Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
Originally posted by: Amused
I will shoot first if I KNOW what is going on and I believe my life, or the life of another innocent is in danger. The OP's scenario is pretty clear cut.
Is the OP really that clear cut? It already says the guy had a plastic gun, so you're already shooting without knowing all the facts. The OP goes so far as to say "The cashier realizes it's a fake plastic gun, and does not fear for her life". So, I think we can assume, if she does not fear for her life, that shes not crying hysterically, shes not shaking uncontrollably, shes not yelling for help. The way I read the situation, we have a cashier who is not scared for her life, but is complying with the robber just to be on the safe side. She could be acting quite rational and in no way distressed. Are you still justified to shoot the guy, when the situation appears to be fairly non-violent, other than the gun of course?
If the cashier was screaming for help, thats one thing. If shes crying and the guy continually shoves the gun in her face, you can normally assume danger. If the cashier is calm and composed, what is telling you that you need to fatally shoot the guy? As the OP already said, the guy's gun is fake. Lets expand, and say for all we know hes an undercover cop doing an elaborate sting on the cashier who arranged a bank robber that she would help in. Maybe the robber is a former employee and the cashier knows him, which is why she is not afraid, because she knows he is harmless. Maybe the guy is being forced to rob the bank against his will, and has told the cashier this. Maybe the guy is just trying to help his family, and he has told the cashier shes in no danger, that then gun is fake, and that he needs the money to get his family out of trouble.
I know some of those may be stretches, but when the cashier is not showing distress, and you don't know exactly what has been said between the robber and the cashier, you are leaving a lot of things unkown before you open fire.