• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Armed customer shoots dollar store robber, killing him

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ns1 said:
I got a partial chub.
Click to expand...
Go for it. She has a pistol but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

My Dad is a different story. 75, copd, in ICU as we speak.......has lots of guns but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn either because they're too heavy.....🙁


smoking? ...please quit. 99% O2 saturation and huffing like he ran a marathon.
 
amdhunter said:
What a screwed up quote. What do they mean it's the first time? Do they expect another time, or that he finally lost his "murder" virginity?

This mentality is exactly what I said before. All gunholders are nothing but a bunch of maniacs waiting for their first human kill.

I hope that Texas judge was right, and a Civil War will break out after Obama crushes Romney in November. I'd love nothing more than to see UN troops go in and put bullets into these Retardican maniacs.

Then there would finally be a war that I can back.
Click to expand...

got to help out your homies
 
Up here in Canada your not allowed to defend yourself. In fact, an intruder can sue you if he trips on the kids skateboard whilst breaking in.
 
spidey07 said:
LOL! The robbers had airsoft pistols. Not too bright.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/Jackso...sted/-/475880/16407370/-/duvcymz/-/index.html
Click to expand...

Looks like he did give them a chance.

The customer, a business owner in his 50s who police have not named, heard the commotion, approached with his gun drawn and ordered the two men to drop their guns. Police said Campbell did, but Odoms did not. He was shot three times.
Click to expand...

And...

JSO Lt. Rob Schoonover said the customer was visibly upset when he was interviewed by homicide detectives that night.
Click to expand...
 
FalseChristian said:
Up here in Canada your not allowed to defend yourself. In fact, an intruder can sue you if he trips on the kids skateboard whilst breaking in.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's one thing here I'm not fond of is you can't do much. Though most cops I've talked to said just make it look like an accident and they'll usually side with you. But I would love to see castle laws here. We don't need guns for that either.
 
amdhunter said:
What a screwed up quote. What do they mean it's the first time? Do they expect another time, or that he finally lost his "murder" virginity?

This mentality is exactly what I said before. All gunholders are nothing but a bunch of maniacs waiting for their first human kill.

I hope that Texas judge was right, and a Civil War will break out after Obama crushes Romney in November. I'd love nothing more than to see UN troops go in and put bullets into these Retardican maniacs.

Then there would finally be a war that I can back.
Click to expand...

Stop being an asshat. UN troops. LOL.
 
FalseChristian said:
Up here in Canada your not allowed to defend yourself. In fact, an intruder can sue you if he trips on the kids skateboard whilst breaking in.
Click to expand...

Please don't perpetuate this bullshit.

From the Criminal Code:

Defense of Person

Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
... / Extent of justification.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]
Self-Defence In Case Of Aggression.

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose. [R.S. c.C-34, s.35.]
Provocation.

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures. [R.S. c.C-34, s.36.]

Preventing Assault
... / Extent of justification.

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent. [R.S. c.C-34, s.37.]
 
it's amazing people are upset over this defense of a store owner.

Apparently these same people are probably worried they may try to pull off something like this and get popped by some 'no good' citizen.
 
I wonder how long until the guy gets hit with a wrongful death civil suit... That crap happens all the time to CCW people that defend themselves/others.
 
JackOfHearts said:
I wonder how long until the guy gets hit with a wrongful death civil suit... That crap happens all the time to CCW people that defend themselves/others.
Click to expand...

In most states you are protected (immune) from criminal and civil liability if you kill/injure somebody in self defense or defense of 3rd party. The guy cannot, by law, be sued.
 
spidey07 said:
In most states you are protected (immune) from criminal and civil liability if you kill/injure somebody in self defense or defense of 3rd party. The guy cannot, by law, be sued.
Click to expand...

maybe that's what I'm used to. I've never heard of someone getting sued who was acting lawfully.

I know that if I injure someone while attempting CPR, I am protected. I also know that if I fire my weapon at someone who I fear may cause me death, great injury causing death or rape, I cannot be sued or charged.

I guess I'm just not used to these states that protect bad guys instead of good guys.
 
rudeguy said:
Oh really.

Please provide links to the massive number of civil suits you speak of.
Click to expand...

wow bro you serious. These lawsuits were one of the things that put the castle law/doctrine out there.

In Florida these kinds of lawsuits are really bad, but if you haven't heard of all the one's so frequent in California; you have to be living under a rock.

oh wait...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top