Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Suffolk shop owner not to be charged!

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia, , USA
    Posts
    311

    Post imported post

    Suffolk shop owner not to be charged!

    http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/no-c...leyville-store

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Post imported post

    Roop’s father, Scott Roop, learned of the decision when a reporter contacted him Thursday afternoon.

    He said he understands the right to defend oneself and one’s property.

    “But I don’t know that property is worth deadly force.

    “Someone was apparently intoxicated, he was handling a firearm. To me he used very excessive force.”



    Perhaps if Scott Roop had taught his son not to be a criminal, he might still be alive!

    His son's death was the fault of his son, nobody else unless you fault his parents for poor upbringing.

    Itwas not excessive force as the owner thought his life and that of his wife was in danger. I guess Mr. Roop can't understand his son was the cause of the problem, not the victim!

  3. #3
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845

    Post imported post

    One less BG in the world...
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Post imported post

    Just one more reason why the GA needs to pass a No Civil Liability law.

    Unfortunately, this man could still face an expensive civil suit.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    Roop had a criminal record, including a felony burglary conviction in 2003 that earned him jail time and was revoked twice, according to online court records. His family said he had struggled with drug addiction for years but was never violent.
    ...he broke into the J&L Food Mart in Whaleyville dressed in camouflage and carrying a crowbar and a hunting knife...
    He's not violent and yet he decides to commit robbery with two deadly weapons. Yeah, right. In this sort of situation I think the store owner should be given the benefit of the doubt. If it looks like the BG is pulling a gun, you fire.

  6. #6
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    The store owner, James H. Durden Jr., had a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.10 when police arrived
    Correct me if I'm wrong: He would not have violated any law and would have been completely within his rights to refuse to give blood and/or breath; and such refusal could not be used against him in a court of law.


    Aside...
    Could a warrant be issued to seize one's blood for BAC testing following a shooting?

    Is officer testimony normally sufficient to hand down § 18.2-388 (public intoxication) convictions?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    I am glad that the prosecutor was very reasonable and understanding ....considering the fact that the store owner had a blood alcohol content of 0.10.



    Regardless the matter....everything worked out okay...!!!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Post imported post

    The store is 100 yards from their home where the alarm was received.

    Is the store on Mr. Durden's property or is it owned by someone else? If it is his property, what law says he can't have a .10 on his own property as long as he is not causing a disturbance?

    If it isn't his property, what could they charge himwith WUI (walking under the influence)? Bottom line is that a convicted criminal posed a danger to his wife and himself. The "suspect" did NOT retreat but advanced when confronted and Mr. Durden fired a 2nd time.

    Self defense, plain and simple.

  9. #9
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    marine2000 wrote:
    I am glad that the prosecutor was very reasonable and understanding ....considering the fact that the store owner had a blood alcohol content of 0.10.



    Regardless the matter....everything worked out okay...!!!!
    Not everyone thinks so.

    http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-lo...7944748.column

    Something shameful just went down in Suffolk, and it wasn't just the guy who grabbed a gun one night, walked over to his store and shot an unarmed burglar to death.

    It was also commonwealth's attorney C. Phillips Ferguson's decision not to prosecute.

    The official narrative:

    At 4 a.m. on June 21, an alarm alerted James and Laura Durden to a break-in at their nearby store. A family member called police while Mrs. Durden walked over to investigate, followed by Mr. Durden and his .45-caliber handgun.

    "While looking through a window on the south side of the building, Mr. Durden noticed (Ernest) Roop inside the store at the cash register. Roop turned toward Mr. Durden with something in his hands, which Mr. Durden thought was a firearm. Mr. Durden then fired his handgun three times in Roop's direction. Mr. Durden ducked down and when he looked up, he was face to face with Roop at the southside window as Roop had run around the counter and toward the glass where Mr. Durden was standing. Mr. Durden, still perceiving Roop to be a threat, fired a fourth shot. Roop's body was found lying on the floor directly under the window."

    Roop didn't have a firearm. But he was, Ferguson writes, "armed with a hunting knife and crowbar."

    Thus, Durden, "confronted with a very dangerous situation created by Roop ... was legally justified in using deadly force."

    Maybe it's the low blood-sugar talking, but this report is outrageous both for what it does and doesn't say:

    • It makes it sound as if Roop were brandishing deadly weapons, when in fact police say the knife was still in its sheath on his belt and the crowbar was on the other side of the counter from his body.

    • The report also doesn't mention that Durden was drunk at the time. Blood-alcohol level of 0.10 — well beyond the limit for drunken driving.

    Ferguson's report utterly ignores this fact. Asked about it Friday, Ferguson said 0.10 "doesn't mean somebody's necessarily drunk." He told one reporter earlier that Durden's inebriation was "irrelevant."

    Really? In this state, it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon in a public place while drunk. It's illegal to go hunting with a firearm while drunk. But evidently it's perfectly legal to pursue and bag a burglar while drunk.

    You can bet if an off-duty cop had blown away a burglary suspect, then blown a 0.10, citizens would be clamoring for his badge on a platter.

    And let's talk cops.

    Ferguson's decision makes their job that much more dangerous. Flat-out.

    It means citizens can feel freer to grab firearms and use lethal force to protect their property — even if the suspect is unarmed, even if it's so dark they're not sure what they're seeing, even if they're so drunk they'd be arrested if they got behind the wheel.

    At a burglary in progress now, how can an officer know if the guy with the gun skulking around is the perp or merely the property owner taking matters into his own hands?

    How confident can an officer be that he won't get shot by mistake by a businessvigilante who's not just armed, but drunk on his feet?

    • Consider the description of the shooting. Does anyone think it odd that a man, unarmed, who's just taken three bullets, inexplicably runs toward [/i]the guy still blasting away at him?

    Then stands at the window to face him, still unarmed?

    For the record, I support the right to bear arms. To defend your life with deadly force. And everybody — even Roop's parents — agrees Roop should not have burglarized that store.

    But you should not, while drunk, pick up your firearm and head out to confront a stranger if you don't have to.

    If the NRA disagrees, please enlighten me. (Then update your gun safety rules.)

    If police officers are OK with inebriants taking firearms to a property crime in progress, ditto.

    Virginia's law on deadly force is fuzzy. We must allow that people can honestly fear for their lives, and afterward discover they were mistaken. But we must be called on it if we help foment deadly and needless confrontations.

    Case law would help clarify. But it never will if prosecutors refuse to tackle tough, unpopular cases.

    For now, we cast stones. Then we lock and load.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  10. #10
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    Here is the case law she was asking for: Humphrey v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 36, 553 S.E.2d 546 (2001).

    "Further, as the Commonwealth acknowledges, "[t]he fact that a man has been drinking does not ipso facto deprive him of the right of self-defense, even though the necessity for the exercise of the right might not have arisen had neither he nor his aggressor been drinking." Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 160 Va. 935, 941, 169 S.E. 558, 560 (1933); see Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 466, 473, 506 S.E.2d 543, 546-47 (1998) (holding that accused was not at fault in inviting aggressors to his house for drinks)...."

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    Here is the case law she was asking for: Humphrey v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 36, 553 S.E.2d 546 (2001).

    "Further, as the Commonwealth acknowledges, "[t]he fact that a man has been drinking does not ipso facto deprive him of the right of self-defense, even though the necessity for the exercise of the right might not have arisen had neither he nor his aggressor been drinking." Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 160 Va. 935, 941, 169 S.E. 558, 560 (1933); see Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 466, 473, 506 S.E.2d 543, 546-47 (1998) (holding that accused was not at fault in inviting aggressors to his house for drinks)...."
    Someone should post this information in the comments of the article!

    TFred


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Post imported post

    TFred,

    I copied it and sent it to her as an email.

    Hope she reads it and does some research in the future.



Posting Permissions

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