Police urge restraint after man foils store robbery


PDA






Keyser Soze
January 10, 2006, 12:07 AM
I just read this article and it got my hackles up.

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3384298

While the first guys judgement may not have been the best if in fact the bad guy had a gun, the second guy sounds like it was justified based on the minimal information in the article.

The local agency spouts the whole PC don't take the law into you own hands if you witness a crime occuring in public. They do however imply that you should take care of business if someone enters your home and threatens your loved ones.

We all have a responsibility to take action when a crime occurs. If we expect things to get better we can't sit idle when our friends and neighboors are being victimized. I always thought the statement "take the law into your own hands" meant by-passing the criminal justice system after the crime had occurred ie: revenge/vigilante. I never thought it to mean let the crooks do what they want and eventually they will be caught and brought to justice.

Even an angry mob of citizens zeroing the cops in by cell phone would make the mopes think twice.

Kudos, to these folks stepping up to the plate. Don't make it easy for these goblins. I bet both of them never figured on the victims or witnesses fighting back.


KS

If you enjoyed reading about "Police urge restraint after man foils store robbery" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TrekkieFromHell
January 10, 2006, 10:57 AM
From the article...
''You don't know what the other guy has got.''
Exactly. That is why we are tackling him and beating the crap outta him, because we don't know what he has. They also say in the article, theres nothing in the shop worth your life, but how do we know that they are just going to take the money and run? Maybe the guy doesn't want witnesses hmm?

1911 guy
January 10, 2006, 11:09 AM
Has been to leave few or no witnesses. So fighting from moment one is the only logical and prudent thing to do. Criminals rob because they perceive it to be easy money. When it is no longer easy the majority of the time, robberies will decline. A co-worker lost his wife about four years ago. She went to the stop and rob for mushroom soup and was put in the cooler with the owner and shot. Total take from two people and the register was under 200 dollars, according to my co-worker who heard that from the cops.

StopTheGrays
January 10, 2006, 11:29 AM
''The whole scenario changes when someone enters your home and threatens your loved ones, but there's nothing in the smoke shop worth your life,'' Watson said
Only if you consider the safety of another person worthless.


In another recent Kootenai County case, on Dec. 26, a clerk at a smoke shop in Stateline shot and killed a man who tried to rob the store with an empty pellet gun. Joseph Kalani Hatchie, 47, was shot 10 times with a .40-caliber semiautomatic. Prosecutors are considering whether deadly force was necessary in that case.
What is to consider? Unless the gun had the words "UNLOADED PELLET GUN" in blaze orange all over it how is anyone going to know right away if it is a firearm or not? :barf:

migoi
January 10, 2006, 11:33 AM
messed up the inventory. There was one thing in the shop worth risking life for...the life of the woman behind the counter.

migoi

TallPine
January 10, 2006, 11:39 AM
Just because we as taxpayers hire cops to catch crooks doesn't mean we forfeit the right to do it ourselves.

You can't delegate a right to do something that you never had in the first place.

carlrodd
January 10, 2006, 11:52 AM
do you think the law enforcement that keeps making these stupid statements about laying down for criminals are doing it because they naively think that is the best response, or because it gives them some sort of ego boost?...i.e. "we're really the only one's qualified to handle this sort of thing, so better for you average joes to just let the pros handle it."

Woodland_Annie
January 10, 2006, 11:54 AM
The article ends by wondering whether deadly force was justified when the man with the empty pellet gun tried to rob the store. Even saying you have a gun is as good as having one in the eyes of the law. So I've always been told. It was justified to me.

My mother worked as a bank teller for years and been through several hold-ups, including one where three guys jumped the counter brandishing machine guns, pushing customers and employees to the floor. One week before her retirement, a guy went up to her window and told her to give him all her money. She yelled, "I can't do that!" which freaked the robber out and he left the bank. Bet he thought twice before attempting to rob any more banks! :D

foghornl
January 10, 2006, 02:02 PM
1911 Guy has it right. Over the last 10 years or so, the trend of Bad Guys has switched from "Take the money and run" to "ZERO Breathing Witnesses Left Behind."

lbmii
January 10, 2006, 03:01 PM
Ten shots of 40 caliber. That made a bit of a mess.

Henry Bowman
January 10, 2006, 03:43 PM
"... but there's nothing in the smoke shop worth your life,'' Watson said The point is to reverse the equation. The bad guy need to consider whether there is anything in the smoke shop worth risking his life for.

Standing Wolf
January 10, 2006, 07:55 PM
I always thought the statement "take the law into your own hands" meant by-passing the criminal justice system after the crime had occurred ie: revenge/vigilante. I never thought it to mean let the crooks do what they want and eventually they will be caught and brought to justice.

Oh, fine! Go ahead and interpret meanings literally! It's obvious you'll never make the grade as a journalist.

Actually, not taking the law into one's hands has come to mean letting the criminals get away with everything. We're becoming a nation of reactors rather than actors.

jlbraun
January 10, 2006, 08:14 PM
" In another recent Kootenai County case, on Dec. 26, a clerk at a smoke shop in Stateline shot and killed a man who tried to rob the store with an empty pellet gun. Joseph Kalani Hatchie, 47, was shot 10 times with a .40-caliber semiautomatic. Prosecutors are considering whether deadly force was necessary in that case. "

Can you tell the difference of 0.046 inches in diameter if you only get 2 seconds to look at it, and your life depends on the answer? That's the difference between a painful 0.177 pellet and a deadly 0.223. I can't.

However, 10 times? I hope all that happened before the crook hit the ground, else the shooter has some 'splainin to do.

DDG
March 3, 2013, 05:56 PM
Is okay to shoot 10 rounds into a man who has put the gun into his pocket? Because that is what happened. Joe had put the gun away before the cashier pulled his gun and fired 10 times. I know this story is old and doubt I will even see any responses...just wondering if that makes a difference.

joeschmoe
March 3, 2013, 06:17 PM
LOL! I don't know why necro threads amuse me so much.

Sam1911
March 3, 2013, 06:23 PM
This is a 7 year old thread. Whatever discovery there is to make about the facts of the case have long been uncovered, investigated, and the facts determined by those immediate to the case. In other words, the defender was either justified or not, no speculation or opining required.


http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2006/mar/22/clerk-who-shot-killed-robber-wont-be-charged/

If you enjoyed reading about "Police urge restraint after man foils store robbery" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!