VA - Store customer foiled a robbery

imported post

http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/crime/article/customer_strikes_wrestles_gun_away_from_store_robber/15975/
Staff
Published: May 22, 2008

A 7-Eleven store customer foiled a robbery attempt Sunday at 8402 Digges Road by wrestling the would-be robber to the ground and taking away his gun, said Sgt Tim Neumann, Manassas police spokesman.

The 40-year-old store clerk told police that the customer walked into the middle of the attempted robbery just as she was preparing to hand the money over to the Hispanic man who was robbing her.

The gunman pointed the pistol at the customer when he walked in to the store, then grabbed him and tried to force him behind the counter, Neumann said.

But the customer punched his assailant in the face, knocked him to the ground and wrestled the gun away, Neumann said.

Bereft of his weapon, the gun man ran away toward Rolling Road, Neumann said.

Police received the call for the attempted robbery at 2:37 a.m. and called in Officer Bryant Arrington and his dog Smoke who tracked the man from the store to a home at 8425 Sunset Drive where they arrested Jose Alberto Miranda Aguilar, also known as Jose Ramos, 18, of 8425 Sunset Drive, Neumann said.

Police charged Aguilar with robbery, abduction, wearing mask in a public place, use of a firearm in commission of a felony and brandishing, Neumann said.

Further investigation led police to believe that Aguilar was also responsible for armed robberies at the CITCO gas station at 8536 Sudley Road on May 7 and on Saturday.

Aguilar is being held without bond at the Prince William-Manassas regional jail pending a June 26 court date, Neumann said.

Keith Walker can be reached at 703-369-6751.

imported post

Now, I'd like to shake the hand of that customer. He's either incredibly stupid, or has a rather metallic pair on him... I'll assume the latter.


But LEO, posting in the wrong forum? Or isn't this a True Tale of Self Defense?

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Now, I'd like to shake the hand of that customer. He's either incredibly stupid, or has a rather metallic pair on him... I'll assume the latter.


But LEO, posting in the wrong forum? Or isn't this a True Tale of Self Defense?

Click to expand...

You are correct... I thought I had moved it but I guess not.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

wearing mask in a public place,

Click to expand...

Huh?

Having formerly been employed as a Deputy Sheriff in NOVA, I don't remember that one being in the criminal code, but that's been a few years ago.

imported post

Police charged Aguilar with robbery, abduction, wearing mask in a public place, use of a firearm in commission of a felony and brandishing, Neumann said.

Click to expand...

Well that's one place off my Halloween party list.

imported post

Ironic, if the store clerk had done this he would have been fired.

imported post

Samuel Adams wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

wearing mask in a public place,

Click to expand...

Huh?

Having formerly been employed as a Deputy Sheriff in NOVA, I don't remember that one being in the criminal code, but that's been a few years ago.

Click to expand...

18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing.

However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons

(i) wearing traditional holiday costumes;

(ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons;

(iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or

(iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device.

The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.

imported post

So you guys make sure and give your ladies written permission before they put on the I dream of Jeanie costume. :lol:

imported post

Is it illegal for muslims to wear the hijab then? And it's a felony? Geez, that's kind of harsh. Is this a Virginia law or a local law?

imported post

Oh wow, Nooblet has brought up an excellent point. There is no provision under the law LEO229 quoted for any sort of religious "mask," and the one's that Nooblet mentioned certainly do conceal identity, so they'd fall under that regulation. There's no way that you could get a doctor to write a note explaining it either, so you'd have to get written permission everywhere you went that was private and you'd technically be required to remove it in any public area.

I do find it interesting that technically, if someone were to just be leaving the hospital with bandages all over their head, the police could just handcuff the person and rip off their bandages if they didn't have a doctors note on their person fully explaining why they had the bandages and everything. I am really glad I am now aware of this law so that if I or anyone I know ever has a large facial bandage I will know to get my/their doctor to write a note fully detailing what it is, why it's there and when it can be removed. Also, if the doctor changed the removal date, he would have to update it, as an officer could possibly say "You don't need these anymore, it says so right here!" Then he may rip off the bandages.

