normal ol' citizen. They are held to a HIGHER standard.

"The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers."

I linked it earlier, but here's the statute for private citizens:

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

<1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.>


Peace officers:
RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or

(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or

(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.


<1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.>


Notes:
Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." <1986 c 209 § 3.>

[slackmaster]

209. Actually, every citizen is empowered to use deadly force in defense of self or others

It's clear that you have no clue.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. So in every self defense shooting the shooter should be charged according to you?

Provided there were bystanders.

[Orrex]

96. If it can be reasonably demonstrated that those bystanders were put in danger, then yes.

And by "put in danger," I mean "put in danger by the person who was shooting in self-defense" rather than simply by the initial shooter.

[Pavulon]

103. You are put in danger when you strain to take a shit

you may pop a blood vessel and stroke out. If I fart in pizza hut and someone dies laughing at me I can not be sued for farting in public.

Unless the shooter injured someone with gunfire there is NO CASE. Even IF he hit a bystander the case would not be clearcut.

[Orrex]

118. Colorful, but irrelevant.

[Pavulon]

123. SNIP:Unless the shooter injured someone with gunfire there is NO CASE.(nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. You mean if it can be reasonably demonstrated that those bystanders were put in unnecessary danger?

[Orrex]

120. Yes. Thank you.

In this case, for instance, it appears (from the article) that Simmons was leaving the scene. If indeed that was the case, then the confrontation by Simmons and the firearm's discharge could easily be argued to have placed them in unnecessary danger.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

125. There is no indication that the criminal no longer posed a grave threat.

[PavePusher]

106. So, if I am in danger of being shot by a criminal...

I can only shoot back if no-one is standing nearby?

Obviously, if there was another innocent person standing directly behind the crim, I'd have to take that into account, make a risk assesment, and act accordingly, but it's all about location, not simple proximity.

Again, you fail geometry.

[Orrex]

117. It would be nice if you could address my actual points

Additionally, it would be charming if you could somehow avoid accusations of idiocy or insanity, but we'll take it one step at a time.

Here's a handy paraphrase of what I've stated:
If you're in danger of being shot by a criminal and you shoot back while others are in sufficient proximity to be subjected to danger by your action, then you've certainly placed them in danger and must be subject to the consequences for doing so.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. If they aren't struck by my bullet directly they aren't in sufficient proximity to be in danger.

[Pavulon]

121. Well looks like you have a statute to find.

I have never heard of this one or anything like it is a defensive shooting case. EVER.

[AtheistCrusader]

169. Unfortunately for your scenario

There is no supporting legal statute. Brandishing, Discharging a Firearm, etc, all have affirmative defenses when you have met certain legal criteria, and those statutes establish that criteria.

Self defense is pretty much always an affirmative defense. Defending someone else may or may not be, depending on the state. In response to a felony in progress may or may not be, depending on the state.

[Hoopla Phil]

210. I can help with Texas statutes.

If you are legally 'allowed' to use force or deadly force to protect your life then you are equally 'allowed' to protect another. With regard to protecting property you must reasonably believe that the owner of the property would want you to protect their property. You are also allowed to use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of arson or kidnapping.

Cannot remember the name of the guy but I'm thinking of the situation in a Houston suburb where the the older man called 911 about his neighbors house being burglarized. While on the phone the man said he had to stop them and left with his shotgun. Wound up killing the bad guys outside the house. The question of protection of property came up and it was discovered that in order to protect another's' property you have to believe that such protection is wanted. I know this wound up being moot as there was a plains cloths cop in his car outside that witnessed the incident. Turned out that the perps were running toward the man when he shot so he had a valid self defense claim. BUT, as a result I had conversations with my neighbors about protecting one another's property.

[AtheistCrusader]

165. Glaser Safety Slugs are your friend.

[Hoopla Phil]

211. An explanation of Frangible Ammunition. (and an appeal to the new person showing up)

This post is directed to the D.U. member that has been posting (seemingly) against using deadly force. You have been a member of D.U. for some time but I do not recall seeing you in the 'gungeon' forum before so please, please do not take my comments to be 'flames' to you, I sincerely wish for you to understand and acquire knowledge.

First please follow this link on what frangible ammunition is and what it is for. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/frangible.htm

Next I'd like to address some of your musings in this thread. You seem to have a total lack on knowledge on the legal use of force and deadly force in defense of self or another. This sub-forum has a huge collection of knowledge of people that do. Open your mind and absorb what they are sharing with you. Some here know the law - I myself try to stay up on the laws governing the use of force and deadly force in Texas as much as possible. Some here are masters of statistics regarding the use of firearms - I have on a couple of occasions posted a general question regarding stats because I know someone HERE knows the answer. (it is a great recourse.) And several here have real life experience in the uses of force and deadly force. They can tell you what WILL happen before, during, and after a shooting. You would be surprised about what goes on in the aftermath of a shooting. I'm talking about the emotional trauma a person suffers after a legal shoot. It is horrid and I hope I never have to go through it. But if I do I know of two people here that would PM me their name and number to talk it out with me in a heartbeat's time.

