Not to make this a political statement. But can we just say "Off with his head"? I really don't want my tax $ going to feed this SOB.

I wasn't there and all accounts I've read are sketchy. so, to answer the original post...I dunno.

No, it does not say whether Han or Greedo shot first.

Finally the perfect answer to all these types of situations

Generally speaking my responsibility is to protect my family and my ability to get home to them. I don't think I'd engage unless there was an extremely compelling reason to do so.

Certainly not over stolen jeweltry (Man #1)
If they shot someone, well... You can't unshoot him. So probably not even after this... unless I though they were about to go on a spree.

Nope. I am not a police officer, and I have no duty to intervene, no legal representation nor immunities, no financial protections for my family should I get killed, etc. Not going to risk myself or my family's future to protect some insurance company.

I have a CCW and carry sometimes. I will defend my life, and loved one's lives, or against the threat of a stranger's life. I will not stumble in to stop a robbery where no one's lives are at stake.

I have to feel an "imminent threat" to life and limb before I get involved.......me or him !

^ What he said.

No, any fool would have sense enough not to engage, not a conundrum.

I think the deal is that EVERY situation is going to be different and will need to be judged separately. Without being there, it would be impossible to say. It sounds like one guy was a bit crazy, by trying to wrestle with a guy with a gun. Even if you are a bad-ass taking on 1 guy with a gun is one thing, but taking on 2 guys with guns is an absolute last resort.

Once shots were fired, then the guy with the gun must have felt like the situation was worse, and may have been trying to defend the guy that had just been shot or maybe his wife.

Maybe I'm just a fool, or a romantic, or grossly overestimate my abilities - there is no way in hell I could just stand by if someone is getting hurt by the bad guys. I would always feel compelled to do something, no matter how long the odds. We owe that much to each other, as a civilized society. That, and if we could somehow impress upon the bad guys that everyone in sight or in earshot would respond to help their victims, maybe it would give the bad guys pause.

Then again, reading the majority of responses above, I know that is not realistic. Every man for himself, I guess. "Hooray for me, to hell with you"...

So, how long would you guys say it is polite to wait before you go through the dead guy's pockets?

Only to defend myself. Shooting a robber is stupid in a crowd.....good way to get arrested and sued for being stupid. AND dead.

When in doubt...

I don't know if he was trying to stop the robbers, but probably trying to protect his wife. A friend was doing the same thing when he was killed at his law firm in San Francisco.

I found it a bit difficult to discern what actually happened in this case, that article was not well written. It seems like this mall was a posted gun free zone. I am not likely to go to a place that is posted as a gun free zone on general principles, but am not going to carry if I were to go there. Jeff, do you routinely take a firearm to gun free places, or are you saying you would be more like the unarmed man that attacked two armed bad guys doing bad stuff?

If I am in a store, and someone robs that store, but they are not trying to take my money, and maybe even if they are, I am probably not going to out with the gat and start snapping off rounds, unless me or mine are threatened. In a case like the one described here, two miscreants shoot a man impeding there egress, I would not draw from concealment. I let them run, call the cavalry and see if I can keep the guy they shot from being dead. In a different case, maybe I would do something else, but that is about how I would play the cards dealt here.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, next thing you might say is you would rush the hijackers of a airplane you were a passenger of instead of sitting there and letting the authority's handle it, people could get killed with thinking like that!
You are the kind of guy who would not wait and stand back when some one starts shooting in a mall when you have the means to stop them???
The authorities Jeff! Let those in charge handle bad things, you just need to learn to wait patiently while people or dying and getting killed.
Maybe if you get in the habit of filming stuff with your phone instead of thinking how you could make the situation better?

Yep.

Even in a best case situation, I stop the bad guys and no innocents, the many legal and financial liability risk to me is enormous. It will not be like the TV and movies when the cops just send you home with your gun and it is all over. Your life will be changed for a long time.

Every situation is different. Who has the calmness to calculate what is an acceptable risk to use a CCL weapon or not? If you do take action then innocent people can get hurt or killed or you could be hero of the day.

Taking this thread sideways with an impending hijacking.

Compare this to an impending hijacking such as flight 93. The cockpit was overtaken and one hijacker stayed in the cabin to prevent the passengers intervening. The hijackers had a plan and the passengers of course did not have a plan until they realized there was nothing to lose. At what point does joe individual step in and do something or not at all. Apologies for bringing back painful memories of flight 93 but much can be learned from these situations.

Absolutely choosing to use deadly force and getting involved has serious consequences. You could be responsible for the deaths and injury's of more people or saving more people from death and injury.
Doing nothing is the easy way out, and sometimes it can kill you or allow others to be killed.
To hijack the thread along a different line but with relevance, This is bucking close to 'Good Samaritan' law arguments, when should you intervene and how much?

Here are lots of arcticles out there on this topic but not much detail. It appears that the robbery was complete and the two robbers were attempting to leave when the unarmed Good Samaritan attempted to stop them and was shot. The CCH holder then returned fire. No mention of an imminent threat to the Good Samaritan that might otherwise explain his motivation to step in. I frequently carry, and if the only visible threat was the potential loss of property from a jewelry store there is no doubt in my mind that I would shelter my loved ones and step aside. I see no upside in potentially starting a gunfight solely to prevent a property crime. Now that drastically changes if there is an actual threat to either my family or someone else in the store, I would have a very hard time watching another innocent individual be harmed when I have the ability to help.

So I guess my Monday morning QB perspective is that the unarmed Good Samaritan made a big mistake by trying to stop two armed robbers, and once the confrontation escalated to a shooting I have a hard time faulting the reaction of the CCH holder. The entire situation escalated greatly based on the actions of the Good Samaritan.