Let's look at the reality of the situation, neither of the victims were seriously injured, they aren't going to jail, they aren't being sued, they don't have to hire expensive criminal/civil defense attorneys. No insurance claims that increases premiums. The store isn't going to be closed for a long violent crime scene investigation and/or clean up. A closed business loses money, far more than what the bad guys took. Yeah it sucks but it's not the 1800's or even the early 1900's where good was looked on with respect and bad was generally rejected. We are living in a world with a new set of paradigms, we can accept these new paradigms and do the best we can or be constantly angry and unhappy.
So, you are going to stand by let these two criminals rob you and possible attempt to kill you, while you are waiting for the cops?If you are going to resist criminals because you think it make the world a better place, it wont. Crime and criminals have always been with us and as long as flawed humans run the world criminals will always be with us. If you are going to resist criminals over money or property it will almost always cost you more than what is being stolen. Consider legal fee's alone, if you resist with violent force, any type of violent force, you will be arrested and held until the police can sort out what happened. If you talk to the police without a lawyer being present you are ignorant of the criminal justice system, after being involved in a violent incident the police don't even talk to the police without a lawyer being present. Just having a criminal defense attorney present at questioning can run into the thousands of dollars. Let's say you do engage the unarmed thieves with a firearm and at some point you pull the trigger keep in mind that trained and qualified LEO's miss almost 70% of their shots fired, an untrained person who has no experience dealing with criminals probably won't do better. Are you prepared for the civil and possible legal consequences of missed shots hitting where you hadn't intended. Using deadly force against an unarmed person will almost always result in charges being filed, disparity of force notwithstanding. In the recent Curtis Reeves trial it was shown that the 70 year old Reeves was struck on the head by a much younger taller heavier person standing over the seated Reeves, Reeves responded to the attack with deadly force, a .380 round fired into his attackers heart. Reeves was charged with murder, so much for "disparity of force" being taken into consideration by the Prosecutor. Although the jury saw things differently than the Prosecutor and aquitted Reeves it cost Reeves almost a $1,000,000.00 in legal fee's, so there is that. That's hardly a one off, remember Zimmerman, an even better case for force disparity of force and that also resulted in a murder charge and almost $2,000,000.00 in legal fee's. That said, it's up to each person to decide if a few dollars or property is worth risking literally everything.
Enter your email address to join: