Pharmacy owner accidentally shot self

imported post

OC-Glock19 wrote:

JosephMingle wrote:

OC-Glock19 wrote:

I believe that the word "brandish" has a specific legal definition in the Virginia Code (§ 18.2-282, paragraph A) and in this case it does not fit the circumstances because the pharmacist was engaging in justifiable self defense. Therefore the reporter used the word incorrectly.

Click to expand...

No, you’re mistaken.

That's the point of skidmark's post and mine. It could very well have been brandishing and fit's perfectly with the code you cited. (snip)

Click to expand...

Everything has not been sorted out yet, you're right. However, the basic, most obvious evidence -- an attempted robbery -- automatically puts the pharmacist into the role of defender, not aggressor. Did he act within the confines of the law or did he illegally brandish his weapon?We'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. I sure hope he acted within the confines of the law and it is determined justifiable self-defense.

imported post

OC-Glock19 wrote:

Everything has not been sorted out yet, you're right. However, the basic, most obvious evidence -- an attempted robbery -- automatically puts the pharmacist into the role of defender, not aggressor. Did he act within the confines of the law or did he illegally brandish his weapon?We'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

The facts of the situation - an attempted robbery - do place the pharmacist in the position of defending against it. But as we do not yet know if he was entitled to use deadly force to repel the robbery. There is case law which allows for the use of deadly force even when faced with an unarmed robber, but again certain circumstances need to be met to make that legal.

I believe Mr. Mingle and I are saying not to jump the gun and call every use of deadly force against a criminal a good shoot. Personally, I see doing that as creating a mindset that one may almost always use deadly force against criminals, when in fact the opposite is almost always the case.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

It would seem hard to argue against the GG. Afterall the BG was struggling with him, I would assume for the gun. Is the GG supposed to guess what the BG wanted to do with it?

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

It would seem hard to argue against the GG. Afterall the BG was struggling with him, I would assume for the gun. Is the GG supposed to guess what the BG wanted to do with it?

Click to expand...

If the pharmacist had not pulled out his gun there might not have been a struggle.

BTW, your post does suggest that therobber may not have been armed - if he had been his most likely response to the pharmacist's pulling out a gun would be to shoot, not to engage in a struggle.

The totality of the situation is that a criminal is off the streets. The particulars of how that came to happen may or may not bode well for the shooter, based on the determination of whether or not he had a legal "right" to use deadly force.

Both sides (yes & no) have been posited. Let's now wait for the investigation results and the Commonwealth's Attorney decision regarding any possible charges. And after that mess we can watch any potential civil suit.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

skidmark wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

It would seem hard to argue against the GG. Afterall the BG was struggling with him, I would assume for the gun. Is the GG supposed to guess what the BG wanted to do with it?

Click to expand...

If the pharmacist had not pulled out his gun there might not have been a struggle.

Click to expand...

Yes we will have to wait and see, not that I trust a CA to get the facts straight since he is being fed the facts by others. But I do believe the proper reponse in Virginia is to run when someone points a gun at you :^)?

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

But I do believe the proper reponse in Virginia is to run when someone points a gun at you :^)?

Click to expand...

It is one of those things that native Virginians learn at their Mother's knee. Damn Yankees and others who take up residence in the Commonwealth are taught this during the first day of New Citizens' Class, and IIRC it is reviewed at least once before the final exam.

Anybody who fails this obviously did not spend enough time studying for their blood test. Doubters may reference the fate of Mr. Ramsey,the robber.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

What is wild about this thread isone person was killed, another shot and could be facing a life sentence in jail for defending himself and the main topic is whether the reporter should have used the word brandish in the writeup. Some people can find the most unimportant things to go crazy over. I would like to know if the robber was armed. If not then what was he using to intimidate the owner and how was he expecting to force the owner to comply. It appears that the owner decided he wasn't going to be robbed, pulled his gun and a struggle resulted.

Other than that I don't know but whether he was brandishing or not is irrelavent now that the main charge is killing someone.

Neplusultra wrote:

But I do believe the proper reponse in Virginia is to run when someone points a gun at you :^)?

Click to expand...

It is one of those things that native Virginians learn at their Mother's knee. Damn Yankees and others who take up residence in the Commonwealth are taught this during the first day of New Citizens' Class, and IIRC it is reviewed at least once before the final exam.

