Self defense question

Hi PrepHole. I'm writing a paper for a class, and I just wanted your opinion, to get more material for the paper. Take this imaginary situation and give your feedback:

A man goes into a gas station, jumps behind the counter, pushes the clerk out of the way, and starts taking all the money out of the register. He does not seem to want to attack the clerk any further. Should the clerk be allowed to, by law, shoot the robber?

Your opinion, and the country you are from, if you're willing to share. I am Canadian.

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Allowed to by law, yes. But your life isn't worth a few bucks in a corporate tiller. They have insurance to cover that shit.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OPs situation is not allowed to use lethal force by law.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Depends on where you live moron, in Florida
        776.08Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
        If you want to feel safe just try to stop him from stealing from the register, he will fight back and now you are 100% in the clear to shoot, in Florida.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And OPs situation isn't robbery, tardo, it's larceny, and please show me in your quote where larceny is.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How Does Robbery Differ From Larceny? To be convicted of robbery, a person must commit an actual larceny, but the theft must take place in the presence of the victim and the larceny must be accomplished through either the threat or use of force.
            lol

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And what force was used.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If there was the threat he'd push back if you pushed him away then that's use of force. In practice any illegal entrance to private property with intent to commit a crime inherently carries the threat of force. Having a firearm is a further aggravating factor on top same as assault ("assault with a deadly weapon") but people can injure or kill with their fists or any random object they grab just fine.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                this
                Any use of force justifies immediate retaliation by any means necessary. Sociologists and civic types question whether it is justified to kill 1000 criminals on the off chance 1 of them might kill the victim, the real question is why the criminals made this choice to begin with.

                Also it is utilitarian, in a society where a life of crime is incredibly violent and almost always results in death and everyone knows it and is terrified that their sons might make some stupid mistake, less people will become criminals and so less criminals will be killed overall, and less victims. We need to do our part towards creating such a society for the greater good and it in fact runs contrary to ethics and "social justice" and whathaveyou to oppose it.

                I for one care about black people and know that such a society would benefit them greatly, for decades we've been trying to solve the issues in the inner city their way and nothing has changed. We need to change as a society and come together to finally put an end to the crime problem plaguing this oppressed downtrodden group once and for all. Mandatory firearms training for ages 16 up perhaps.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Pushing him there is simple assault (unlawful touching). Pushing him there then stealing from elevates his crime of simple assault to third degree felony robbery.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if the person:
                (a)Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another;
                (b)With criminal negligence causes physical injury to another by means of a deadly weapon; or
                (c)With criminal negligence causes serious physical injury to another who is a vulnerable user of a public way

                A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:
                (a)Harasses or annoys another person by:
                (A)Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact; or
                (B)Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response;
                (b)Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm; or
                (c)Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that person’s family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                784.011Assault.—
                (1)An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
                try again lol

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >assault
                >defined as a threat
                What leftist hellhole do you live in?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                784.011Assault.—
                (1)An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
                try again lol

                Oh Jesus that'sFlorida?
                They basically have thought crime as an assault?
                And red flag laws now
                Bah, what a shithole.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >telling someone you're going to murder them
                >thought crime
                God I thought Floridians were stupid also
                784.03Battery; felony battery.—
                (1)(a)The offense of battery occurs when a person:
                1.Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
                2.Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Literally just shaking someone's hand is battery in florida
                Fuck that shithole

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I keep money in my hand when I shake people's hand that way they're now commiting battery and robbery.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why do I get the feeling that the reason you're taking such issue with Florida's laws is that you want to (or already have) gotten into some kind of violent confrontation with someone and you want to be able to worm your way out of any legal repercussions?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >two people reach out to shake hands
                >this is against the will of one of them
                Not how it works retard.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >against their will
                Handshakes are consensual, you retard.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah most the south is actually absolute dogshit law wise, all the reconstructionist authoritarianism bullshit.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's assault everywhere. Battery is any nonconsensual harmful or offensive touching, and assault is an act that creates a reasonable apprehension of such touching. Threatening to harm someone, or taking threatening physical actions, is not thoughtcrime.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Most states go this way, some change the verbiage, such as referring to the definition above as assault rather than harassment, and battery in exchange for assault, but in those states that use assault and battery rather than harassment and assault, battery is required to fulfill the force requirement of robbery.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don’t shoot. It’s not your money and the only reason the government cares is that he is taking money without paying taxes. None of this is my business.