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

Is it illegal for muslims to wear the hijab then? And it's a felony? Geez, that's kind of harsh. Is this a Virginia law or a local law?

Click to expand...

I guess it can fall under i) wearing traditional holiday costumes

But technically it is illegal to wear something that covers your face.No cop that I know of has ever charged a Muslim woman for it.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I guess it can fall under i) wearing traditional holiday costumes

But technically it is illegal to wear something that covers your face.No cop that I know of has ever charged a Muslim woman for it.

Click to expand...

Are you on drugs today? :lol:

It's not a "traditional costume". It's not a "holiday costume".

See what happens when you hand a cop a state code and allow them to interpet it?

The fact that Muslim women aren't criminally charged is actually very disturbing. If they travel to live in our land, they should abide by our laws.

imported post

The fact that Muslim women aren't criminally charged is actually very disturbing. If they travel to live in our land, they should abide by our laws.

Click to expand...

They do! Unfortunately you do not. There is a law on the books called the First Amendment which protects the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Obviously you don't support the right for people to be different than you are. That is not what America is about. If you don't support the freedom for people to be different, then you should move to one of their countries where everyone is required to think, act, and dress the same. Oh! The irony of it all. The Virginia law is clearly vague on this aspect. I am sure that if they actually did enforce it against Muslims that the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional.

imported post

protector84 wrote:

There is a law on the books called the First Amendment which protects the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Click to expand...

Tell me what portion of the below exempts any person from the laws of the land please. I honestly do not know why Muslim women are exempt.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

imported post

The U.S. Constitution limits the powers of government and not the behavior of people. Its protections are not limited to citizens.

The end does not justify the means. Violate the Constitution at its peril.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I guess it can fall under i) wearing traditional holiday costumes

But technically it is illegal to wear something that covers your face.No cop that I know of has ever charged a Muslim woman for it.

Click to expand...

Are you on drugs today? :lol:

It's not a "traditional costume". It's not a "holiday costume".

See what happens when you hand a cop a state code and allow them to interpet it?

The fact that Muslim women aren't criminally charged is actually very disturbing. If they travel to live in our land, they should abide by our laws.

Click to expand...

As I recall.. I made a guess. Let me go look again.....

Reading again.... "I guess it can fall under i) wearing traditional holiday costumes"

Yup!! I sure did say guess..Anyone can guess. I sure am not acting on that guess. :lol:

Do I believe it is against the law? You're damn right I do!! How do I interpret the law? Legally... they cannot ever wear it in public!!

The question now comes down to... Do you know why they wear it? Do you think you would EVER get a conviction in court? Would you be branded as anti-Muslim?

This is why they will not get charged.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Yup!! I sure did say guess..Anyone can guess. .. Do you know why they wear it? Do you think you would EVER get a conviction in court? Would you be branded as anti-Muslim? This is why they will not get charged.

Click to expand...

I guess you are right.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

protector84 wrote:

There is a law on the books called the First Amendment which protects the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Click to expand...

Tell me what portion of the below exempts any person from the laws of the land please. I honestly do not know why Muslim women are exempt.

Click to expand...

while it doesn't give one the ability to disobey the law, the Hajib is a Muslim religious garment. According to the Koran, Muslim women are required to wear their headdress in order to protect their virtue. the probable reason that the cops haven't attempted to arrest a muslim woman is because if they did, there is a chance that the law could be declared unconstitutional.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

imported post

We could always get someone to push the issue. Next time you see someone wearing hajib, call 911 and report that you think a robbery is about to take place as theres someone wearing a black full face mask in the store. Personally I think the law is unconstitutional and should be overturned. We need to overturn this law so that we can march on congress wearing Guy Fawkes masks.

imported post

asforme wrote:

Personally I think the law is unconstitutional and should be overturned.

Click to expand...

I am sure bank robbers would agree with you 100%.

A mask would be much more comfortable than panty hose. :lol: