Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Stockton gun owner thwarts armed robbery at restaurant

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Not sure if this is open carry, CCW permitee, or even an illegally carried firearm... but the bottom line is that firearms in the hands of regular people can stop crime.


    http://cbs13.com/local/stockton.rest...2.1704547.html



    Armed Customer Opens Fire On Restaurant Robbers CBS Stockton police are looking for three would-be robbers after an exchange of gunfire with an armed customer foiled their plans to hold up a restaurant.

    Police say when three men walked into the restaurant around 5 a.m. Wednesday, a customer inside restaurant tried to leave.

    Two of the suspects pistol-whipped the man, but he broke free and pulled out a handgun.

    Police say one of the suspects fired at the customer, then all three would-be robbers ran from the restaurant.

    Police say the customer gave chase, firing another shot as the three suspects fled.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    He shot back at them...as they fled?

    I'm not passing any judgment, that would be silly, its a 3 paragraph blurb.
    Kinda makes you scratch the noggin though.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Not sure if this is open carry, CCW permitee, or even an illegally carried firearm... but the bottom line is that firearms in the hands of regular people can stop crime.




    Not enough info...but....

    If he shot at them in as they were fleeing, it's assault WDW or attempted murder if the guy is not a cop, unless the perps were still shooting as they fled.

    Once the bad guy starts to flee, there is usually no more imminent danger to your life and limb, so you cannot shoot him in the back.




  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    In CA, it should be legal to use deadly force to stop these idiots. Not only did they commit assault, battery but did it with a deadly weapon. If this person was trying to initiate a "citizens arrest", then I'd think he'd be fully supported:

    "When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. "

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    Nick Justice wrote:
    Not sure if this is open carry, CCW permitee, or even an illegally carried firearm... but the bottom line is that firearms in the hands of regular people can stop crime.




    Not enough info...but....

    If he shot at them in as they were fleeing, it's assault WDW or attempted murder if the guy is not a cop, unless the perps were still shooting as they fled.

    Once the bad guy starts to flee, there is usually no more imminent danger to your life and limb, so you cannot shoot him in the back.


    They assaulted him, attempted murder of him, and remained armed and a threat as they fled the area. That's a good shoot in my book.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    A few years ago a Sacramento man shot and injured a FLEEING teenager who was attempting to steal the car out of his driveway.

    IIRC, the Sacramento DA basically said, 'well, we're pretty sure the homeowner broke the law, but with our auto theft rates it's pretty unlikely to get a jury to take pity on the car thief... so we aren't going to prosecute him.'

    Sorry for lack of citation; brief Google search didn't turn anything up.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    A few years ago a Sacramento man shot and injured a FLEEING teenager who was attempting to steal the car out of his driveway.

    IIRC, the Sacramento DA basically said, 'well, we're pretty sure the homeowner broke the law, but with our auto theft rates it's pretty unlikely to get a jury to take pity on the car thief... so we aren't going to prosecute him.'

    Sorry for lack of citation; brief Google search didn't turn anything up.
    This sound about right? http://www.kcra.com/news/11620508/detail.html

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Pretty sure that's it... guess he wasn't fleeing... my memory isn't what it used to be.

    Even so, he shot a presumably unarmed person outside his home in defense of property. Here in CA any cop, gun store clerk, or NRA member would expect this guy to be prosecuted.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  9. #9

    Post imported post

    Case Law on shooting at fleeing felon:

    Tennessee v. Garner
    , 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1][/sup], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

    It would not be difficult for a citizen in this case to explain that the dirtbags who just pistol whipped and shot at him are still a threat to the public as they flee, with their gun, down the street. I call it a good shoot and it it appears covered by case law.

    I know the case law refers to LEO, but an armed person could easily use the same ruling.

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Not sure if this is open carry, CCW permitee, or even an illegally carried firearm... but the bottom line is that firearms in the hands of regular people can stop crime.
    Could be any one of those three possibilities.

    I don't think, though, that a guy with "an illegally carried firearm" is a "regular guy."

    By definition, such a guy is a criminal, often a felon.

    There are many reasons for carrying illegally. Most of them are bad for society.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Not sure if this is open carry, CCW permitee, or even an illegally carried firearm... but the bottom line is that firearms in the hands of regular people can stop crime.
    Could be any one of those three possibilities.

    I don't think, though, that a guy with "an illegally carried firearm" is a "regular guy."

    By definition, such a guy is a criminal, often a felon.