    If it’s my store shoot to kill.

    Germany.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does the thief appear to be armed with a deadly weapon? Because if he's brandishing any sort of weapon during the event, I say shoot to kill the moment his attention is diverted. Bringing a weapon to a crime like this implies he's willing to use it regardless of whether he states that he doesn't want to hurt you.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Should the clerk be allowed to, by law, shoot the robber?

    No. The clerk should be allowed to use non lethal force. Hit the robber, pepper spray the robber, hell even take a baseball bat to him.

    But the law says you shouldn't be able to shoot someone unless you feel you or someone else's is at risk of death or serious injury. I don't object to that.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nah. You can shoot him if the property is not replaceable and you have no reasonable expectation of being able to recoup it. That leaves a lot of wiggle room in the case of when you can kill em and when you can't. The law in America is written to give the property owner the benefit of the doubt and the right to defend their possessions.
      (Certain really gay states not included)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Depends on the state. You need to know your state laws. In my state I could pull my gun and tell him to drop the cash and if he kept taking the cash the law wouldn't let me shoot him unless he did something to indicate he was going to attack me.

        The incident happening in your home rather than in a public place like a business generally gives you more leeway. By the same token if he's in my home and I tell the cops he said "time to die cracker" before he reached for his wasteband there's no witnesses or cameras to say otherwise.

        TLDR: KNOW THE LAWS IN YOUR STATE. If you're going to carry a gun in a state, know the laws or you're asking to get fucked.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >thief knows legally you can't shoot him
          >just walks off, smiling
          Can you imagine?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your typical thief off the street usually doesn't research the law to that extent, and sometimes they are even in a state of mind where they wouldn't be able to recall it even if they did.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Only one state allows lethal force for the protection of property, Texas; and most legal experts agree that you'd get buttfucked in court, because even crazy ass Texans haven't taken advantage of this law in quite some time.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >be (You), a gas station worker
      >make single digit dollars per hour selling honey buns and blunt papers to nogs
      >nog comes to take the $47 out of the register
      >(You) become overwhelmed with company pride and shoot someone to save your rich boss half a tank of gas

      are all canadians this stupid?

      >shooting someine for stealing sub 10k monies
      I dunno where the limit goes to justify this, but in my opinion, if you shoot someone during unarmed robbery, or rather theft, you shouldn’t own a firearm. People who do this are the reason libs want to regulate gun laws.

      This is so fucking retarded
      >nog tries to rob your store
      >play the hero
      >nog gets domed
      >you get shot in the arm
      >a week in the hospital, 6 month recovery
      >owner pays more for workers comp than was in the till in the first place
      There’s a reason pretty much all stores explictly forbid cashiers from trying to stop a robbery. It’s stupid from every angle.

      post guns, post skin, post nose, and go back

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >you have an opinion i disagree with? post a bunch of photographic evidence that i know you won't do or else you 'lose' the argument
        >disregard the fact that if you DO post these things, I will just find something in the photo to make fun of to derail the conversation

        you don't want to have a discussion, you just want to win an internet argument.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By law they are allowed to already, depending on the state in the US. In your example, he's already used force to subdue / defeat the clerk by shoving him away, so there is no reason to suspect he won't attempt further, nor is the clerk expected to wait for additional provocations after the fact. The robber has also shown an ability to overpower the clerk so he would be right to believe he could be In further, potentially life threatening danger later.

    The only reasonable way for the robber to NOT be an immediate target for violence would be to not commit the crime, in the first place

    Clerk shouldn't shoot if he can escape, as it's not his money, but the robber already rolled the dice on fight or flight being the victims response, so whatever instinct wins: fuck around and find out. It's not the clerks job to be the better man, only the survivor

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >By law they are allowed to already, depending on the state in the US

      In my state (NC) I'd be prosecuted if I shot him under those circumstances. I could pull my gun on him, but unless he does something to indicate he's going to attack me I can't shoot.

      Honestly its a good argument for having pepper spray on you in addition to a gun. You can legally pepper spray a moron at the drop of a hat.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Honestly its a good argument for having pepper spray on you in addition to a gun.
        Then he comes back with a gun or a knife and gets you when you're not paying attention.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Then he comes back with a gun or a knife

          how many more stupid made up scenarios do you have when someone mentions pepper spray?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Honestly its a good argument for having pepper spray on you in addition to a gun.

