|
Tough call, yes, but I answered with the first poll option. I think that that option leaves open the possibility of the remaining three.
It might be viewed as violent, bloodthirsty vigilantism if you dropped the robber without so much as a, "FREEZE!"
Assume that you are justifying shooting the robber in court.
Would the jury understand that "forewarned is forearmed," and that forewarning the robber that you are present and ready to shoot him might cause him to preemptively:
- take the clerk hostage
- shoot the clerk
- shoot you?
While it may be tactically best, for YOUR safety, to just shoot without shouting, "DROP IT!" a jury might think, because of all the movies they've seen, that you should have done so. (Why they would think you should "give the robber a chance" is beyond me. What courtesy or advantage do you owe this guy?)
But perhaps, if one is less cynical and more optimistic, the judge would instruct the jury that there is nothing illegal about shooting an armed man who is committing a forcible robbery without first telling him a single word.
I would hope that they could be made to realize that it would jeopardize innocents to alert the robber that he faces opposition that could otherwise remain covert.
-blackmind
|