What I'm getting at is that you have on multiple occasions demonstrated your ignorance in several aspects of defensive shooting. That is fine if you wish to stay that way but it is very frustrating to read and see how close minded you have been in this forum. You have made incorrect statements, when you are corrected on them your response is 'BUT' and you continue with your incorrect line of events. It reminds me of my 10 year old child that stubbornly refuses to let go of her preconceived idea of what is. I can understand such behavior in a 10 year old but not in an adult that should understand that their idea is wrong when confronted with the facts.

Please, please open your mind to new ways of thinking and above all else do not stubbornly stand your ground when facts are in conflict with your beliefs. It can be extremely hard to adjust your thought process and beliefs when facts are at total odds with what you've held to be true but I challenge you to try.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. Not a chance.

Not unless you were in the commission of a crime at the time. You can fire in self defense, in every state in the nation, to the best of my understanding of all applicable state law. The presence of bystanders has no bearing.

[Orrex]

173. So I can just kill everybody on the bus as long as I claim that I was shooting at my assailant?

Yikes!

[X_Digger]

181. "Seattle bus stop shooting was self defense"

"King County prosecutors say they won't charge a woman who shot a man after a confrontation on a Metro bus in Seattle. "

http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=11601012

[Orrex]

189. Doesn't address my question.

[X_Digger]

196. Oh you mean your hyperbolic strawman? No, I didn't address that..

.. I'm still waiting for a response about that magic circle within which there can be no bystanders before a person isn't going to be charged for attempted murder when using legal lethal force.

[X_Digger]

183. "Pittsfield Township police say evidence of self-defense is mounting in shooting"

http://www.annarbor.com/news/pittsfield-township-police-say-evidence-of-self-defense-is-mounting-in-shooting/

"multiple shots were fired as about 20 elementary students were waiting at a school bus stop across the street. "

[Orrex]

191. Doesn't address my question either.

[AtheistCrusader]

192. That's very different.

You've gone from 'firing in the presence of' to 'killing everyone on the bus'.

No, you'd be pretty hard pressed to justify something like that. However, a bit of overpenetration, or a 'reasonable' amount of friendly fire could be perfectly excusable.

But you'll be judged on that point by the 'reasonable' impression of people not fighting for thier lives. Depending on how egregious the friendly fire is, you could expect anything from acquittal at trial, no-bill by a grand jury, no charges from a DA, or possibly some lesser charge of negligence.

But shooting someone while people are around and NOT hit by bullets from your gun? You'd be pretty safe.

[GreenStormCloud]

203. No. I am responsible for each bullet that I fire.

That is why I have Crimson Trace laser grips, and am loaded with Glaser Safety Slugs. The bullets will hit where the red dot is glowing, and Glasers don't come out the back side of a goblin, nor do they ricochet.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

206. I don't like those safety slugs.

They don't have enough penetration for my tastes and the bullet weights are a little on the light side.
On the Box of Truth, the blue tip Glasers only make it through 1.5 jugs of water.
Some nice wide hollowpoints are always a good choice. GodDots or HST are always worked great for me.

[burrfoot]

208. GodDots. Was that a typo, or a nickname? Either way I like it. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

215. Gold Dots.. sorry typo. But GodDots would probably be good if they live up to their names. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

216. The cylinders alternate.

First round will be Glaser, then HydraShock. That in the .38. In the .380 they are all FMJ, because .380 needs all the penetration it can get.

[Hoopla Phil]

214. I used to keep frangible ammo when my handgun was strictly for home defense.

The thought of going through a wall and hitting an innocent was too much so I went with safety slugs. But now that I carry concealed (sense 95 when the law passed) I switched. I feel that the likely hood of having to have something with a better penetration is too great. I first went with 200 gr CorBon (I carry a .45 ACP) but switched when something better came out. The Aguila IQ ammo is the best (IMHO) all around round for carry duty.

The Aguila IQ is a pre-segmented aluminum bullet pushed to very high velocities. When it hits a solid object it collapses in on itself and punches through. When it hits soft tissue is breaks into three pieces that will actually turn 90 degrees. The photos of this stuff in ballistic gelatin is just amazing. Unfortunately they followed the trail blazed by Black Talons. They were so good at their advertising that they got singled out by the extreme anti's that claimed it would penetrate a cops vest. It did not do this in tests but once that dis-information was out there it hurt the company. I stocked up on as much as I could and buy it when I see it at shows but alas, it is no longer available in the United States.

[Katya Mullethov]

217. Quilted grapeshot ? RPG-7 ?

How many people ? Sounds like a damned tough shot no matter what .

[rd_kent]

219. Who the fuck, besides YOU, said anything about KILLING BYSTANDERS?

[eqfan592]

19. Delivery employees are especially at risk.

And are typically robbed off premises. We don't have legal concealed carry in Wisconsin, so it's something of a moot point for many stores. But national chains such as Pizza Hut are a different matter.

[Orrex]

24. I don't doubt that small businesses may operate under different policies, but it's far from certain

If those businesses have any sort of insurance, it's likely that the policy includes some clause to the effect that employees will not act to interfere with a robber. The typical logic is this: if the shooter had, hypothetically, shot a customer instead, then that customer would file a lawsuit so large that it could bring down Pizza Hut altogether. The would-be robber, in contrast, would have made off with a couple hundred bucks, maybe.

[Pavulon]

29. None of that pays the employees funeral

when some fuck shoots him. Fuck pizza hut, they make shitty pizza anyway. Personally I would pop the guy rather than get tied up and executed in a walk in fridge. The robber raised his weapon, try that with a police officer and a toy gun. Pointing a weapon is justification to shoot a person.

[Orrex]

35. You are unable to discuss this issue without resorting to emotional frenzy.

The alleged robber allegedly raised his weapon, and somehow while "swinging" his weapon toward the shooter, the shooter managed to shoot him in the back of the head. That's a bank-shot worthy of Minnesota Fats.

[Pavulon]

40. Guy with a hole in his face got shot robbing a pizza hut

who fucking cares. You want to advocate for the guy go for it. Unless he was put on his knees and executed it is a legal shooting. Real life is not the movies, no warnings are required, fair is not a good thing in a gunfight.

BTW looking away once you realize you are about to get shot in the face seems natural to me. The round did not seem to mind which way it went through.

[Orrex]

47. So he looked away, and THEN the shooter shot him?

You're not advocating for the shooter or the robber; you're advocating for the shooting. That's just insane.


Whether or not it's a legal shooting isn't the primary issue. It's not even the second or third issue, to be honest. If you can't see that, then you're missing the point of the discussion. And I'm not surprised in the slightest.

[Pavulon]

99. I am advocating for common sense

you use a gun in a crime and get shot dont be surprised. If the shooter broke a LAW then he should be punished. No indication he shot without legal backing. If he gets fired for breaking POLICY, so be it. He can get another job because he is not dead.

Go point a gun at the police, turn away when he draws, but leave the gun pointed up. You will still die.

[PavePusher]

41. "alleged" robber...

You mean the person walking out with a gun and a sackful of cash?

"back of the head" is an area 8-12 inches long, covering 180 deg. of arc.

You failed geometry, didn't you...

[Orrex]

49. I like that--when your "shoot first" attitude is questioned, you immediately attack your opponent.

Very nice.

Yes, he's the "alleged" robber. And if he's been arrested, then he's the suspect. Or have you discarded that whole quaint notion of "presumption of innocence?"

[Pavulon]

54. go point a toy gun at a police officer

let us know if you live. if you dont die you will be a suspect or perp. If you do die, they drop the formality.

[Orrex]

57. So, in your world "pizza delivery guy" equals "police officer." Got it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Was the shooting justifiable or should the employee be charged?

[Orrex]

70. From the article, that much is not clear

What is clear is that the employee made a point of putting himself in harm's way.

[PavePusher]

75. Reading comprehension...

They used to teach this in schools....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. The criminal actually took care of that part.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. Do you think he should be charged? Simple question, I'm guessing you avoid it.

[Orrex]

93. Based on the information in the article? Of course he should be.

Simmons wasn’t aware that a delivery man, Michael Shaker, had heard the commotion and snuck to the back as well, the report said.

Shaker explicitly put himself in harm's way. He was in no danger and chose to put himself in danger.

Additionally, this part is interesting:

“Seconds later, Simmons left the register area, and walked to within six to seven feet of his location,” the report said.

This suggests that Simmons was leaving the scene, but it would be useful to know exactly where Simmons was when Shaker shot him. It seems to me that if Simmons were still posing an active threat to the employees or customers (rather than exiting the scene), then this would have been stated in the article (e.g., "Simmons still had his gun pointed at the cashier" or the like).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

98. You sure are going out of your way to give the criminal the benefit of the doubt.

[Orrex]

111. I'm not yet ready to convict anyone, if that's what you're saying.

Charge? Yes. Convict? No.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

112. There isn't enough evidence to even charge him.

If he is charged he'll have a good lawsuit.

[PavePusher]

116. You don't charge someone unless you are willing to convict them.

That is not the way to abuse the legal system...

"Let's see what sticks..."

[Pavulon]

113. You are citing lack of information in an article as cause

the press cant get shit right. Unless there is sworn testimony that the shooter acted illegally he will not be charged.

Lets recap. Guy gets shot during armed robbery. Guy all fucked up. End.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

68. Are you implying that only the police may use deadly force to protect themselves?

Very progressive of you.

NOT

[AtheistCrusader]

177. Nope, still a suspect.

Still alleged, at least until some sort of investigation has cleared the officer of any wrongdoing.

Orrex is correct in his use of 'alleged'.

[AtheistCrusader]

175. There are many cases in which this sort of thing has happened.

Including one of the known cases of the use of a fully automatic weapon in self defense, where the attacker 'spun' on impact, and followup rounds hit in such a way the prosecutor tried to nail the guy who shot in self defense for 'shooting him in the back', even though the follow-up shots really hit where most people would call 'the side'.

'in the back' is fungible. It says something very clear in text that may have no relation to the actual impact point. Say the bullet hit behind the robber's ear, that is technically the 'back of the head', but it's possible the exit point would show the robber's head was turned close enough to the shooter that he was in his field of vision, making him a legit target.

Hard to paint a picture for you in text, I would prefer a physcial model of the human head, but I hope this made sense.

It is also possible that the robber began to turn his head, looking for cover or another escape route, or even a hostage, in the time it took for the driver's decision to shoot resulted in an impulse of movement in his trigger finger, and the weapon discharging. If he tried to go back to the counter, someone's life could still have been in danger, and the driver could be legally justified in shooting him, even dead center in the back of the head.

Crazy shit, I know. Hope the video shows something conclusive. You could be right, but I doubt it. We'll see.

[GreenStormCloud]

204. That isn't the way big companies do it.

They simply have a no-weapons section of the employee handbook. After all, you can't shoot back if you don't have a gun. And they have robbery training videos that basically tell you to cooperate with the goblin and try to remember everything you can. Things like how tall he was, where he may have touched anything, etc.

The problem is that sometimes the robber shoots anyway. When I used to work in a C-store I violated company policy and carried a Kel-Tec P3AT, right front pocket. The manager never had a clue that I was armed.

[Big Al Mac]

223. There's at least one pizza shop that's pro-gun

UPDATE: Pizza shop owner describes robbery, shooting

All the employees there now have their CHLs and carry.

[AtheistCrusader]

151. Find me a pizza delivery place that doesn't forbid drivers to carry weapons.

Find one that doesn't, and I'll find you a driver that doesn't carry a weapon anyway.

You first though. :p

[PavePusher]

12. If it is the policy of any business...

to capitulate to criminals (thus empowering them), that is a business that I will not patronise.

[Orrex]

18. Stay out of just about every convenience store

And every fast food restaurant, and most real restaurants, and just about every retail establishment that you can find.

I'm sure that there are countless small businesses that encourage their employees to shoot first and ask questions later, but any corporate-owned store (as well as most licensed franchises) will have strict policies against this sort of thing.

So good luck finding one.

[eqfan592]

23. I guess you missed the part of the story...

...where the guy ordered the attacker to stop? And where the attacker responded to this by swinging his gun towards him?

It seems pretty obvious that you're incapable of rational thought on this issue. That you place the lives of criminals before the lives of their victims. Perhaps you should take a look at the stories posted on this very forum where people did exactly as you would have them and comply with their attackers without offering resistance, and ended up dead just the same because the criminals could truly care less about the life and safety of their victims.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

32. Wow, I didn't realize that it wasn't possible to move your arms...

..in the direction of somebody unless you were facing them. I guess I missed that part of anatomy class.

[Orrex]

38. Anyway, that's irrelevant

The shooter should be fired. End of story.

[PavePusher]

42. Nice tap dance.

FAIL

[Pavulon]

36. Guess he kept on turning when he saw a piece,

who fucking cares. Unless the manager put him on his knees and executed him, it does not make one not bit of difference. The guy was in the middle of an armed robbery and got shot, on the job death. Maybe you should notify OSHA about unsafe conditions for armed robbers.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

44. "Gun nut", no.

"Self-defense nut", you betchya.

[Orrex]

50. Well, it's not up to you to pick the labels that people apply to you.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orrex]

101. Citation, please.

Otherwise, withdraw that patently offensive accusation.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. Well, it's not up to you to pick the labels that people apply to you.

[PavePusher]

97. Label me all you want.

"sticks and stones...", etc.

Doesn't make you any less wrong, but hey, whatever lets you relax and sleep at night.

[Pavulon]

46. maybe he would get in a delorean and go 88 mph

to go back and do it again. Do you actually have some content. The brought a gun to a robbery and got shot. Robbers kill store employees, nothing to do with the mob.