        Wrong. When/If the time comes when you are forced to use your firearm against a deadly threat, while having less-thans or nonlethals on your person in that moment, you will be scrutinized into oblivion for not using those instead. Likley being convicted. Do you really think the courts will be on your side? Pick one, and only one; Carrying a gun or any number of tools that are not firarms, but not both.

        Also think about procedure that damn near all LEO agencies follow. Less-thans are to only be used when lethal cover is available. If you are by yourself, you are your own lethal cover and should not use less-thans.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not necessarily.
      In most states it wouldn't be legal to use lethal force anyways, as all states require the assailant to be an imminent threat to your life, but some states have exceptions for situations with relatively high murder rates, such as robbery.
      Robbery is theft by force, or threat of force.
      Now here's where OP is being a shithead on purposes, he was ambiguous about the force used, someone slightly bumping into the clerk would not make it robbery, whereas the assailant shoving the clerk to the ground super hard, could be.
      So in most states, not justified regardless, in others, maybe but OP was purposely vague for (you)s

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >all states require the assailant to be an imminent threat to your life
        You wish that were true, Californian.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >as all states require the assailant to be an imminent threat to your life
        lmao
        lol even

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    From a purely business standpoint, even if fully justified legally, it wouldn't be worth the hassle to shoot them, what with filling out police paperwork, dealing with publicity fallout, having the establishment closed down for cleanup, etc. All that would cost way more money than the $100 or whatever in the cash drawer.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Grab some cheeks without being caught on camera
    >Get beaten nearly to death
    >Sue

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Should the clerk be allowed to, by law, shoot the robber

    Ideally, yes; fuck thieves.

    Practically, no; some thief is going to get killed, they are going to turn out to just be an absolute saint who only dindu nuffin and just made a small mistake and then summer of love II.

    If he really is unarmed and not wanting to hurt people further, than just kick his ass.

    >t. American

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Magdump and plead the fifth until you have a story together that involves a fear for your life. They won’t press charges.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah but if its in a store its probably all on camera and it wouldn't be hard for a prosecutor to show that there was no immediate threat of harm to you. In some states lethal force is automatically justified in a robbery because its assumed the robber has harmful intent but if not you'd be fucked.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        but the robber is black.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can't just say you feared for your life, prison is full of nigs and white trash who tried that.
      You have to prove to the court, that you reasonably belived your life was in danger, by articulating how the person had the ability, means, and intent to cause you imminent death.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >be (You), a gas station worker
    >make single digit dollars per hour selling honey buns and blunt papers to nogs
    >nog comes to take the $47 out of the register
    >(You) become overwhelmed with company pride and shoot someone to save your rich boss half a tank of gas

    are all canadians this stupid?

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >yes
    >kraut living in amerika
    morally its questionable for me personally but my moral framework cannot be forced on the population. imho from a logical standpoint you cant punish people for defending their property, even with deadly force. punishing people for defending themselfes and their stuff and protecting the criminals instead actively dismantles society and cultural cohesion. people stealing livestock used to be lynched for a reason
    TL'DR :
    >yes all criminals are KOS
    >t. kraut

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hey fellow Kraut.
      Wie ist es so in Amerika? Ich hab mir selbst überlegt mal hin zu ziehen wenn mein Geschäft hier besser läuft. Bist du wegen deinem Beruf oder der Liebe da? Hast du und wenn ja wie viele Waffen
      Ich bin schon ein bisschen neidisch auf dich 😛

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >asking on PrepHole
    Yeah I wonder what people will say here

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think you should do whatever you see fit, heck even tying him up and locking him in the sex dungeon (the freezer) will do. Criminals should stop getting treated so kindly by lawyers.
    t. American.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Belgium. No

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >shooting someine for stealing sub 10k monies
    I dunno where the limit goes to justify this, but in my opinion, if you shoot someone during unarmed robbery, or rather theft, you shouldn’t own a firearm. People who do this are the reason libs want to regulate gun laws.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >People who do this are the reason libs want to regulate gun laws.
      Fucking retard

