Steven den Beste had a post yesterday that discussed his admiration for a 74 year old store owner. It seems this senior citizen shot two of three felons who were pointing guns at the guy he had hired as a clerk and demanding money. One robber died, one robber was wounded and one just ran away. This story is news worthy because the 74 year old has to use a walker to get around.
Today Mr. den Beste replies to an Email he received from Andrew. It would appear that Andrew has taken an opposing view. He doesn't think that the old man should have shot anyone, since the robbers were simply demanding money and hadn't killed anyone. He also doesn't like Mr. den Beste's admiration for the old guy.
I think Andrew is missing the boat here. The three felons had weapons, loaded and deadly, pointed at an innocent and unarmed clerk. Not only had they willfully placed this person's life in grave peril, they were promising to kill him unless he gave them money. In this case any action taken to end this threat is justified as long as it doesn't result in the death of another innocent. To suggest that one has to wait until the robbers actually kill someone before deadly force is justified shows a complete lack of understanding about crime and violent situations. To suggest any other course of action to the 74 year old, outnumbered and outgunned and facing three opponents in their physical prime, is extremely naive.
Finally, Andrew's indignation for Mr. den Beste's satisfaction over the death of the robber is very strange. I certainly find it very reasonable to be reassured when someone who showed such contempt for the lives and well being of others is no longer able to place anyone else under threat of death.