He would face real consequences, unlike if he ran a redlight fucking with his radio and killed you dead in an "accident"

[PavePusher]

37. This is not difficult.

Stop trying to play the fool.

[AtheistCrusader]

No, he's correct on that point.

Most if not all pizza delivery places have a policy against this. I would argue it's wrong-headed, but it exists, and the driver could have faced trespassing charges for knowingly violating it.

You'd be hard pressed to find a business that DOESN'T have this sort of policy.

[PavePusher]

33. I currently live in Arizona...

and travel mostly to Utah, New Hampshire and Vermont. All places where self defense is encouraged.

If a convenience store in Arizona fired an employee who defended themselves on-premises with a firearm, they would shortly be out of business, or under new management.

[Orrex]

43. Well, that's just about 100% untrue

At least, it's untrue as it pertains to corporate-owned convenience stores, of which 7-11 and Circle-K are two prime examples with a strong presence in the southwest.

Any corporate establishment that carries insurance is going to have some kind of "don't shoot" policy in place.

[PavePusher]

45. You're not from around here, are you, pilgrim? n/t

[Orrex]

52. Well, I know you can't bring a firearm into a store that sells alcohol

At least not in Texas. Is it different in the even wilder west?

[PavePusher]

85. Arizona is a pretty peaceful place...

if you discount the drug/illegal immigrant smuggling issues. Which I don't.

I open carry in Fry's and Safeway whenever I replenish my bar stock.

I even concealed carry in bars/restaurants if I'm not going to drink.

All perfectly legal in AZ, UT, VT and NH, and doesn't seem to be a problem. Whodathunk it.

Maybe people in PA are less trustworthy....


On Edit: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/texas.pdf
You can't carry into a "bar" in Texas. Stores would be just peachy. I suggest you check your assumptions by bouncing them against facts.

[Orrex]

107. Well then the law in Texas has changed since I was licenced by the TLCB

When I was licensed, it wasn't legal, though I admit that was a few years ago.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. So you didn't actually KNOW it you assumed it? Common mistake of yours.

[Orrex]

126. My mistake was in believing that the law under which I was licensed was still in effect.

And I admitted that error.


Somehow I've managed to go through this thread without launching any unprovoked personal attacks, yet the advocates for freedom in this Forum can't seem to help themselves. That speaks of an astonishing lack of personal control. In your case, I'm willing to write it off as the lingering effects of a high fever, but what excuse can the others offer?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. How was that a personal attack? LOL.

[Orrex]

135. That post wasn't the personal attack.

Nor was it your only post in the thread.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

141. You didn't like the way the whole labels thing went, eh?

[Orrex]

143. Since I haven't attacked anyone personally but have been repeatedly attacked, I do find it curious.

It suggests a sort of shoot-first mentality, to be honest.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

152. Other than the broad based attack, you have behaved well.

Of course your idea of shoot first is mere projection.

[Orrex]

155. Not at all. Dozens of attacks on me preceded anything equivalent that I had to say.

As a figure of speech, "shoot first" is pretty close to irrefutably accurate in that context.


And even that "broad base attack" came only after repeated personal attacks against me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

163. Not from me.

[Orrex]

166. That's why I named you as the exception.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

172. I should probably add that s/he has demonstrated...

an all-to-common lack of understanding of legal theory, practice and actual laws. But we are here to educate. A good place to start, when it comes to gun laws:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

[PavePusher]

199. Wow. Call someone on their inaccuracies...

and your post gets deleted. Facsinating.

[Pavulon]

133. Your posts are not clear. If you state, this guy should be fired

for breaking policy. I can see that. Not a criminal act on his part. Like showing up to work late or putting to much cheese on a pizza, company rules. Shooting this guy in the head in a legal shoot violated a policy, like dont put more than 30 pepperonis on a pizza.

Now any mention of criminal activity by the shooter or some legal recourse of the patrons who were when the shooting happened is utter silliness.

[AtheistCrusader]

190. They recently re-worked Concealed carry/open carry.

[X_Digger]

197. No open carry in TX.. whoda thunk it? n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

198. "A few years"? The law changed in 1995. n/t

[X_Digger]

86. Bzzzt.. close but no cigar.

I can carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol. I can carry in a liquor store.

Where I can't carry is the premises of a business that makes 51% or more of it's income from selling alcohol for consumption _on premises_ - aka, a bar.

(And yah, be happy to point you to the law, I just received my CHL, and took the class just over a month ago.)

[PavePusher]

92. Beat you! Neener, neener, neener!

Just kidding, Congrats!

[X_Digger]

187. :P n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

185. States vary.

In WA, it's places that have the posted 'no minors/under 21' signs. Restaraunts serve beer and such, but in the BAR portion where that sign is posted, I cannot enter.

