Self-Defense or Needless Murder?

well he shouldnt of had a firearm if he wasnt licenced,

but from my point of view if anyone ever came into my house they would not be leaving alive,

now if it was my shop instead of my house I would prob of just said take it, aslong as you have the correct insurance then you are fine.

I thhink responding with dealy force to a deaadly threat is more than apropriate. the man felt his life was in danger and responded accordingly, just as I would too. This is the reason castle laws exist. For the average citizen to be able to defend themselves and their families. I would have acted the exact same way. no one wnats to take a life, but when it comes down to me or "them".....well.

I believe it appears to be self-defense from what information is there in the article. But I believe this isn't the end of it. They were in all together possibly in a gang. If that's the case then this is not over. And as one neighborhood resident said: "What comes around, goes around." That means in Harlem there might only be one kind of justice. So keep a watchful eye out because there's trouble brewing in that neighborhood. That man was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel bad for him on several levels. Because he not only will get the wrath from all the mothers of the victims and their families. But he has to live with the fact that he killed people. And now as a bonus he will receive the cold shoulder from the entire neighborhood. Yes he will get some praise if he is found to have done this in Self-Defense. But watch the news I think Clinton better step in and do something.

It was a case of self-defense. It seems, however, the people in that neighborhood believe that their children have a perfect right to walk in and take things that do not belong to them, and forget about the shop owner not having a license. Perhaps it was a souvenir and he got it before getting the license and perhaps he felt that if he had a license then it would have been confiscated and the article would have been about the gang robbing and killing the 72 year old shopkeeper, and of course he would have been blamed by not having packed up and left when he should have.
Perhaps if the people of that neighborhood had not made so many excuses for those creeps, this would not have happened.

This totally reminds me of my friend, whose ex boyfriend has found her and beaten her numerous times and is NOW finally able to get a restraining order on him because now she has "physical proof" bull... ugh. Anyways, I just found out that in the state of Wisconsin, in a case like this 72 year old man, if you kill or hurt someone physically even though you are defending yourself, YOU WILL GO TO JAIL! Even though you are defending yourself!!! So what if some young girl was getting raped, she defends herself and then goes to jail? Cmon now...

Anyways I believe the man had every right to defend himself!!! I mean it really sucks that he had to kill people, but who knows what those men were capable of, and what they would have done to the old man!!!

Care4Pets,

This unfortunate shooting as according to the articles, is purely self defense.

In the first place, the shooter already tried to convince the 4 robbers that there is no money available. And these restless youths just could not take no for an answer and one of them actually went after one of his staff with the pistol.

In this kind of situation, I would be left with no choice but to exercise deadly counter measures, even if I am not armed with a shotgun. Because, other lives will be lost unnecessary to these perpetrators. Tragic as it may seem here, but I feel this is just what it needs to be done.

So, the police is right to say here that he would not be charged here.

i would call it self defence, but as always there will be some who will cry over them saying the old dude was wrong. yeah he should have gave them the money but if he thought they would have killed all of them then i would have done the samething