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.
    >He does not seem to want to attack the clerk any further
    Not possible. The robber, already shown clear sign of aggression, assaulted the clerk, and he did not flee. The threat is still close and immediate.
    Thailand.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only correct answer. If a person will brazenly commit that crime there’s no reason to doubt he will do another. He’s already pushed the clerk out of the way. You shouldn’t have to wait until he’s attacking you. USA

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The clerk should be allowed to do anything he wishes to the robber. Torture, rape, lock it in his basement for 50 years. You cease to have rights when you decide to deprive someone else of theirs.
    As soon as a criminal commits a crime, they become the victim's property. If a criminal commits multiple offenses it can be sold for organ harvesting after being sufficiently tortured or whatever the victims want.
    >t. Leaf

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No day of the rake for you

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have a fantasy of working at McDonalds and throwing a pan of boiling hot cooking oil on a robber, like a medieval siege engineer.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Because he's assaulted the klerk.
    Kill every violent criminal.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I currently work a shitty corpo Gas station job I Conceal Carry despite the job not allowing it and just put in my two weeks notice. and Honestly even before i put in the two weeks i've thought of this situation happening almost every night and to be honest Id let him take the cash and pretend I didnt see his face if he left a bill by the door. That barely above minimum wage job doesnt give a shit about me, and the office doesnt even know what my face looks like let alone care if I get hurt or not. If im not at risk, neither is the robber.
    t. Usa

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just wanted to add, that the clerks should still be allowed to out of fear of their safety or risk of they themselves getting robbed. I just dont care about the chain Im working at.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, he should be allowed by shoot him. Yes, I would shoot him. Yes, I would get off.
    t. Florida man

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >man has demonstrated hostile intent

    100% fully justified IF he has a weapon. You have no idea if he will just shoot you in the head or stab you in the dick once he is done looting. You should be under no moral nor legal compulsion to cede tactical advantage. Draw the gun, point it at him. If he runs off with the money, you're legally fucked even if it is morally right to shoot him until he dies. If he tries to draw or comes after you, shoot him until he stops moving. I fucking hate lukewarm IQ retards that try to take the moral high ground using hindsight. "But he was unarmed." Motherfucker, how am I supposed to know that? Ask some criminal if he is armed or not, and trust his fucking answer? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Should the clerk be allowed to, by law, shoot the robber?
    Do you want to know what our moral position is or what the law says?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Both.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Morally, sure.
        Legally: go into detail about the push, be specific.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Legally: go into detail about the push, be specific.
          Hard enough to get the clerk away from the register. Both hands, as hard as he could. Open-hands shove. Clerk might have even stumbled or fell.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then sure, it's robbery, and in the handgulk of states that allow you to use deadly force to stop a robbery it would be legal, the majority of states it would be illegal.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right. If you did that on the street, it'd legally be assault. A lot of people have odd ideas about what the law permits. Practically if someone shoves somebody in an argument or whatever and nobody is hurt it is unlikely to be sued over civilly even let alone prosecuted, but it's still assault. And if the one getting shoved over has some medical condition and ends up badly hurt/dead yeah expect shit over it.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Most states require unwanted physical contact to cause an injury to be assault, otherwise it's just harassment.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What is the legal definition of "injury?" Do they have to show a cruise or cut? Or if they lost their balance and fell down hard on the ground and were able to prove it with a video or eyewitnesses, it would count as an injury even if they were able to stand back up just fine?

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not sure about the Canadian law, but our gun and self-defense laws specifically mention protection of your life, someone elses life or property.

    In practice though you should be prepared to defend yourself, but fuck the cash, unironically not your problem.

    The reason I mentioned your own defense is because I knew a guy years back, great kid, fitness buff, worked at the gas station for summer, got robbed, did everything right (we had footage), hands up, handed cash up immediately, remained calm, robber left, but then he returned, looked like he changed his mind in the doorway, and shot the kid in the head, single shot. Some sociopath, got shredded by cops later that day.
    Of course the way it usually works is that it is up to the cop's interpretation.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In my state of Vermont robbery or burglary are explicitly legal reasons for justifiable homicide and I agree. I like living in a high trust society where doors can be left unlocked, kids can go biking to town or play and build forts innawoods without adults hovering over them, etc. Theft is both a drain on society directly and damages the social fabric in corrosive ways that at harder to put a number on but very bad when you contrast it. Further, money from crime tends to feed more crime and escalate. Finally in rural areas police simply cannot be expected to react quickly. Lots of places have nothing but state police, response time >30 min with the best will in the world. This isn't some ding against cops just physics and economics.

    It should absolutely be legal to use lethal force against thieves, defense of property is at the core of civilization. I won't rag in the slightest on anyone who chooses otherwise, but the law should permit that choice.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And OPs situation isn't burglary, and probably not robbery, but we can't quite be sure because OP was purposely vague about the "push", bit if it wasn't enough to cause harm, then OPs situation wasn't robbery.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And OPs situation isn't burglary
        What?
        >§ 1201. Burglary
        >(a) A person is guilty of burglary if he or she enters any building or structure knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so, with the intent to commit a felony, petit larceny, simple assault, or unlawful mischief.
        What's the definition where you are?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also lots of people seem to be imagining "gas station" as a big corporate chain. There are still plenty of single store independent ones around here, where theft would be a big threat to the business. And speaking of big corps, I know many on PrepHole like still being able to use cash not just credit cards. Know what pushes businesses to get rid of cash in favor of cards only? Theft.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Of course for the robbery is an attack on society itself. The cash is not the real issue but the right to property without which there is no freedom.

      >Of course for the robbery is an attack on society itself. The cash is not the real issue but the right to property without which there is no freedom.
      This. OP, something you might find valuable in your considerations is the whole "low trust vs high trust society" thing, from Francis Fukyama's 1995 classic "Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity" to more modern works like "Why Culture Matters Most"
      >https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2019/Klingaspectsoftrust.html
      You're Canadian, I'm American, and probably lots of those commenting are the same or from First World countries that are all high trust societies. It's easy to take completely for granted how unusual that is historically, how special/fragile it is, and how much raw value it provides. It's worth defending, and caring about each other and our overall structures not purely ourselves/family.

      Theft/assault and other such crimes degrade that and should be taken seriously. It's not "just" whatever cash is in the teller or whatever value the stolen goods have.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Should the clerk be allowed to, by law, shoot the robber?
    >Should
    Yes one SHOULD be allowed by law to destroy the robber, but it is probably illegal.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they need to have built in automatic guillotines built into that window
    next monkey that tries that shit get his upper torso cut off
    the you hang what left of him form the neat street light as example

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I work at a gun store in TX. I would be completely in the clear to mag dump into some worthless fuck trying to steal some shit. That said, my life isn't worth some replaceable guns or a few hundred bucks in the POS that will all be claimed on insurance and replaced within a week. I also have no obligation to protect corporate interests. As long as they stay away from the used gun rack, I don't give a fuck.

    Pic is from the one time our store was robbed at night. Thankfully no used guns or NFA stuff taken. Just a bunch of new pistols and some ARs and a PSL.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fuck

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why so concerned about the used guns instead of the new ones?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Where the fuck else am I gonna find glocks and other carry pistols for sub-300 or a mildly bubba'd Smith Corona 1903a3 for 400? I can get most any new gun back on the shelf easily, used guns are a different story entirely. Used guns are irreplaceable.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Allowed? I'd say required as part of civic duty.
    Texan.

    If a man steals from your employer, he is stealing from you. Companies pass losses on to customers as higher prices and employees as lower wages. Money represents labor. Labor takes time you can never have back. The definition of slavery is theft of labor. So any limp-wristed eurofag who won't shoot a thief is a pussy that deserves the slavery they toil in. Pathetic.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's weird how people act like "insurance" is some magical money printer, not just "distributing losses onto everyone else". The only thing insurance means is that when a thief steals a lot from one insured customer he's instead effectively stealing a little from all of the insured customers instead, and then the insurance company takes an extra cut on top. That's how the business model works.
      >company insures 10k stores
      >expects $80 million in theft losses
      >charges stores $10000/year
      >makes $100m, pays out $80m, keeps $20m in profit
      So essentially rather than a single store here or there losing 100k in inventory they each get $8k stolen from them a year and then a tax on top. That's not great either though. The theft still hurts.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's weird how people act like "insurance" is some magical money printer, not just "distributing losses onto everyone else". The only thing insurance means is that when a thief steals a lot from one insured customer he's instead effectively stealing a little from all of the insured customers instead, and then the insurance company takes an extra cut on top. That's how the business model works.
      >company insures 10k stores
      >expects $80 million in theft losses
      >charges stores $10000/year
      >makes $100m, pays out $80m, keeps $20m in profit
      So essentially rather than a single store here or there losing 100k in inventory they each get $8k stolen from them a year and then a tax on top. That's not great either though. The theft still hurts.

      Yes, the negative monetary and societal effects of widespread property crime is being played out on the west coast currently. Cops shot people, they received backlash, rioting, and funding cuts. Now there is not enough enforcement, and minor property crime is more or less left alone. This has lead to damage and losses in most big stores and some small, especially those in the city or near homeless encampments. Now that it's clear law enforcement will continue to no longer enforce property law, stores have had to resort to large scale private security. The loss of goods, store damage, and private security hiring are all cost increases that are being passed to consumers. If there wasn't massive monetary inflation going it would be readily apparent to most the price increases in these areas.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Then minorities wonder why they have "food deserts" in their areas, when theft causes these stores to move or close down.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is so fucking retarded
      >nog tries to rob your store
      >play the hero
      >nog gets domed
      >you get shot in the arm
      >a week in the hospital, 6 month recovery
      >owner pays more for workers comp than was in the till in the first place
      There’s a reason pretty much all stores explictly forbid cashiers from trying to stop a robbery. It’s stupid from every angle.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >stupid from every angle
        Until your store becomes known as an easy mark and you start getting robbed once or twice a week. Eventually some unhinged ape just shoots the clerk for no reason, like that one recent video going around.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >You have no respect for yourself or for the people around you.

    you just want to kill someone legally.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you know where you are?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not a proper response. im calling him out for all his shit excuses about honor and polite society. he doesn't give a fuck about that and simply wants an excuse to kill someone so her can feel like he has worth.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >you just want to kill someone legally
          >just
          but riddle me this my fellow
          what if one were to kill the offender in this situation even though they didn't want to? what if they did it because they knew that this person's existence would contribute to a worse society? or because they know that this person will return because he will again complete another robbery unscathed? why would you refuse an opportunity to remove a parasite from the body of your community? unless you really didnt want to pull the trigger, which warrants no blame because killing someone can be extremely traumatic (even in a justified situation). a criminal is someones child, and that's hard to remove from your consciousness even though theyre a criminal.
          >tl;dr- its not all murderboners bro

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not if you come to understand that the average human life is completely worthless and yields no true meaning. Only slightly more than an animal if you take in account of survival metrics. To believe some malnourished Banglideshi has the same perceived tangible value as you is sacchirne, feel-good ivory tower horseshit to sell to middle aged women.

            Yeah, it's completely edgy-McEdgelord tier to perceive it as such, but the mental trauma you described stems from guilt which itself is derived from morality that is instilled by the culture/society/community that you belong to. Sure, you kill someone that belonged to your community that you cared about and you're going to feel bad about it. However, what if they aren't part of your community? What if they seek to do you harm simply because you aren't their community? Then, you could kill them with a perceived moral justification. However, the powers at be attempt to make us believe we're all the "same" community and the tribal, clan-like genetic predisposition does not exist in any moral or real capacity.

            To believe another human, who is not only genetically distinct from you but who also has an alien culture and language is not inherent competition is a testament to show how the underlying subversion of instinctual genetic/bloodline community and to preserve it has progressed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't want to, because I don't ever want to fear for my life. But if I did, then I would have to defend myself. It is really shameful to fail in self preservation. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to shame people into such a shameful rejection of God-given instinct.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Should the clerk be allowed to, by law, shoot the robber?
    Yes of course. Robbing and threatening someone is cause for self defense. USA makes no distinct between none lethal weapons and lethal weapons, they are all categorized as lethal weapons since people can and have died from Pepper Spray and Tasers. There is however Lethal and Less Lethal in our legal system, but if you're going to get hit with the chargers of attacking someone with a lethal weapon, might as well make sure they can't defend themselves in court. It's pretty bad you have to use a lethal weapon, but it's worse if your target lives to fight you in court.

