Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Robber shot dead ... in PA ...

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Robber shot dead ... in PA ...

    LEVITTOWN, Pa. (WPVI) --
    The pharmacy owner who shot and killed a robber on Friday morning in Levittown, Bucks County, will not face charges - and was even praised by the district attorney.

    http://6abc.com/news/sources-pharmac...ttown/1369834/

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    During a news conference on Friday afternoon, Falls Township Police Lt. Henry Ward said Pennsbury Pharmacy owner Kenneth Lee "had no choice to do what he did. He was protecting himself and his business."
    I thought you weren't allowed to protect your property with deadly force?????

  3. #3
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I thought you weren't allowed to protect your property with deadly force?????
    Perhaps I'm reading the report wrong, but it seems he used deadly force more to protect himself than his property. However, being that his business is a pharmacy, there may be a difference as to whether or not lethal force is justified in preventing dangerous drugs from being stolen. One of our legal lights will have to expound on that one.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  4. #4
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Perhaps I'm reading the report wrong, but it seems he used deadly force more to protect himself than his property. However, being that his business is a pharmacy, there may be a difference as to whether or not lethal force is justified in preventing dangerous drugs from being stolen. One of our legal lights will have to expound on that one.
    Not responding as a "legal light" just a guy who tries hard to be a good guy!

    Since when must one wait until actually shot/killed by the BadGuy before one can take action to lawfully defend themselves?

    Perhaps due to his excellent (per report) surveillance system he saw the BG get out of a waiting vehicle from passenger side with shotgun and zip ties before entering the pharmacy then when BG failled to breakoff his advance when told to do so by the pharmacist/owner the businessman was fully justified in taking the action he took... and got the "congratulations" and thanks from the District Attorney for his actions.

    Sure seems to me after reading the linked story that the BG had evil intent (failed to stop when warned repeatedly), was prepared with zipties to unlawfully detain, restrain, and/or kill any present within the building in his effort (unlawfully detain, restrain, and/or kill) to obtain possession of that which was not lawfully his.

    As always I am sad the GOOD GUY was put in the position of taking the life of another, BadGuy in this case, but would much rather the good guy lives vs the bad guy.
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 06-05-2016 at 06:05 PM.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I thought you weren't allowed to protect your property with deadly force?????
    Your bolding of the quote you made seems to exclude or at least de-emphasize an important word --"himself"! He was protecting "HIMSELF and his Business"
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 06-05-2016 at 06:08 PM.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Your bolding of the quote you made seems to exclude or at least de-emphasize an important word --"himself"! He was protecting "HIMSELF and his Business"
    Me thinks "property" = self in such context ?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Now That's A District Attorney Who Really Believes in The Second Amendment

    Thug wants to rob a pharmacy. But pharmacist has a gun at hand. Business owners, keep a gun at hand just in case... way to go DA. We need more of them trusting us who carry.

    http://6abc.com/1369834/

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    Already Been Posted two days ago. Mod, merge threads?

    Last edited by Grapeshot; 06-07-2016 at 06:06 PM. Reason: merged threads
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    See section
    507. *Use of force for the protection of property.
    (a) *Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
    (1) *to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...8&div=0&chpt=5

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •