Interesting story. I applaud the old guy. Don't know if he was good, or just lucky, to have hit all four with three shots and not his employees. Either way, it was an appropriate and justified result. I don't see a big problem with the New York Times story, though. Yes, they described the anguish of the friends and family, but I don't see that they necessarily or purposely put a negative light on the store owner. I don't know what the laws are in NYC, and perhaps the Times was full of crap about him needing a permit. Otherwise, I thought it was fairly objective reporting (at least as most newspapers go).
I don't think any of us know for sure what we would do in a self defense situation, but I would like to think I would be able to respond as this shop owner did. I can imagine, in a situation like that, where you might fear for your own life and/or that of friends/family/employees your adrenaline would really be pumping. The hardest thing might be to stop shooting once the danger was past. I know from experience that when someone threatens or attacks you, the immediate response is to do whatever is necessary to defend yourself. For me, that is followed by an intense anger at the person who created the extremely stressful situation. Hopefully, they won't try to prosecute this guy for going beyond what might have been necessary to control the situation. I'm not saying he did, mind you. I'm just saying that if there was only one robber with a gun, and he was the first one shot, they may say he was not justified in shooting the others. Without having been there, no one can say for sure. There is probably no way he could have known if the others had guns or not, and in my opinion it doesn't matter. How much chance does a 72 year old guy have against three young thugs, armed or not?
