• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Los Angeles Store owner shoots back (video)

K

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
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.
 
ConditionThree

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
bad_ace

bad_ace

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
327
Location
Cupertino, California, USA
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.
 
bad_ace

bad_ace

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
327
Location
Cupertino, California, USA
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.
 
T

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
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.
 
K

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
K

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
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."
 
N

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
N

nukechaser

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
110
Location
Elk Grove, California, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
O

Old Timer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
49
Location
, ,
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.
 
S

SomeGuyInCali

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
111
Location
Modesto, CA, California, USA
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.
 
N

nukechaser

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
110
Location
Elk Grove, California, USA
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.
Click to expand...
+1

Thanks!
 
P

poothrowingape

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
210
Location
fresno, California, USA
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
stuckinchico

stuckinchico

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
506
Location
Stevenson, Alabama, United States
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top