armed and robbed

Chkultr · May 12, 2008

imported post

May 12, 2008 07:09 PM
PORTSMOUTH, VA. (WAVY.com) -- Glenn Roe is no pushover. Yet, Saturday night someone tried to rob him at a Portsmouth ATM.
"He grabbed it at the same time and said, 'gimme the money' and I said, 'hell no' and we wrestled," explained Roe.
The former Vietnam vet has a concealed weapons permit. And on this night, he was armed.
"I pulled my pistol out and I said, 'I got a pistol. I'm gonna shoot you,' and we wrestled on around and he still wasn't scared."
Watching from Roe's truck, his son used his cell phone to call 911. Eventually, the would-be robber got away, without the money.
And the police? Roe says he got a recording.
"I grabbed the phone from him and I tried to talk to the police and it said we'll answer your call as it was taken."
"It did not come to Portsmouth," says Portsmouth Police spokesperson Jan Westerbeck. The credit union is near the Portsmouth/Chesapeake city line and several cell phone towers.
Jan Westerbeck says dispatchers in a different city can help.
"If they get that call and they have officers within close proximity to someone who needs help, they're going to send somebody at the same time they're going to notify Portsmouth, and Portsmouth will send officers."
Turns out, Roe's second 911 call ended up in Chesapeake.
What upsets Roe is that no matter where you are, you should be able to get through to 911.

Bullbuster · May 12, 2008

imported post

Robbers lucky he didn't get shot.

And like they say the police are only minutes away. Well in this case if you can get through to them.

deepdiver · May 12, 2008

imported post

Robber was VERY lucky. Again with the dial-a-prayer ... hardly seems worth the phone call does it?

hsmith · May 12, 2008

imported post

Bullbuster wrote:

Robbers lucky he didn't get shot.

And like they say the police are only minutes away. Well in this case if you can get through to them.

But Obama and little Obama (Saslaw) say that no one needs to carry a gun in defense?!

casullshooter · May 12, 2008

imported post

Most ATMs have a built in video cam. Film at 11?

Good to hear no one got hurt and the perp got nothing for his trouble,probably hopped up on drugs.

ufcfanvt · May 13, 2008

imported post

Portsmouth is a cesspool. It doesn't surprise me that a brazen robber such as this one, who keeps fighting even when faced w/ a pisto,l is there.
Most of the people there have no self-respect and no restraint. They blame everyone else for everything that goes wrong. It's been that way for decades.
I'm glad this vet was there to stick up for himself, but his attacker really should've been smoked, for his own good.

skidmark · May 13, 2008

imported post

Am I the only one who realizes that

"He grabbed it at the same time and said, 'gimme the money' and I said, 'hell no' and we wrestled," explained Roe.
The former Vietnam vet has a concealed weapons permit. And on this night, he was armed.
"I pulled my pistol out and I said, 'I got a pistol. I'm gonna shoot you,' and we wrestled on around and he still wasn't scared."

does not qualify for use of deadly force?
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+2]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+2]What Is Great or Serious Bodily Injury?

Click to expand...

[/font]
[size=+1]Commonwealth of Virginia v. Bernard Payne, Va. App. (1996) [/size]
[size=+1]The Court Stated:[/size]

[size=+1]" Bernard Payne was charged with violating the felony provision of Code § 46.2-817. The trial court held that the term "serious bodily injury" was unconstitutionally vague and dismissed the felony charge. The Commonwealth appeals...[/size]
[size=+1]Furthermore, in determining the meaning of a statute, "[t]he validity of using other Code sections as interpretive guides is well established. The Code of Virginia constitutes a single body of law, and other sections can be looked to where the same phraseology is employed." King v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 708, 710, 347 S.E.2d 530, 531 (1986). Code § 18.2-369, which concerns abuse or neglect of incapacitated adults, reads: "For purposes of this subsection, 'serious bodily injury or disease' shall include but not be limited to (i) disfigurement, (ii) a fracture, (iii) a severe burn or laceration, (iv) mutilation, (v) maiming, or (vi) life threatening internal injuries or conditions, whether or not caused by trauma." The term "serious bodily injury" can also be found in other statutes. See Code § 10.1-1455 (handling of hazardous wastes), 16.1-228 (family abuse definition), 16.1-269.1 (transfer of juveniles to circuit court), 17-237 (sentencing guidelines), 18.2-67.3 (aggravated sexual battery), 29.1-740 (duty to stop and render assistance); 54.1-2400.1 (duty of mental health service providers to prevent violence), and 54.1-3434.3 (denial, revocation, and suspension of pharmacy registration).[/size]
[size=+1]With such widespread use of the term, it is plain that the term does have a common and well-recognized meaning. As such, ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and the inclusion of the term in the statute does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, the term is not unconstitutionally vague."[/size]

Click to expand...

