Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Los Angeles Store owner shoots back (video)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    this guy is either crazy or extremly bold.





    video and news at the link to fox news



    http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/loca...bbery_20090624

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    I understand why he did what he did. But had a bystander, more so if a minor, got hit in the process, I can only imagine how the media would roast this incident.

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    KS_to_CA wrote:
    I understand why he did what he did. But had a bystander, more so if a minor, got hit in the process, I can only imagine how the media would roast this incident.
    I couldnt hear the video- my soundcard is out. So its not exactly clear how bold or careless this self-defense shooting was.

    Regardless, its surprising that even a clean shoot is being treated without an anti slant- making the convenience store clerk the villan instead of the armed robber. I dont however think we should question our motives in self defense even at the prospect of someone innocent being injured. Im not saying we should disregard that possibility, but it shouldnt influence our desire forself-preservation in the instant we must defend ourselves.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    The "highly-trained" police shoot more innocentbystanders than lawful gunowners every year. But, they're permitted to get away with collateral damage since they are the only ones.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    "..it's dangerous to try and rob me" I love that line. The reporter trying to make it sound like he was endangering himself for carrying a gun. lol.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    What a great response. "it's dangerous to rob me."

    That is exactly the message that will go out to thugs in that neighborhood, they're looking for easy money, not money that could kill them or land them in the hospital. Too easy for them to look for another mark.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    I loved the last quote:

    "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    A friend I had in the Army was adamant that one should always have 6 good friends at all times, and everyone else could pound sand.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    "Oh no, he could have hit an innocent bystander!"

    Um. . . He could have been hit himself. People seemed more concerned about the fact that he could have hit someone than the fact that he was being robbed at gun point!

    When an honorable man shoots in defense they question the sanity of the move ignoring the fact that the thugs could have just as easily and possibly more likely shot innocent people as well.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    148

    Post imported post

    Haha. May the gods bless that man and his store. Too bad he missed, truly!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    KS_to_CA wrote:
    I understand why he did what he did. But had a bystander, more so if a minor, got hit in the process, I can only imagine how the media would roast this incident.
    I couldnt hear the video- my soundcard is out. So its not exactly clear how bold or careless this self-defense shooting was.

    Regardless, its surprising that even a clean shoot is being treated without an anti slant- making the convenience store clerk the villan instead of the armed robber. I dont however think we should question our motives in self defense even at the prospect of someone innocent being injured. Im not saying we should disregard that possibility, but it shouldnt influence our desire forself-preservation in the instant we must defend ourselves.
    I am with you completely. BUT I have this mental picture of a media reporter, silently waiting in the shadows, mic on hand, video man at a ready, ready to pounce on these things.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    That could be a new bumper sticker, subtle, but direct, no ifs, ands or buts about it. I guaradamntee you cops would be ticked.

    "IT IS DANGEROUS TO ROB ME."

    or

    "IT IS DANGEROUS TO COME TO MY HOUSE UNINVITED."

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    KS_to_CA wrote:
    ConditionThree wrote:
    KS_to_CA wrote:
    I understand why he did what he did. But had a bystander, more so if a minor, got hit in the process, I can only imagine how the media would roast this incident.
    I couldnt hear the video- my soundcard is out. So its not exactly clear how bold or careless this self-defense shooting was.

    Regardless, its surprising that even a clean shoot is being treated without an anti slant- making the convenience store clerk the villan instead of the armed robber. I dont however think we should question our motives in self defense even at the prospect of someone innocent being injured. Im not saying we should disregard that possibility, but it shouldnt influence our desire forself-preservation in the instant we must defend ourselves.
    I am with you completely. BUT I have this mental picture of a media reporter, silently waiting in the shadows, mic on hand, video man at a ready, ready to pounce on these things.
    Aren't they already doing that even when bystanders aren't shot?

    If it was a shooting in self-defense then isn't it the thug who is responsible for a bystander being hit, even if the store owner was the one who shot? The store owner did not initiate the violence, he simply defended himself. If a bystander was hit it was only because the store owner was reacting to the criminal action of the robbers.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elk Grove, California, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    Aren't they already doing that even when bystanders aren't shot?

    If it was a shooting in self-defense then isn't it the thug who is responsible for a bystander being hit, even if the store owner was the one who shot? The store owner did not initiate the violence, he simply defended himself. If a bystander was hit it was only because the store owner was reacting to the criminal action of the robbers.
    I keep hearing the echo of my instructor:

    "Rule number four: Be aware of your target and what is beyond it."

    I've never heard of a law that would relieve a trigger-puller, any trigger-puller, from liability from "sending one downrange". I believe if you pulled the trigger and someone isunintentionally hit that you are responsible. Otherwise, folks could return fire, lots of it, without any repercussions. Can anyone cite such legislation to the contrary?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    Felony murder rule. If you are committing a crime and somebody gets killed, you are responsible regardless of whether or not it was you who pulled the trigger.

    However, this does not protectthe actual shooter from civil liability.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Modesto, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    I don't believe he is crazy and I don't think he was intentionally bold. I think he did what he felt was necessary to protect the livelihood of his and his family in the moment when it mattered most. The police are not everywhere to "protect and serve". They can't be. So it is his basic and inalienable right to have a gun on his person. No government can grant this right. Our government does not give us these rights, it is merely supposed to protect our rights. Instead the government is corrupted and taking away our rights. All the while the majority stand idly by like sheep.

    "He thinks about it every day" I know I do as well. Mental training. Being prepared to protect and defend your life.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elk Grove, California, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    Old Timer wrote:
    Felony murder rule. If you are committing a crime and somebody gets killed, you are responsible regardless of whether or not it was you who pulled the trigger.

    However, this does not protectthe actual shooter from civil liability.
    +1

    Thanks!


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    KS_to_CA wrote:
    That could be a new bumper sticker, subtle, but direct, no ifs, ands or buts about it. I guaradamntee you cops would be ticked.

    "IT IS DANGEROUS TO ROB ME."

    or

    "IT IS DANGEROUS TO COME TO MY HOUSE UNINVITED."
    I have a strict no bumper sticker policy. However i would break it for that. Maybe it says the line and has a picture of a 1911(or some other powerful looking gun) next to it.

    Wow can you believe that reporter?

    "didnt you think about just cooperating with them?"

    UH NO! theres no telling what theyll do even if you give them your money. they might thank you with a warm kiss from their own pistol.

  19. #19
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Old Timer wrote:
    Felony murder rule. If you are committing a crime and somebody gets killed, you are responsible regardless of whether or not it was you who pulled the trigger.

    However, this does not protectthe actual shooter from civil liability.
    If im not mistaken I asked this question in law class. The "but for" standard would come in to play ..... Ultimately civil claims should be denied except if they are sueing the principle... under felony murder rule the one commiting the felony. this was my understanding from my professor

Posting Permissions

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