A few things here:
1. Yes, I jumped to a conclusion, and I shouldn't have. Once more information is given, I will reassert my opinion based on said new information.
2. As of right now, with my lack of info, I believe the vigilant should not have ran after the robber in the first place. It was reckless and the possible positive outcomes did not outweigh the possible negative ones.
3. Blaming the vigilant's actions on the actions of the robber is weak. Ever hear of the term, "don't fight fire with fire" or "turn the other cheek?" Whether the intent to kill was there or not, the vigilant did not need to start chasing after the robber.
I would also like to point out that, after rereading the article, it would be safe to possibly believe the vigilant ran after the robber, gun in hand, and when the robber found this to be true, he also pulled his out. If this is in fact the case, my entire last couple of posts stand. We shall see.