That is very true. It's easy to say what else should have been done, but without being there you don't really know what options there were.

One would hope that he only shot to immobilize the robber in hopes of taking his weapon and then leave so they don't get shot while driving away. However, its not as if everyone has being robbed planned out and will think of these things on the fly, nor will have the collectiveness to carry out a scenario that keeps all individuals alive and well.

---

People of every era and every age have always had to protect themselves, Cheesey. That's why the Founding Fathers implemented the 2nd Amendment almost 220 years ago.

People used to carry daggers and swords to protect themselves. In the medieval period, only the nobility could carry swords, precisely because they were afraid of the potential power of the peasantry. Now people carry guns. Human nature hasn't changed, only the technology available.

What I find sickening is that in Wisconsin (one of only two states which has yet to implement a concealed-carry law), even though it's not illegal to carry an unconcealed weapon, in most jurisdictions, anyone who tries to do that will promptly be arrested for disturbing the peace. All someone has to do is call the police and complain that they feel "threatened."

For all practical purposes, there is NO right to bear arms in the state of Wisconsin.

---

As for those of you who are condemning this man's actions, all I have to say is that I hope none of you are ever in this situation. Trying to apply rationality to a situation that requires instant reliance upon instincts is the surest ticket to death.

And for the objection that this guy should have driven away, let me point out that from the bare-bones account in this article, you have absolutely no idea what this situation's logistical constraints were. Sure, it's possible that this guy had a sudden bloodthirsty urge to kill, but it's equally possible it wouldn't have been safe for him to drive away.

You say it's statistically improbable that either he or his girlfriend would have been struck by a bullet in a speeding truck. While that may certainly be true (tell that to victims of drive-by shootings), you're neglecting the possibilities for collateral damage. What if the would-be robber's bullets struck not the truck but a nearby elderly or pregnant woman -- or went through a window and killed a child? By keeping this engagement to close quarters, the man was able to virtually eliminate any risk of collateral damage.

Had he merely fled the scene to save his own skin and someone else been killed, one could have argued (not legally, but morally) that he was, in essence, an accessory to murder.

---

there are a multitude of scenarios in this situation that could have gone either way. it could have ended better OR worse. i'll give you the worse BUT you cannot prove to me that there is NO WAY possible this situation could have ended better.

i took the contrary side of this in the hopes that minds would be opened & another viewpoint could be taken into account but clearly that didn't happen. that's just sad.

Your argument is that allowing a gun-toting would-be robber to live is inherently a better outcome than disposing of him. I'm not convinced that's true. Even granting that it could be true, as a husband and father, I'm not willing to take that risk, and I don't believe most of the other men on this site are either. If I have to choose the life and safety of the family God has entrusted to me over that of someone who represents a threat to the former, I won't lose a moment's sleep over it.

And this is coming from a guy who had to be verbally ordered to point his weapon at women and children in Iraq because doing so caused him so much mental anguish.

---

trust me, if it was somebody trying to harm my family, i'd have killed the sob with my own two hands - just because i'm a woman doesn't mean i can't or won't protect my family. but that's not what this was - you know it & so does every one else who read the article.

one thing i've always valued the most in my life is my freedom to feel how i want to about any given subject & if i learn something new, i also have the right change my mind.

While I won't criticize the man for taking action... was lethal force necessary?

Maybe, maybe not.

What if the suspect was merely asking for direction or needed some type of help.. walks up to the pickup and sees a man pulling a pistol out of his glove box. Since he now fears for his safety, starts to reach for his gun that he carries for protection as well.

But he never gets to use the weapon or doesn't pull the trigger?

Not saying that is likely, but knocking the guy over and starting to shoot doesn't sound like a sound approach either.

We don't know if the guy in the pickup gave any warning? We don't know if the suspect has threatening with words..

But to the point, was lethal force necessary?

With the evidence at hand.. inconclusive at best in my opinion.

The absolute last course of action by any person should be deadly force... any person, period.

You are giving that person the right of judge, jury and executioner in one brief moment.. to much power for any given person IMO.

---

I only agree with lethal force if lethal force was believed to be threaten on him or others. You can't wait around and wait for the first shot or wonder if its loaded or not.

I've never been in that situation, but I'd like to think that after the first shot or two that connected I would have stopped shooting and made an effort to remove the weapon from the robber and phone the police. But if the robber kept moving for his gun, obviously, he wanted to use it.

It's a really tough thing to say DEFINITELY this or that because theres SOO many variables that could take place. This is a far more difficult discussion than I had anticipated.

---

I disagree. Acting foolishly upon a whim is the surest ticket to death. In my opinion, the proper course of action is to oblige with the robber's demands. It is far more dangerous to try and take the situation into your own hands and try to come out the victor.

Reminds me of those stories of martial arts experts who found themselves in a fight with people on the street and getting fatally stabbed, thinking their some hot shot because they have skills and didn't run away or co-operate.

---

I don't want the hard-line stance I've taken to be taken the wrong way. The more I think about this story, the more it bothers me. I'm still not convinced that lethal force was, in fact, justified here. I don't see any evidence of proper escalation of force in the man's actions. (If someone with a weapon on his lap slammed a car door into me and started to exit his vehicle, I'd probably reach for my weapon too.)

I think the real question here was of the guy's intent. Was he actually intending to rob this couple? I'm not convinced the evidence actually indicates that he was, which troubles me. It unnerves me that several people in this thread have implied that carrying a weapon -- reaching for a weapon -- necessarily implies criminal intent. After all, the guy in the pickup truck reached for a weapon. By that logic, he is indeed the criminal here. Perhaps the "robber," intending to, say, ask for directions, was simply carrying a weapon for self-defense purposes and panicked when the man in the pickup showed aggression.

As for TheEngineer's assertion that the best way to survive an encounter with a criminal is to acquiesce to his demands, I agree to an extent. I couldn't care less about money or even material possessions. If all he wants is my cash, fine. (If he wants to rape my wife, NOT FINE.) The problem here is that this guy was packing heat. It is not unheard-of for a robber to shoot his victims even after they acquiesce to his demands, simply because as eyewitnesses, they now represent a liability. That's not a risk I'm willing to take -- and I don't think I have the moral right to subject my family to that risk, either.

Was lethal force necessary in this instance? None of us knows -- we weren't there. Was it necessary to pump an entire magazine into the guy? I doubt it; in fact, I find it disturbing that he did. It sounds to me like he got carried away and succumbed to bloodlust (see 1:36  below). At this comfortable vantage point, I'm tempted to say, "Put a couple of rounds in the guy, then call the authorities" -- and indeed, that's probably what I'd do.

On the other hand, do you really want to deal with the possibility of a pissed-off criminal, whom you shot and turned in, stalking your family after being released from prison in a couple of years?
[youtube]D0Cw-Ddf1ro[/youtube]

---