Sometimes stand your ground does not work out so well.

[avebury]

http://kfor.com/2013/08/26/police-respond-to-possible-double-shooting-near-sw-44th-and-may/


OKLAHOMA CITY — A liquor store owner and a robbery suspect are both in critical condition after being shot by Oklahoma City police.

Police were originally called to the area of S.W. 44th and May to investigate an assault with a deadly weapon.

While they were investigating that crime, they heard gunshots being fired.

Police ran around the corner of the strip mall on the southwest corner of S.W. 44th and May and observed a man shooting at a vehicle.

They ordered that man to drop the gun and when he didn’t comply, he was shot.

The vehicle he was shooting at crashed about a quarter of a mile down S.W. 44th and two men inside the vehicle took off running.

One of those men was also shot by police and both were apprehended.

Police later figured out that the first man they shot was the owner of a liquor store and he was firing at two suspects who had attempted to rob his store.

The suspects were caught near S.W. 47th and Drexel. Oklahoma City police continue to investigate.

[spin]

1. If the robbers were driving off, the threat to the store owners life or health had ended. ...

In my opinion the store owner should not have fired at the fleeing robbers. Lethal force is not justified if your life or heath is not in danger.

Of course the self defense laws vary from state to state and even if a store owner does chase and shoot at a fleeing criminal in a state where it is illegal, the case may never be prosecuted.

[treestar]

3. True. Not self defense at that point

But revenge.

[YarnAddict]

2. That isn't SYG

SYG only applies in cases of self-defense. In this case, the potential robbers were attempting to flee, so the store owner was clearly not in any danger, therefore he had no need to defend his life.

[avebury]

5. Let me rephrase - Gun ownership does not always come with

the absence of consequences should the owner choose to fire his/her weapon.

[blueridge3210]

6. I can't recall anyone saying that gun ownership comes with the absence of consequences.

Choosing to fire a weapon always comes with consequences; the point is that one makes a choice based on the totality of the circumstances. In this case it appears the shooter chose poorly as the initial assailants were ceasing their aggressive action and self defense/"Stand your Ground" no longer applied.

[avebury]

7. Far too often there are no consequences relating to gun shootings.

As an obvious example, the numerous incidents of children getting a hold of loaded guns and shooting/killing themselves or others. Incidents like this are almost always chalked up to be a "tragic accident" which is pure BS. Failure to charge the gun owners for some type of charge (child endangerment, negligence, reckless disregard for public safety, what ever - you get the drift) results in nothing being changed and more children getting a hold of loaded guns and continuing the endless cycle of what should be preventable violence. It is abundantly clear that the parents in cases like that just don't love their children enough to provide them with a safe environment.

I no longer have even one iota of sympathy for children initiated shootings and their consequences. I just figure that it is God's way of cleaning out the gene pool.

[blueridge3210]

9. Consequences

I regard a dead or injured child a a "consequence". If you mean prosecution as a consequence you may wish to "rephrase" once again. How does this scenario relate to "Stand your Ground"?

[NickB79]

10. Parents are often charged when children are shot

Just recently here in the Twin Cities, a father was sentenced for letting his child get ahold of a loaded gun and kill himself. And even when they aren't charged in court, you can't say there are "no consequences." A parent losing their child, even a POS dumb enough to leave a loaded gun lying around, will feel the consequences of their actions for the rest of their life. Some argue that there is nothing worse you could do to punish a person in that situation; putting them in prison wouldn't even compare.

That said, I do agree with you that there should be more LEGAL consequences for negligent parents to face. Thankfully, the rate of deaths by gunshot (both intentional and accidental) has been falling for quite a few years now, so hopefully we're moving in the right direction.

[blueridge3210]

4. Doesn't appear to be "Stand your Ground"

Upon first reading, it appears that the persons in the vehicle were attempting to flee after the attempted robbery. If so, this would not fall under "Stand your Ground" as the initial assailant was attempting to disengage; it would usually not meet any self defense standard as the assailants had ceased their aggressive action by attempting to leave.

[Loudly]

8. I'm assuming that the robbers had at least one gun between them.

So: The trouble all started because guns are allowed in the hands of the public in this country.