[/size][/font]

Where are all of you that cry out that "This will look bad for us"? And ufcfanvt - your attitude of

his attacker really should've been smoked, for his own good

is really something that does not look good for us.

Having a firearm is NOT a magic talisman. As this incident shows, there are often times when even though you have a gun there is no justification for using it. Self protection is a continuum, and deadly force is but one extreme end of that continuum. Situational awareness is an aspect that is not discussed in the published report - how did Row allow the BG to come up on him to the point of grabbing the money? Also, ther is not muchinformation about Roe's son who was sitting in the truck as this all happened. How old is he? How come he did not get warn his dad of the approaching BG, or attempt to intervene before Roe drew his handgun? I know - lots of questions & no answers.

Now, go to your rooms and think about what I've said. You can come out when you are ready to talk about this without bloodlust.

stay safe.

skidmark

*edited to add legal citation[/size]

DocDaddy · May 13, 2008

imported post

+1

Does pistol-whipping count as bloodlust? Just checking! Ha ha ha! It's not leathal force, but if the perp pulled his own firearm, you would already be one step ahead of the BG.

Wikipedia: Pistol-whipping is the term to describe the physical striking with a barrel of a handgun. This is usually done in order to knock the subject unconscious or as a method of control over the subject, also in close quarter combat when ammunition for a handgun has been expended it can be used for self defense much like a bayonet is used for self defence with a rifle instead of a handgun.

Mr. Y · May 13, 2008

imported post

Skid, you can't read the law in isolation.

Once the attack occurred, Roe had the unqualified right to stand his ground and fend off the attack usingany and all force necessary to ward off the attack. Once the wrestling began he was entitled to use force. If the possible outcome was"'serious bodily injury or disease' shall include but not be limited to (i) disfigurement, (ii) a fracture, (iii) a severe burn or laceration, (iv) mutilation, (v) maiming, or (vi) life threatening internal injuries or conditions, whether or not caused by trauma"then he was entitled to use force to prevent it, including the "escalation of force". The victim is not required to actually suffer great bodily harm while he wrestles to a possibly dangerous end. This guy didn't even flee when presented with lethal force which is certainly an indicator of a determined attacker & criminal. Roe was entitled to use lethal force here.

peter nap · May 13, 2008

imported post

Mr. Y wrote:

Skid, you can't read the law in isolation.

Once the attack occurred, Roe had the unqualified right to stand his ground and fend off the attack usingany and all force necessary to ward off the attack. Once the wrestling began he was entitled to use force. If the possible outcome was"'serious bodily injury or disease' shall include but not be limited to (i) disfigurement, (ii) a fracture, (iii) a severe burn or laceration, (iv) mutilation, (v) maiming, or (vi) life threatening internal injuries or conditions, whether or not caused by trauma"then he was entitled to use force to prevent it, including the "escalation of force". The victim is not required to actually suffer great bodily harm while he wrestles to a possibly dangerous end. This guy didn't even flee when presented with lethal force which is certainly an indicator of a determined attacker & criminal. Roe was entitled to use lethal force here.

Just use the normal police excuse for shooting an unarmed person. "He was trying to get my gun"

My problem with the incident, was drawing it while wrestling. He's damned lucky the fellow didn't get it away from him. You need to gain a few feet.

RU98A · May 13, 2008

imported post

This is a perfect example of CALL 911 and die. A 911 call should never be put on hold no matter from whatjurisdiction the call originated.

sccrref · May 13, 2008

imported post

Mr. Y wrote:

Skid, you can't read the law in isolation.

Once the attack occurred, Roe had the unqualified right to stand his ground and fend off the attack usingany and all force necessary to ward off the attack. Once the wrestling began he was entitled to use force. If the possible outcome was"'serious bodily injury or disease' shall include but not be limited to (i) disfigurement, (ii) a fracture, (iii) a severe burn or laceration, (iv) mutilation, (v) maiming, or (vi) life threatening internal injuries or conditions, whether or not caused by trauma"then he was entitled to use force to prevent it, including the "escalation of force". The victim is not required to actually suffer great bodily harm while he wrestles to a possibly dangerous end. This guy didn't even flee when presented with lethal force which is certainly an indicator of a determined attacker & criminal. Roe was entitled to use lethal force here.

IANAL but I was not aware that VA had the "Stand your ground" law on the books. The info put out in the CHP class I attended put outthat you had a duty/obligation to attempt to retreat if possible. Having said that, in this day and age with all of the serious/deadly communicable diseases, how could a reasonable person not be in fear of your life in these circumstances.