Anybody who fails this obviously did not spend enough time studying for their blood test. Doubters may reference the fate of Mr. Ramsey,the robber.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

There is another thread on this forum that talks about how BG's see people with a gun. I think this is a good example of the irrational behavior of BG's and how they don't think like we think they should. When the gun was pulled most people would at least back off or run but it didn't bother him.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/12867.html

imported post

PT111 wrote:

What is wild about this thread isone person was killed, another shot and could be facing a life sentence in jail for defending himself and the main topic is whether the reporter should have used the word brandish in the writeup. Some people can find the most unimportant things to go crazy over. I would like to know if the robber was armed. If not then what was he using to intimidate the owner and how was he expecting to force the owner to comply. It appears that the owner decided he wasn't going to be robbed, pulled his gun and a struggle resulted.

Other than that I don't know but whether he was brandishing or not is irrelavent now that the main charge is killing someone.
[...]

Click to expand...

PT111, I agree the discussion about brandishing is a tangent. However, I think it is relevant from the perspective of how these events are reported and just what part brandishing can play when one determines they must employ their weapon. We are absent many facts and I’m sure they will be detailed (to some degree) in the near future. The tangent was in no way intended to diminish the salient facts of this event.

imported post

JosephMingle wrote:

PT111 wrote:

What is wild about this thread isone person was killed, another shot and could be facing a life sentence in jail for defending himself and the main topic is whether the reporter should have used the word brandish in the writeup. Some people can find the most unimportant things to go crazy over. I would like to know if the robber was armed. If not then what was he using to intimidate the owner and how was he expecting to force the owner to comply. It appears that the owner decided he wasn't going to be robbed, pulled his gun and a struggle resulted.

Other than that I don't know but whether he was brandishing or not is irrelavent now that the main charge is killing someone.
[...]

Click to expand...

PT111, I agree the discussion about brandishing is a tangent. However, I think it is relevant from the perspective of how these events are reported and just what part brandishing can play when one determines they must employ their weapon. We are absent many facts and I’m sure they will be detailed (to some degree) in the near future. The tangent was in no way intended to diminish the salient facts of this event.

Click to expand...

The point of my remarks are that no matter what is reported there are some on here that go to great lengths to ridicule the reporter and try to diminish the facts of the case. For instance heaven forbid that a reporter should cal a magazine a clip or a 9mm a high powered pistol. In either of these the entire thread would be a discussion about how stupid the reporter is rather than the fact that the BG killed nine people. The average person doesn't know the difference and no amount of reporting incorrectly or correctly will serve to change that. Those that do know the difference will understand what the reporter is talking about. In this case whether the fellow is chaged with brandishing or not will not even enter into it but rather was he justified in pulling his gun. Definitely the technical term of brandishing will not be fought over in court but whether it was justified. Do you really think that if you are on the jury that whether or not he was charged with brandishing will enter into your decision. This whole discussion was over whether or not the reporter should have used the term in the article and I doubt very much that this article will be presented into evidence at the trial.

The only ones that really care whether he was actually brandishing a firearm are the few on this board that have a fixation in finding minor things in articles to point out how stupid reporters are. yes it was a tangent but it seems that every time something like this is postedthe main discussion centers around whether or not the correct wording was used by the reporter and how much theyslanted it toward the anti-gun side. Like a good freind of mine who was a sports reporter said that as long as his hate mailran evenly between the two teams he knew he was being unbaised between them.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

JosephMingle wrote:

PT111 wrote:
PT111, I agree the discussion about brandishing is a tangent. However, I think it is relevant from the perspective of how these events are reported and just what part brandishing can play when one determines they must employ their weapon. We are absent many facts and I’m sure they will be detailed (to some degree) in the near future. The tangent was in no way intended to diminish the salient facts of this event.

Click to expand...

The point of my remarks are that no matter what is reported there are some on here that go to great lengths to ridicule the reporter and try to diminish the facts of the case. [...]

Click to expand...

It certainly wasn't my intent to ridicule the reporter, nor would I attempt to weight the facts one way or another as I wasn't there. In fact I stated that I felt it was an appropriate use of the word. Anyway, I felt it was worth discussing and at the same time I recognize your concern.