Diego did ask a good question, and I'll guarantee that the theifs )family) case will be based on this rational. What else do they have to go on? Everything else he did was wrong. He wanted to rob, and he robbed. He was armed, prepared for confict and he got it.
What did the guard do wrong? She retaliated with an amount of force that will probably be considered excessive. Perhaps its poor training. If everybody expects any security guard to be perfect in all situations and have textbook reactions then thats an unrealisitic expecation. Therefore we have to judge the situation on its indviduals and circumstances.
Originally posted by apollo
Err, if you're trying to rob someone, punching them in the arm doesn't work. On the other hand if you're trying to stop someone getting away, shooting their tyres does work. Shooting them in the head also works, but it's overkill. Your comparison is as hopeless as my sex life.
I understand that it looks like the comparison is between apples and oranges. But thats if you look at the situation only taking into account the physcial aspects and hindsight rationalisation. In regards to stopping the person getting away that
may have been one of the reasons that the guard discharged the firearm, but im sure that the primary reason was because there were overwhelming feelings of rage.
the comparison is about the state of mind and the ability to rationalise the most appropiate course of action.. The comparison was meant to illustrate that the theif
may in the heat of the moment a person may take actions which in hindsight are percieved as
too aggressive. Specifically perhaps the theif did not intend to fracture the skull. Perhaps the theif did not intend to meet such resistance.
However I think the fact that HE PREMEDIATED THE ROBBERY and the fact that HE HAD KNUCKLE DUSTERS overides any sort of concession that he did not intend to cause such harm.
How many people here would
NOT feel like taking excessive force onto a person if they were bashed? I think that the percentage would be minimal.
Remeber there are 2 points of dicussion here.
1. the reasoned/unreason action of shooting the theif.
2. the consequences of the reasoned/unreason action of shooting the theif.
point number 1. can be debated reasoned in my opinion.
point number 2. is up to the general public (ie police/courts/jury) to decide what sort of consequenses are suitable. This is probably more important because i think analysis of point number 2 addresses issues such as security proceedures (ie. cash collection at inconsistant times, single person guards in relation to cash amount collections. From point number 2 we are probably able to take further precautions to ensure that suituaitions like this do not occur again.