    I have never robbed a person with force. I've stolen things by sneaking candy bars into a pocket or a cd into my jacket or scanning things wrong on purpose at a self scan. Never got caught and looking back at my youth, it was pretty scummy of me. If I did get caught, I'd have tried to run or give up. Wouldn't fight or get aggressive it cause I knew it was wrong. You have to be even worse shit if you think using force to get what you want is a solution to your life's problems.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If thief is black I'll mag dump, if not, don't care.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How the fuck are you going to source the responses? You're going to say you got them from PrepHole?
    God kids are so fucking stupid these days. Where the fuck did we go wrong with society and raising our next generation?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >How the fuck are you going to source the responses?
      I'm not. This isn't a paper for any kind of scientific study like most academic papers. It's purely an opinion paper. I'm going to be graded more on how I present the argument than anything else.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shutcho cracka ass up. Pussy.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Of course for the robbery is an attack on society itself. The cash is not the real issue but the right to property without which there is no freedom.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    American here.
    >It's my place
    >he's visibly armed with a knife or gun
    Shoot him. Odds are very good he's going to try to kill me to avoid witnesses once he's done. Outright murders post-robbery have happened twice in my neighborhood in the last decade out of a dozen or so convenience store robberies, and there have been a couple more attempted murders.
    >he's unarmed
    Engage with pepper spray, shoot him if he pulls a weapon

    >I'm an employee
    Engage with lethal force if I'm directly threatened, but I'm also not breaking cover until the fucker has left completely and (preferably) not without having a weapon at the ready

    >I'm a customer
    Take cover, ready weapon, call 911 if feasible. I've actually been in this situation, both armed and unarmed, a few times. Never had to shoot anyone and I'd rather not, but I'd also prefer not having the clerk's death on my hands.

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah. It's acceptable and beneficial from a eugenics perspective. American assuming the robber is black or messican.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thread just proves that most of these r*ddit newfags have never lived around our pigmented brothers for any period of time. Blacks in my neighborhood just shoot wagies after robbing the place for fun or because their sub 50iq brains think they are getting rid of evidence.
    Shoot to kill even if you are a wagie, not to protect MCprofits, but because the dude robbing the place has the impulse control of a pit bull.
    >t. live in flint

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Checked.
      If the robber has a gun and pointing it at everyone, shoot him. It's a surprise to the normies how often an armed robber will shoot someone after they get the money.

      It's like putting down a rabid dog in that situation.

      USA

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Why would I want to help people who don’t pay me enough to not qualify for government aid and don’t offer healthcare or a retirement plan? Besides, you’ll get fired for stopping the robber.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because like I said before, you don't want your uncle Ben to die. The job and the money are immaterial relative to your moral imperative to oppose evil.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >oppose evil
        Yeah some dude stealing cash from a register is "evil". There is 0 possibility that the system has just abandoned this person and they're just desperate. Just admit it anon, you just want any excuse to kill someone. If anything you're dog ass should be put down, not the dude taking chump change from a faceless corporation.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >notice me, systempai! OWO
          Homeless shelters exist. Food pantries exist. County health department exists. Literally anybody can have all their needs met for free. If you feel entitled to more, you can work for it. Labor pools exist. If you're unable to work, disability exists. If disability isn't coming in, have you considered swallowing your pride and begging? There is no set of circumstances that forces anybody into assault and robbery.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >system has just abandoned this person
          Because they're a worthless drug-addled moron, most likely.

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Definitely no shooting or attacking him. Let him take the cash and run, try to get a plate number and a description.

    If I'm carrying, I'd put my hand on my gun but leave it in the holster. Just in case the guy actually does pull out a gun.

    I'd like to shoot the guy, but I'd be going to jail for a long time if I did that.

    Minnesota, USA

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the state's laws, but I'd assume that'd be a no in all 50. Reasonable fear for ones life, or in the case of Texas, deprivation of one's property. Its not the clerk's money and the robber is apparently a "hey I'm gonna do this and thats that" kind of guy.

    No. No shoot. Not saying he couldn't get off, but I wouldn't bet on it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But he SHOULD get off. The only argument otherwise is "we don't want to encourage vigilantism," which is gay and hyperauthoritarian.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A lot of things that SHOULD be aren't. Thats just the world we live in. Never bet on the government being morally upstanding.

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >pushes the clerk
    Yeah fuckem. The criminal is going to be released in a few days with a court date months in the future if he's caught. I have no sympathy for this shit.

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    New question if you wrote a law allowing you a part of restored wealth after shooting a man who stole peoperty how much of the evaluated value should you legally be allow to keep?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *