armed and robbed

imported post

Chkultr wrote:

May 12, 2008 07:09 PM
PORTSMOUTH, VA. (WAVY.com) -- 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.

Click to expand...

Another black eye for the Chesapeake P.D. I tried to find out where the exact location was, but haven't been able to discover that yet. Anybody else have better luck?

imported post

mariaandefrem wrote:

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



stay armed because they do:uhoh:

Click to expand...

huh?

imported post

In the video report, the ATM machine was a"Credit Union 24". Here are the locations.

http://tinyurl.com/46tgwh

imported post

skidmark wrote:

the BG was merely wrestling for control of the cash in Roe's hand. ....

skidmark

Click to expand...

Interesting Monday Morning Quarterbacking. The mother of this creep would LOVE to have you on the jury, had Roe killed this man.

Was he "merely wrestling for the gun"? Or was he grabbing the money with the right hand whilst reaching his shaking, crackheaded fingers into his pocket for a knife so he can gut Roe?

If you can answer that at the time of the assault with certainty, you are a better man than I! The fact alone that this creep would continue the fight with a gun in play on the other side would suggest to me that he is likely to have a weapon of his own. It cannot be determined that he didn't, not now and certainly not then.

So I ask you, can you know for certain at the time of a similar incident that the assailant did not "need to be smoked?"

imported post

lax wrote:

In the video report, the ATM machine was a"Credit Union 24". Here are the locations.

http://tinyurl.com/46tgwh

Click to expand...

It's impossible to tell. I wish I knew because I know people w/ a place there.

imported post

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.

Click to expand...

I've read them, and I know him (the founder).

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

Click to expand...

That is not what I said, and you even went to the trouble of quoting below. To clarify, I said any and all necessary force. The word necessary is key.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Since you have spent time on Virginia1774, you should know that a person need not retreat when suddenly attacked ( he has google interface searching on his site). Virginia honors the common law in this regard.


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.

Click to expand...

Entirely untrue. I made no such assertion. I said, and reitirate that he had the unqualified right to stand and fight, using any and all force necessary to repel the unlawful attack brought upon him. Once the attacker engaged the victim, and refused to retreat the victim was entitled to escalate the level of forcenecessary to stop the attack.

imported post

It's up to us -- the individual(s) dealing with a criminal attack -- to decide how to respond: Hold them for police, let them run away, or kill them. It's our decision...not the police, not the judge, not anyone else who wasn't there or involved. Not even "the law" which provides zero protection during these criminal events...as if words on a piece of paper would help anyway.

The law, post-facto, may decide for or against the decision a victim makes, but we here should not second-guess or criticize the man/woman on-the-scene. Even if they do have to face "the law" later, at least they are alive to do so.

And certainly no criticism for someone who kills a criminal instead of holding them for police or letting them run away (to do it -- or worse -- to someone else later on down the road).

Criminals should get whatever the "victim" wants to dish out regardless of the level of criminal threat: The criminal started it, the victim finishes it...it's his/her call HOW to finish it.

I have zero problems with that.

Consequently, if criminals want to survive the encounter, they should choose their prey wisely...although personally, I would hope they choose the wrong person every time.



-- John D.