California Jewelry Store Owner Fires Back at Armed Robbers: Would You Do the Same?

You state: "This is an interesting point you bring up. However, I for one am not in favor of killing a person to 'solve their problem.'"

When the actual "problem" is whether the innocent lives or *DIES*, it makes choices much more limited.

You state: "It is more efficient, yes. And I feel it is odd to compare a shooting by the shop owner of a one-time offender (it could turn into more, yes) to a mass-murderer-bankrobber. Keep talking to me, though."

There isn't a hooker, that wasn't a virgin at one time.
Why do you believe, that these POS, would have *STOPPED* committing violent crimes after just this one robbery? Especially if it had been successful?
Statistically, criminals escalate in their violence, commonly leading to murder; if they aren't given a good reason to stop . . . like the risk of death for example.
While this innocent intended victim *WAS* prepared against their violent crime, their next innocent victims may *NOT* be prepared, and may *DIE* because this jewelry store owned didn't kill the bastards.

You state: "And @ Debowman, I wonder why you consider putting criminals in jail to be protecting them? I don't know about you, but jail is not an easy place to live in my opinion."

But it was the *CHOICE* they made being *CRIMINALS*; A pine box, would be my preferred choice for them, especially for the good of Society.

You state: "In general I think the problem lay in society. Stats show that 43% of all prisonmates (in a survey of 150 people, mind you) had teenage or single mothers."

While that is a great ideology, it's just not practically applicable: When you are threatened with death, it doesn't matter that that the *VIOLENT CRIMINAL* didn't get an extra pudding when he was a child or anything else, not even only having a single mom.

You state: " So, if we fix the concept that people should be independent family makers, among many other rotten concepts (like eye for an eye, and the concept that, if you're Christian, breaking the sixth commandment: You shall not kill: is fine for you only because you deem it's okay for this instance), we might see less killers running around. :)"

Actually the correct translation of the 6th Commandment is "Thou shalt not *MURDER*"; HUGE difference!
The Bible makes it clear, that had this Jewelry store owner killed those bastards, it would have been *Right* with God.

I'm fairly certain they don't have insurance that guarantees armed robbers won't shoot them once they have stolen the jewelry.

The situations are not comparable in the least. Latisha was unarmed, attacked with a stool and then shot, all while holding the money to pay for her orange juice. Moreover, the store owner was not responsible for the riots, that would be the judge who reduced a potential 16 year prison sentence to five years probation, $500 fine and 400 hours community service for voluntary manslaughter-not self defense-and of course the rioters themselves. This was also closely related in time to the Rodney King beating. A typical and appalling act of state brutality against a black person. So we have a well documented and publicized act of brutality by the state against a black person and then a few days later a judge (acting for the state) in the same area lets a murderer off with a slap on the wrist after murdering a 15 year old black girl. Essentially, the government for the county of LA and the state of California were saying that black people have no expectation of justice. The only thing the rioters did wrong was to stay in their own neighborhood rather than go to the homes of those in the government that sh*ts all over them.

You learned the wrong lesson. The lesson was that government has no abiding interest in justice or protection of the public and is in fact the greatest threat to public safety, justice and personal property.

There is no crime in self defense.