of COURSE he should face charges. do you want crackjobs running outside shooting their guns at people that are not threatening anyone's life? if the guy was actively holding him up w/ a gun to his head, fine, but this is murder not self defense.

i don't know if it's that obvious and black and white. would it keep you up at night if we just swept this one under the rug? i guess the question is, does being the victim of an armed robbery give you the right run after and shoot and kill the robber while he's getting away? could he have in any possible circumstance felt threatened? i'm just not sure this is crystal clear. i don't think many people would feel that bad if there were no charges pressed.

I think if you're not an officer and your life is in no immediate danger you should absolutely face serious charges for shooting your gun at somebody. especially if you do it at least THREE TIMES where the potential to harm bystanders is great—like it seems here based on the photo. my guess is the community has the mindset that people who commit crimes are sub-human and it's one less "bad guy" on the streets. I'd have zero problem with it if the clerk did it with the gun in his face, but shooting somebody, presumably in the back, is really awful.

wait, that makes it sound like I think cops can kill anybody they want. I meant that greater danger is in the clerk not being professionally trained or knowing when it's appropriate to shoot.

this involves armed robbery, meaning that the person who was shot had a gun and threatened the clerk's life in exchange for money. so cjr's problem seems to be with the timing of the shooting of the thief. had the clerk shot the thief when the gun was pointed directly at the clerk's head then this would be fair. i think it was fair to shoot the bad guy as he was fleeing the scene - maybe not three times but enough to apprehend him. either way, one less bad guy on the streets.

i'm just barely with sjchugh. "had the clerk shot the thief when the gun was pointed directly at the clerk's head then this would be fair." i think we're all in agreement with this. now the question is, was this a revenge crime of passion, in which case you might say, yes, a crime was committed. OR, was this a panicked, shaky knee-jerk reaction with no intent to kill, with an intent to apprehend, or with the intent to stop a perceived threat. i believe there is enough grey area here to vote no, regardless of the technical law. In other words, since this is a *should* question, I believe that morally, he should NOT face charges, even though you could still convince me that a crime was technically committed. In other words, the legal system can simply close the books on this case and i would be reasonably happy with this. yes, the robber is dead but this is not a random crime, nor is it vigilante justice. it's somewhere in between and there's too many far worse crime to solve and prosecute than this.

on the fence but leaning towards yes. The clerks life was not in immediate danger at the time of the shooting. One shot would may have been fine, but three seems excessive to me.

shotguns are not a means of apprehension, right? if he shot the bad guy it was with the intent to kill him. so to say that this is morally justified implies that it's OK to murder someone who robs you. now i certainly understand being angry about having been threatened with a gun, but angry enough to kill the guy long after the threat has been removed? that, my friends, is criminal.

anyone can say clearly in your state of mind right now, sitting behind a computer, that it was overkill. we agree on that. the question was not 'did he commit a crime?' nor was it 'was this overkill?' the question is 'should he face charges?' in the "fog of war" so to speak, someone has just robbed you with a gun, you are, at the moment, the victim. now you're in victim psychology. at the moment you pull the trigger, you are in victim psychology, which i contend is a vastly different psychology than the group of us sitting behind our computers typing. given the fog of war, and victim psychology, and the lack of premeditation, and the thousands of other much higher priority crimes being committed all the time, and the fact that the guy who died was the one who committed the armed robbery, that the answer is no, he should not face charges.

you have convinced me kapauldo...I am voting YES, he should face charges.

there should be no room for vigilante justince in a "civilized" society.

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! My arguments!!! They do nothing!!!!!!

while i agree with kapauldo's story about the fog, i don't think that the fog was foggy enough to make the guy shoot the armed robber three times. i think if this involved only 2 shots, then he shouldn't face charges. but three? ya, he should.

kapauldo correctly points out that i voted "no." hmpf. it seems i was in a fog...