• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Robber Killed by Store Clerk While Scooping Up Cash Is 'Victim'

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
"The two adult male suspects were in the process of emptying the store's cash register when the clerk fatally shot one of them"

We need more info.
Did they have a gun or knife, or is this only a disparity of numbers issue & they'd threatened him?
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
Who's on First?

Reading that was almost like listening to the "Who's on First" joke...

Figuring out who they were talking about, victim or suspect, with such poor journalism can make your head spin.
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
The "victim" was shot more than ten times:

http://tinyurl.com/6vzslfp


The Victim was the store clerk and from my understanding did not get shot at all.

If the perp was shot 10 times, so what? You shoot to stop the threat and if it takes 10, then 10 it is.

Would this matter if it was a LEO involved shooting? Leos have been known to shoot their perps way more times.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The deceased was a victim of a shooting. The use of the word "victim" does not mean that the shooting was neither deserved nor justified. If he was in the act of robbing the store while armed, as it appears he was, then his victimhood was both deserved and justified (morally if not legally).

That the robber was the victim of a shooting does not preclude the clerk from being a victim of a robbery. "Victim," as it was applied to the robber, is not inaccurate. It is unfortunate--only because of how some would react to the appellation.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
It is not inaccurate by definition alone, but the article gives a certain slant that will taint the majority's perception of events.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I reread the article and saw no slant at all--unless one infers that the calling the robber a "victim" means that his being shot was somehow nefarious. It doesn't. The onus for not making that incorrect inference rests with the reader.
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
The deceased was a victim of a shooting. The use of the word "victim" does not mean that the shooting was neither deserved nor justified. If he was in the act of robbing the store while armed, as it appears he was, then his victimhood was both deserved and justified (morally if not legally).

That the robber was the victim of a shooting does not preclude the clerk from being a victim of a robbery. "Victim," as it was applied to the robber, is not inaccurate. It is unfortunate--only because of how some would react to the appellation.

People have wondered where you've been. Glad you are OK.

I still say it is too nice to call the robber a victim under any circumstances.
 

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
When you set yourself up for disaster, you are no longer a victim of anything except for your own stupidity.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
I reread the article and saw no slant at all--unless one infers that the calling the robber a "victim" means that his being shot was somehow nefarious. It doesn't.

I agree, but we live in an emotionally ruled society, and most do not have the clarity to see things this way. That is where I see the "slant." I'm not implying the author did so deliberately, and I'll concede it may only be my perspective.

The onus for not making that incorrect inference rests with the reader.

Agreed, and, that's sort of my point. Most readers do not have the capacity for critical thinking to read things without such prejudice.
 
Top