• 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.

MORE ON THE FLORIDA BLOCKBUSTER'S SHOOTING

U

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Pictured at the right are the two predators who decided to rob that Blockbuster's store in Orange City, Florida on Monday night. The one on the right is James Franklin Wince of Deltona, Florida. Wince is -- or was 19. He had a lengthy arrest record including arrests for crimes ranging from burglary to auto theft. He should have been in jail. He wasn't. He will commit no more crimes. He has been removed from the gene pool ... permanently.

The one on the left is Darius Bennett. He's 18. He's alive, but he was shot in the chest. The second shot missed. Too bad. Bennett will likely be charged with murder since he was engaged in the commission of a crime that resulted in the death of his partner, James.

These two predators were shot by Robert Shockley. He was inside the Blockbuster's store when the predators came in with their masks on screaming violent, obscenity-laced threats. They were making it clear that they were going to kill their victims. Shockley pulled his gun -- he has a concealed weapons permit -- and ordered the predators to "freeze." They didn't. He shot and killed James Wince, the one who was holding the rifle. Bennett then reached for the rifle. Shockley shot him too.

Now ... here comes Arthur Hayhoe, the executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He says he is troubled with the second shooting. Hayhoe says that Shockley shot "an unarmed person," and that's "awfully troubling. OK ... let's pick this situation apart here. The two men come into the Blockbusters shouting obscenities and threatening to kill. Shockley, who is there to pick up his son from work, pulls his pistol and orders the men to "freeze." When the one with the rifle points that rifle at him he fires. One dead predator. The other predator then reaches for the rifle. Shockley fires again and this idiot with the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence says that Shockley "shot an unarmed person." What was Shockley supposed to do? Was he supposed to wait until Benett actually got his hands on the gun and his finger on the trigger before he shot him? Are these the rules of engagement that innocent civilians are supposed to follow when confronted by violent predators?

Maybe the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence should publish a set of guidelines on just what a citizen can do to protect themselves. Here's one paragraph.

"An armed citizen should not shoot an unarmed criminal. If the unarmed criminal is reaching for a firearm the victim must wait until the criminal actually picks up the firearm before he can fire his gun. This way, at least, the criminal will have a fighting chance."

Sorry, Arthur Hayhoe. Your plan just isn't going to work for me.

 
geez, that is just dumb. "Don't worry, I won't shoot until you pick up the gun... c'mon you b@stard, pick up the $%$#@ gun!! now!! Ok, here take it... got it? good... *BLAM*! " 😀
 
Ok, so now you gun control fanatics, tell me how the laws kept the gun out of these 2 criminal's hands.

They did not, these predators had no respect for the rule of law, so what is the solution here, Allow law abiding citizens to carry weapons so that they may use them in self defense, and in defense of others who cannot.
 
Gee Wiz.. I wonder how the CRIMINAL with the RIFLE passed the background check when he bought it.

rolleye.gif
rolleye.gif


The only problem with this situation is he didnt kill the second one.
 


<< geez, that is just dumb. "Don't worry, I won't shoot until you pick up the gun... c'mon you b@stard, pick up the $%$#@ gun!! now!! Ok, here take it... got it? good... *BLAM*! " 😀 >>



HAHAHAHA

 
LOL... Neal Boortz "tells it like it is". I've recently noticed more and more people reading his commentary.

Arthur Hayhoe seems like a certified idiot. Yeah, the anti-gun zealots never quit.
 
i'm all for stopping gun violence but that mr. a.hoe is wrong there...


in that scenario, i'd do the same thing... if not more... like finishing the guy off or try to aim better on my second shot....

 
But isn't it against the law to shoot unarmed men? I don't have a problem with what the anti-gun guy said. He was telling the truth. This guy shot an unarmed man. "But he was reaching for the gun..." Yeah, say whatever you want, but I'll use the same excuse after I waste someone and then throw a gun next to them. "Honestly, he was reaching for that gun right there."

