Followed this thread for a bit and was mildly surprised. (I already knew ellendork has nothing of any merit to say)
What surprised me was the comment about the cell phone. I feel fairly certain the police were called after the first robery. That pretty much sums up the veracity of the cell phone solution for a problem in real time. FWIW. average time to respond to a crime in process, assuming there are Officers available, is about 2 to 15 minutes. More than enough time to commit the robbery, multiple murders AND get far away.
As a retired Police Officer I can't fault the dad in any way. Just becuase there has been no loss of life in previous robberies has no bearing that there won't be any killings by subsequent robbers. Unless of course you subscribve to the theory that these were the same robbers in ALL robberies and that THEY made the decision before hand to NOT shoot any one under any circumstances. I find that hard to believe given that, 1. they came to rob the store at gun point: and 2. the second robber decided to pick up the gun AFTER his partner was shot instead of surrendering. These 2 items lead me to believe they were intending to use deadly force to get what they wanted and that force would be used if they decided to do so.
For those who wish to willingly be a victim, you are on your own. For those who do not, I see nothing in the constitution or laws (at least in this country, as I know this doesn't apply in Canada and Europe) that negates the right of self defense for non criminals. Lest you think otherwise, the mere threat of deadly force during the crime (such as armed robbery) constitutes a deadly threat to the victims life. No criminal has the right to threaten a victim with their life. Coincidentally, in conflict with what some may think, there is no right to commit a crime either.
YMMV
PS I didn't see how many shots were fired in any of the articles but there was no mention of "spray and pray" tactics either. Well done, many Police Officers haven't done that well in deadly situations.