The scene at that point where I bolded it puts the woman being robbed at the expense of her life. Her life is in danger from that point. In my state, you would have been completely justified in pulling your concealed, take careful aim and blowing him away. You do not order, speak or give commands or any warnings. When you pull a concealed weapon you are permitted to carry, it's to use it. They teach you that. You are saving the victim's life as the victim is under threat of death from the criminal's weapon. There would be no ifs, buts or anything of the sort.
Also in Oklahoma is the "Make My Day" law. It is highly compatible with our "Stand Your Ground" law. Here is an older article that explains it very nicely, and shows what the other states have...and don't have.
Which states have a "Make my Day" law inspired by "Dirty Harry"?
What that means, if the asshat in Colorado had pulled the same crap and got blown away in Oklahoma instead, there would have been no civil case what so ever. I would highly recommend that the business owner relocate to a state like Oklahoma. You don't care for the laws in one state but like the laws in another, you can move there.In Oklahoma (according to the Oklahoma State Courts Network), the amendment changes a number of other aspects of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, the statutes concerning justifiable homicide. As 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1289.25 now lists circumstances in which it is presumed that a person who uses deadly force "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." In addition, it helps to protect law-abiding citizens from arrest when using deadly force. Law enforcement agencies must now have probable cause to believe that the use of deadly force was unlawful before an arrest can be made.
If you're going to debate using lines from Hollywood movies at least pick ones that make some sort of sense.
that's it pal, no more late night Rambo movies for you.
Sigh! There were two would-be burglars. Upon being confronted with three men, at least one of whom was armed with a gun, one scaled a fence and ran away, while the younger ran and took shelter in a shed. Irrespective of how they may or may not have been armed, neither wannabe burglar acted aggressively, nor did either present a threat to anyone. They were both retreating.
This was not a 'home invasion', this was an attempt at petty theft from a second hand car yard. No one's wife, son, or daughter, was in any possible danger of rape, or other form of harm, as they were not present.
So can we avoid the hypothicals (and the hyperbole,) and address what actually happened (as far as we are aware).
I give up on them, they are hopeless and clueless.