Hawkflyer · May 13, 2008

imported post

Wonder if the attackers name is Wade?

skidmark · May 13, 2008

imported post

Mr. Y wrote:

Skid, you can't read the law in isolation.

Once the attack occurred, Roe had the unqualified right to stand his ground and fend off the attack usingany and all force necessary to ward off the attack. Once the wrestling began he was entitled to use force. If the possible outcome was"'serious bodily injury or disease' shall include but not be limited to (i) disfigurement, (ii) a fracture, (iii) a severe burn or laceration, (iv) mutilation, (v) maiming, or (vi) life threatening internal injuries or conditions, whether or not caused by trauma"then he was entitled to use force to prevent it, including the "escalation of force". The victim is not required to actually suffer great bodily harm while he wrestles to a possibly dangerous end. This guy didn't even flee when presented with lethal force which is certainly an indicator of a determined attacker & criminal. Roe was entitled to use lethal force here.

http://www.virginia1774.org/Page5.html Read it. Especially on the second page, where the issue of "No Duty to Retreat" is addressed by 3 specific cases.

You make a blanket claim that one can escalate force to the level of lethal force as soon as the affray is on. I suggest that there is a well-known continuum of force, and that there were several levels that Roe would need to pass through before he would have

the unqualified right to stand his ground and fend off the attack usingany and all force necessary to ward off the attack.

I say that Roe had no apprehension of death or serious bodily injury, based on the information presented, as the BG was merely wrestling for control of the cash in Roe's hand. Further, since Virginia has no "Stand Your Ground" law, both excusable and justifiable homicide are defenses against criminal charges, not "get out of jail free" or "do not go to jail" cards.

We need to stay within the four corners of the information presented to us, and not go off in speculation about every and all potential scenarios.

I will end by saying 1) that we disagree, and 2) my posts are backed up by citations I believe are relevant, while you have issued a blanket statement that appears to be contrary to Virginia case law.

stay safe.

skidmark

xd.40 · May 13, 2008

imported post

sccrref wrote:

Mr. Y wrote:

Skid, you can't read the law in isolation.

Once the attack occurred, Roe had the unqualified right to stand his ground and fend off the attack usingany and all force necessary to ward off the attack. Once the wrestling began he was entitled to use force. If the possible outcome was"'serious bodily injury or disease' shall include but not be limited to (i) disfigurement, (ii) a fracture, (iii) a severe burn or laceration, (iv) mutilation, (v) maiming, or (vi) life threatening internal injuries or conditions, whether or not caused by trauma"then he was entitled to use force to prevent it, including the "escalation of force". The victim is not required to actually suffer great bodily harm while he wrestles to a possibly dangerous end. This guy didn't even flee when presented with lethal force which is certainly an indicator of a determined attacker & criminal. Roe was entitled to use lethal force here.

Click to expand...

IANAL but I was not aware that VA had the "Stand your ground" law on the books. The info put out in the CHP class I attended put outthat you had a duty/obligation to attempt to retreat if possible. Having said that, in this day and age with all of the serious/deadly communicable diseases, how could a reasonable person not be in fear of your life in these circumstances.

You were probably thinking about having to back down if YOU initiated the dispute. That is the case if you were the one to initiate contact and the situation escalated. You would have to try and retreat or deescalate the situation before using deadly force for it to be justified.

peter nap · May 13, 2008

imported post

I have to agree with Skidmark from a technical view. In almost all Va shootings, your at the Commonwealths mercy.

In some areas, the CA will say "He was being robbed and it's a good shooting".....Then in others, the CA will say "The attacker was unarmed, he would have run off if you had given him the money".

It's always dangerous to be an armchair lawyer and judge fight tactics, but it would have been chancy to shoot him.
He was stuck in a bad situation. There are times when IMHO and only IMHO...it's better to pick up your casings and go home. This WASN'T one of them. He had just used the ATM and even a Hanover Cop could figure out who the shooter was.....and his son had been dialing 911.

He could have turned loose of the money but damned if I could do it.

He could have continued to wrestle...but he was my age or older and it's just not as much fun as it used to be.

Or...he could have done what he did and take his chances.

You pays your money and you makes your choice...............

lax · May 13, 2008

imported post

I'd be kicking my kid's butt (one's 16 the other 18) if he didn't get off his duff andhelp me hand outa beat down to that punk.

ProShooter · May 13, 2008

imported post

mariaandefrem · May 13, 2008

imported post

Police bull s@#!$just another puy check better stuff comes from police tickets.:banghead:

stay armed because they do:uhoh:

peter nap · May 13, 2008

imported post

mariaandefrem wrote:

Police bull s@#!$just another puy check better stuff comes from police tickets.:banghead:

stay armed because they do:uhoh:

:shock:

armed and robbed

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate