I might not be grasping the tone of your post accurately, but it almost sounds like you're trying to shame those who would act to stop a crime if they saw one being perpetrated.philip964 wrote:http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/151548325.html
I eat at subway a lot. Many of you have mentioned that if during a robbery you are told to get on the floor, you would take action.
The teens had their fingers in their pockets as if they had guns, but apparently they didn't.
So would this be 3 X Trayvon Martin all over again - unarmed teens killed by CHL. And you wouldn't even be injured.
My reaction is: Why does the CHL have to be injured? I guess I don't remember the part of my class where it said you can only stop a robbery with deadly force if you're injured. A robbery with "pretend" guns is still an aggravated robbery if I remember right.
These kids were lucky. A quote in the article alludes to it too: "Lt. Doug Nolte, Wichita police... said the suspects could have been confronted, creating a harmful environment." Reading between the lines on that I'm thinking that the police Lt is implying that they're lucky there wasn't a CHL or some other good citizen there to stop it.
I think that it would have been up to the CHL holder's discretion, but if they felt so threatened that they would have had to resort to deadly force against these kids theres no moral or legal reason why they shouldn't whether they were injured or not--in TX at least.
It's not like 15 and 16 year olds never actually rob and kill people with REAL guns. We all know that they can and sometimes they do.