[X_Digger]

188. Yup.. Orrex mentioned TX though. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

184. Not so fast.

Sells, or serves? There's a difference. I can walk into a liquor store in Washington while lawfully carrying a concealed pistol. I cannot walk into a place that SERVES alcohol, specifically any place with posted 'no entry' signs for people under 21.

There's a huge difference between a store, and a place that serves. Which did you mean?

[oneshooter]

201. WRONG AGAIN!!!

In Texas you may, as a CCL holder, carry concealed into any establishment which sells alcohol for not on premisis consumption. You may also legaly carry concealed into any resraurant that sells alcohol for on premises consumption, as long as it does not display a TABC 51% sign.

You FAIL again.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

205. Not true. I am a Texan with a CHL.

You can't carry into a place that makes 51% of their income from drinks served on premises. But you can carry into places that sell for off premises consuption. If it were true that you could not carry into a place that sold alcohol, then that would leave most C-stores out.

[Skip Intro]

7. +1

[Orrex]

9. How so?

[Skip Intro]

69. In that the intended victim could suffer punsihment while the criminal could be compensated.

I agree with the DUer who says that's pretty fucked up.

[Hoopla Phil]

34. Seriously? What lawyer would take a contingency case against a pizza delivery guy? n/t

[Orrex]

55. The lawyer for any of the other employees and customers who were on the scene

And who were subjected to actual, immediate, and verifiable danger by the discharge of a firearm on the premises.


Any lawyer who's passed the bar would be able to make that case.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. What monetary award would he get from the pizza guy?

[Orrex]

60. Whatever is decided in the judgment, of course. Why do you ask?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. He's alive, I doubt he'll be sued and if he is I doubt he'll care.

[Pavulon]

61. And then loose it. No deep pockets, no money

no case. No one is going to award damages. Seeing some asshole get brained is not going to get a million dollar verdict

[Orrex]

67. Do you believe that someone can only be sued for the actual dollar amount that they have?

That would be a nice world to live in.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. Do you believe that llawyers go around suing lots of people with no assets and almost no income?

[Orrex]

79. Then that's why he'll sue the company

And that's why the company has a "don't fuck with the robbers" policy.

I stated this in my very first post on the subject.

[Pavulon]

84. No, he may sue, but he will loose

when the tape of him robbing the place and then getting shot is played. Next you will tell me a rapist can sue his victim if he gets an STD in the process of the crime. Maybe he can sue the person who gave it to her if he has more money.

wake up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Then the company wouldn't be liable if the employee broke policy without their knowledge.

[Orrex]

128. And that's why they're right to fire him.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. As would be their right.

[PavePusher]

140. A company can have any silly policy they want.

Doesn't mean I have to abide by it or encourage them by giving them my money.

[Orrex]

147. Has anyone suggested otherwise?

If you choose to work there, then that's a different matter, because in so doing you are explicitly endorsing their policies.

But AFAIK no one has suggested that you need to encourage them or give them your money.

[Pavulon]

74. Do you actually know how judgements work?

have you ever been to civil court? Ever tried to collect money and judgements from people who actually do fuck stuff up? Like property damage in rentals?

yep, you are clueless.

[Hoopla Phil]

146. Let me rephrase: What lawyer would take the case knowing they would never get paid? The key word

you missed was 'contingency'.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

212. Actual damages is needed for a civil claim perceived danger isn't damage.

[AtheistCrusader]

150. Well, your signature line is pretty apt.

Yes, he'll be fired. Pizza Hut may even press trespassing charges on him.

Beyond that, he's 'in the clear' just like any other private citizen.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Same as most places. No guns allowed.

But in practice it would be, "Don't ask, Don't tell, Fire the employee if they use the gun in self-defense".

[Orrex]

30. Exactly my point.

Thank you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. I'm sure the employee is glad to be alive. He can get another job.

[grahamhgreen]

228. Oops

[bbinacan]

4. I'm considering a handgun.

What do suggest. I've shot a Browning 9MM and a Smith&Wesson 357 Magnum. I've heard good things about Glocks. Keep in mind, I'd like to get a concealed carry permit. Thanks.

[Pavulon]

90. Glock 19, take the ccw course (formal instruction) and rent

different stuff. Glock is great if it "fits".

[X_Digger]

95. Springfield XD is great if a glock doesn't 'fit' :) n/t

[Dappleganger]

221. Santa brought me a Springfield XD9 3" last week...

It shoots perfectly from the very first round !

[X_Digger]

224. I have the same one in .40 Love it! :) n/t

[PavePusher]

129. What Pavulon said.

Go to a shop/range that rents guns, get some instruction, try different firearms to see what feels right for YOU. This is as subjective as what shoes feel right to your feet, or taste in foods. One persons nirvana is another persons iron maiden. Also, many private instructors will have a selection of firearms and will be willing to let you sample them for a fee.


I prefer 1911-style handguns, they are available in a variety of calibers, most commonly .45 ACP, .22, 9mm, .38 Super, 10mm and .40 S&W. Simple, reliable, rugged and priced (new) from about $350 to near-infinity.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

15. did you miss the part where the guy who got brained raised a gun

that meets and exceeds legal requirements to shoot. Go get a toy gun and try that with the police, here is a hint, they will shoot you dead. For NOTHING more than pointing a gun. So you thing pointing a gun is serious now?

[PavePusher]

16. Do you think the robber...

was going to go out and donate the money to a church?

He robbed a business with a deadly weapon (BAD).

An employee stopped his criminal act and hopefully has prevented him from trying it again and very possibly injuring or killing an innocent person (GOOD).

What the hell is your problem?

[bbinacan]

20. You rob a place,

you get shot. Period. What kind of realityinseattle? That's a joke right?:rofl:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. He wasn't shot for the theft.

He was shot because he placed the delivery guy in deadly danger. What do you have against self-defense?

[Orrex]

62. The delivery guy put himself in deadly danger

That much is clear from the article.

[Pavulon]

80. Looks like he made it. Phew.(nt)

[PavePusher]

122. Some people do that.

They put themselves at risk to help others.

I like a world where people will do that for each other.

[Orrex]

130. If he's willing to face the consequences, then there's no problem.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

136. The consequences of investigating a commotion. You want to make curiousity illegal?

[Orrex]

139. By initiating the confrontation, he willingly subjected himself to deadly danger.

And, yes, if he's willing to face the consequences, there's no problem.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

145. He investigated a commotion which turned out to be a robbery.

Upon investigation he found another employee to be facing a deadly threat, he has no duty or legal or moral responsiblity to retreat at that point. Besides it's possible the armed robber was moving toward the employee giving him even fewer options.

[Orrex]

148. You're assuming facts not in evidence

Upon investigation he found another employee to be facing a deadly threat

The article does not support this claim.

Besides it's possible the armed robber was moving toward the employee giving him even fewer options.

That's possible, but it's not clear. It's at least equally possible that the suspect was fleeing the scene.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

167. Did you read the story?

The report said Simmons pointed a .25 Raven Arms semi-automatic handgun at the store’s cashier and demanded money.

“Seconds later, Simmons left the register area, and walked to within six to seven feet of his location,” the report said.

Simmons was still at the scene of the crime brandishing a weapon. Everyone in the store was in grave danger according to you in other posts. I believe the within 6 to 7 feet implies that the distance was closing not getting further from the employee.

[Orrex]

170. Doesn't say he was still brandishing the weapon--you're assuming this.

Nowhere have I disputed the assertion that Simmons threatened the cashier at gunpoint.

Simmons was approaching Shaker's location without realizing that Shaker was there.

Since there is no indication that he was still brandishing the weapon, and there is an explicit indication that he was unaware of Shaker's presence, and there is no indication that Simmons was threatening Shaker prior to Shaker confronting him, you are therefore assuming facts not in evidence.

If Simmons was approaching Shaker with any sort of violent motive, then the report would have indicated this. It did not.

[PavePusher]

174. It doesn't matter what Simmons did with the gun before being confronted.

This is all that matters:

"According to the report, Shaker gave Simmons a verbal warning but Simmons “lifted and swung his gun up towards” Shaker."

I repeat myself: !Darwin Award!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

178. It clearly does right in the article.

According to the report, Shaker gave Simmons a verbal warning but Simmons “lifted and swung his gun up towards” Shaker.

It had to still be in his hand to lift and swing it. Thus he was still brandishing it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

134. When exactly did he do that?

[Orrex]

149. You read the article, right?

Michael Shaker, had heard the commotion and snuck to the back as well, the report said.

“Seconds later, Simmons left the register area, and walked to within six to seven feet of his location,” the report said.

According to the report, Shaker gave Simmons a verbal warning but Simmons “lifted and swung his gun up towards” Shaker.

[X_Digger]

154. So Simmons (the guy demanding cash with a gun) approached Shaker (the shooter)?

Did you actually read what you posted? Seems to me that guy waving a gun around approached the driver.

Who put whom in danger, again?

[Orrex]

157. Read it again:

Simmons wasn’t aware that a delivery man, Michael Shaker, had heard the commotion and snuck to the back as well, the report said.

“Seconds later, Simmons left the register area, and walked to within six to seven feet of his location,” the report said.

According to the report, Shaker gave Simmons a verbal warning but Simmons “lifted and swung his gun up towards” Shaker.

