Vigilantism or Protectors of Peace?

[biodsl]

Therefore police and bank guards are not allowed to shoot robbers? They must wrestle them to the ground to subdue them? If I were to walk into the bank and begin a robbery, they would not be allowed to shoot me unless they had an imminent threat? What is the decididing factor for imminent threat, then? Only bodily harm?

When force is being used or threatened against people, force is justified to protect those people. Force is justified to protect property (think of the store loss prevention officer using grabbing a fleeing shoplifter), but it has to be appropriate. Deadly force may only be used to protect life. An armed robbery is no longer just a property crime. The threat to life makes it a person crime.

I'm not being critical here. I just think the gentlemen put themselves in tough position. A crook could throw a brick through a jewlery store window and grab a handful of diamonds right in front of me. Can I point the AR and demand he stop? Yes, I think you could. Can you fire if he just walks away? Not in Oregon. Can you fire if he charges you? Think Ferguson.

Back to Bjorn's story: did the presence of the AR's prevent crime? It's hard to imagine they didn't.

I should add that's I'm no Use of Force expert. It's complicated stuff sometimes and based on the totality of the circumstances. An actual riot changes those circumstances.