    There are many reasons for carrying illegally. Most of them are bad for society.
    There are many who also choose to ignore stupid laws.
    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)

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Not sure if this is open carry, CCW permitee, or even an illegally carried firearm... but the bottom line is that firearms in the hands of regular people can stop crime.
    Could be any one of those three possibilities.

    I don't think, though, that a guy with "an illegally carried firearm" is a "regular guy."

    By definition, such a guy is a criminal, often a felon.

    There are many reasons for carrying illegally. Most of them are bad for society.
    There are many who also choose to ignore stupid laws.
    You mean when people decide for themselves that the gun regs are "stupid laws?"

    Probably not many (relatively)who ignore "stupid laws" relating to guns. Penalties are awfully painful.

    I gottaestimatethatmost, by far,of the illegally carried guns are carried by killers, robbers, drug guys and other neerdowells.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    By definition, such a guy is a criminal, often a felon.
    A trivial misdemeanor in California.

    Hardly my idea of a "criminal". :quirky

  14. #14
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    By definition, such a guy is a criminal, often a felon.
    A trivial misdemeanor in California.

    Hardly my idea of a "criminal". :quirky
    Yup, just a misdemeanor. Though it's probably got some future firearms restrictions attached (not sure about that).

    There are (personal knowledge) a lot of people in California that have decided the misdemeanor penalty for carrying without a permit is substantially less than the penalty of not being armed when your life is at risk. I'm not talking about gang bangers or other criminal elements, I'm talking about good citizens who have decided that their lives are worth more than the threat of a misdemeanor arrest that would occur only if they came into contact wtih law enforcement AND were found to have the weapon.

    I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that there are a lot of folks doing just that. I was one of the "priviledged ones" when I lived in California and had a permit. But I lived in a community where the Chief of Police issued them unless there was a good reason not to. For many who live in the "occupied territories" that isn't an option and so they chose to exercise their constitutional right and take the risk.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Not sure if this is open carry, CCW permitee, or even an illegally carried firearm... but the bottom line is that firearms in the hands of regular people can stop crime.
    Could be any one of those three possibilities.

    I don't think, though, that a guy with "an illegally carried firearm" is a "regular guy."

    By definition, such a guy is a criminal, often a felon.

    There are many reasons for carrying illegally. Most of them are bad for society.
    There are many who also choose to ignore stupid laws.
    You mean when people decide for themselves that the gun regs are "stupid laws?"
    Why, yes, because the lesser of two evils is surviving a conflict. The laws are racist in intent, applied equally to all and designed to foster the interest of the State and keep lawyers, cops, morticians and judges employed.

    Probably not many (relatively)who ignore "stupid laws" relating to guns. Penalties are awfully painful.
    There are TONS of people who carry regardless of the laws.

    I gottaestimatethatmost, by far,of the illegally carried guns are carried by killers, robbers, drug guys and other neerdowells.
    My estimation is that your estimation is way off. Good people comprise about 99.9% of society and it is nearly guaranteed that a good portion of them are packing, which definitely outweighs the criminal element.
    My thoughts in blue.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    When an armed person who has engaged you turns his back and makes movement away from you, how are you supposed to know if he's fleeing the scene or scurrying to a better defensable postion to attack you from?

    The man could be running to a building corner or to get behind a car and send more fire your way for all you know. He has a firearm and has already used it in the commission of a crime. I would think a citizen has good reason to put one in his back once its turned to him. Why not end the threat right then and there if you can instead of waiting a few moments and to see if the threat is deciding on his own to end it?

    If the robber wants the encounter to end with his life intact, the best option would be to drop the weapon and put his hands high in the air while loudly communicating his wish to surrender.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    Army wrote:
    Nick Justice wrote:
    Not sure if this is open carry, CCW permitee, or even an illegally carried firearm... but the bottom line is that firearms in the hands of regular people can stop crime.




    Not enough info...but....

    If he shot at them in as they were fleeing, it's assault WDW or attempted murder if the guy is not a cop, unless the perps were still shooting as they fled.

    Once the bad guy starts to flee, there is usually no more imminent danger to your life and limb, so you cannot shoot him in the back.


    They assaulted him, attempted murder of him, and remained armed and a threat as they fled the area. That's a good shoot in my book.
    On its face, this is NOT a good shoot. With some articulation it can be.I normally say that if you shoot someone in your house it is safe to talk to the police. In this case, I would probably give a brief public safety statement then shut up till I talk to my attorney.

    "My client simply went into Dennys get some food to feed his starving children and this, this THIS CRAZY GUN OWNER started shooting at my innocent client!!!!!!...My client need a hug, not jail......

Posting Permissions

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