Simmons wasn't aware that Shaker was there until Shaker confronted him. Shaker entered the scene deliberately and confronted Shaker deliberately, thereby putting himself in harm's way. If Shaker had kept quiet or if he hadn't "snuck (sic) to the back," then there's no indication that Shaker would have been in any danger at all.

[X_Digger]

161. You're not in danger until the bad guy sees you?

Thanks for confirming what I thought you'd say..

Hunker, hide, and hope.. strategy for all potential victims. :sarcasm:

[Orrex]

168. Unsurprisingly, you're putting words in my mouth again.

[X_Digger]

171. "If Shaker had kept quiet {snip} there's no indication Shaker would have been in any danger at all."

"If Shaker had kept quiet or if he hadn't "snuck (sic) to the back," then there's no indication that Shaker would have been in any danger at all."

Yah, no chance Simmons would have actually _used_ the gun, right? Feh.

[Orrex]

179. You really seem not to have read the article.

Yah, no chance Simmons would have actually _used_ the gun, right? Feh.

Simmons wasn't aware that Shaker was there--this is stated explicitly--even though Shaker put himself into Simmons' proximity.

For Simmons to have put Shaker in danger prior to Shaker confronting him, Shaker would have had to fire randomly at a location where he didn't know someone was standing.

Does that seem likely to you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

182. The cashier was still in danger, Shaker's actions were reasonable and even brave.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

193. No civilian should be prosecuted for actions that would earn a cop a medal of valor.

[X_Digger]

194. And you don't seem to know Indiana law..

Did Shaker know that Simmons hadn't seen or heard something to make him believe there was a person behind the counter? Man with a gun approaching the place I've chosen to take cover behind. Gee, whaddya think?

IC 35-41-3-2
Sec. 2.
(a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if he reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

180. He had no duty, moral obligation or legal responsibility to retreat upon finding the situation.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

186. Again you are assuming facts not in evidence.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

156. An armed robber was moving toward him I got it. Clearly justifiable.

[Orrex]

160. Moving toward his location. That's very different.

If Simmons had been specifically and intentionally approaching Shaker, then the report would have indicated this; according to the article, it did not. Instead, it states that Simmons was moving toward Shaker's location, which indicates that he didn't know that Shaker was there (and the report states explicitly that Simmons didn't know that Shaker had "snuck" back there.)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

176. So Simmons doesn't know? Shaker still had no duty to retreat.

[GreenStormCloud]

207. The delivery guy had a legal right to go where he did.

The robber did NOT have a legal right to threaten the life of the delivery guy. The entire responsibility is upon the crook.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

195. Michael Shaker, the shooter, is not expected to face charges...

Anderson police say Simmons pointed a semiautomatic handgun at the Pizza Hut cashier and demanded money. The cashier loaded about $720 into a small bag.

But before Simmons could run from the restaurant, deliveryman Michael Shaker fired a round from a personal firearm that struck Simmons in the back of the head, according to police.

Shaker is not expected to face any charges in the incident, Casey said, because his actions were considered self-defense.
http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/local/local_story_362222529.html

[Dappleganger]

222. good

one less BG on the prowl, too.

[proteus_lives]

200. Good for him.

If he gets fired, he'll get another job.

Simmons should go straight from the hospital to prison for 20 years.

BTW, if I were a pizza delivery man, I'd carry a firearm. Pizza guys get robbed all the time.

[grahamhgreen]

218. $720 - would not even buy the shoes of the Pizza Hut CEO

[Hoopla Phil]

220. I do not understand your point.

Does the CEO spend too much for shoes, or that the robber should pick a place that has more money, or that $720.00 is not worth risking your life on to steal?

[grahamhgreen]

225. A friend of mine killed a guy when he was getting robbed, and although he was in the right,

He still has nightmares about it.

[Hoopla Phil]

226. I sympathize for your friend but that still does not explain what point you were attempting

to make.

[grahamhgreen]

229. Just that someone got killed and someone has to live with killing him over a lousy $720

[PavePusher]

230. He wasn't killed over the money.

He died as a result of threatening people with a gun.

Why is this so hard to see?

[GreenStormCloud]

231. It appears that grahamgreen believes that if you cooperate with the robber...

you won't be hurt. That is a belief that has been shown to be false, as we both, and other gunnies also, well know. If a robber is threatening my life then my life is in danger and I will respond accordingly.

[SteveM]

232. The question here is self-defense, not money...

why is it in these pages there are folks who quibble over the money, property, car keys, etc., when the issue is CLEARLY one of self-defense? Not everything can be expressed in terms of money.

I imagine your friend is disturbed that he had to kill someone, not the money involved. That is more understandable, and I hope he can heal himself with time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

227. At least he's alive to have the nightmares.