I'm not a crazy anti-gun person. I realize that we'd be better off without them, but at the point we are at right now, that just isn't possible. But, if you start stretching the law to include stuff like this, next thing you know it gets stretched a little bit further. I walk in someone's house and shoot them because he was getting up to get the gun he had stored in his bedroom.

The first guy should have been killed. The second guy should have been shot immediately after touching the rifle. You can't tell this guy couldn't have shot the guy after he touched the gun but before he could aim or get a shot off?

 
i'm anti-gun BUT only for criminals like those two....

us law-abiding citizens should be allow to have a way to defend ourselves from scums like those.

our gun control laws is not working when criminals like those two can still accquire guns.
 
Two points for the good guys. I'd like to see more of this type of justice, it may make future criminals think twice, or at least plan better if you are going to rob a store full of people. Some people's children.

You should know how to use your weapon if you are going to attempt to rob people with it. These criminals were just plain stupid. Especially the second one. What the hell was he thinking, that he could move faster than a bullet. MORON!!!!
 
Hooray again! Chalk one up for the good guys. That A-Hoe guy is just that: an a-hole. "Unarmed man" my ass. Given another split second he would've been armed and would've emptied the clip in that rifle, possible killing Upstanding Citizen Mr. Shockley and everyone else in the store.

Two people that were not going to amount to anything anyway have now been removed from the gene pool. I still want to know what the police/DA are going to charge Mr. Shockley with. IMO, they should give the guy a medal and a key to the city, but we all know how our "justice system" works.
rolleye.gif
 


<< But isn't it against the law to shoot unarmed men? I don't have a problem with what the anti-gun guy said. He was telling the truth. This guy shot an unarmed man. "But he was reaching for the gun..." Yeah, say whatever you want, but I'll use the same excuse after I waste someone and then throw a gun next to them. "Honestly, he was reaching for that gun right there."

I'm not a crazy anti-gun person. I realize that we'd be better off without them, but at the point we are at right now, that just isn't possible. But, if you start stretching the law to include stuff like this, next thing you know it gets stretched a little bit further. I walk in someone's house and shoot them because he was getting up to get the gun he had stored in his bedroom.

The first guy should have been killed. The second guy should have been shot immediately after touching the rifle. You can't tell this guy couldn't have shot the guy after he touched the gun but before he could aim or get a shot off? >>



There is a difference between a man attempting to get a weapon, and you planting one on the body afterwards. Now, put yourself in the father's shoes... you've just shot one guy, armed with (a likely higher powered than your pistol) rifle. His buddy reaches for it. He is not reaching for it to surrender to you, and if he is, natural selection is about to weed a dumbass out of the gene pool. You have a massive amount of adrenaline in your system. Now, if you wait until he has the rifle in his hands, you might not be able to shot two aimed shots before he fires. What if your first misses, or hits in a area that does NOT incapacitate the target, or is just too underpowered to incapacitate him and he shoots you? Then there is a very real chance everyone else is going to die too. So, you shoot the mofo reaching for the rifle. You dont let him grasp it, never mind get his finger on the trigger and start bringing the weapon to bear on you. As someone else said, the only regretable thing about this case is that Bennett lived.
 


<< But isn't it against the law to shoot unarmed men? I don't have a problem with what the anti-gun guy said. He was telling the truth. This guy shot an unarmed man. "But he was reaching for the gun..." Yeah, say whatever you want, but I'll use the same excuse after I waste someone and then throw a gun next to them. "Honestly, he was reaching for that gun right there." >>



Why throw the gun next to him, just put it in his hand. See how that works? Sheesh! It's not whether or not he is armed YET. It's whether or not he is presenting a very real threat to your life, and if not stopped, will take your life.



<< I'm not a crazy anti-gun person. I realize that we'd be better off without them, but at the point we are at right now, that just isn't possible. But, if you start stretching the law to include stuff like this, next thing you know it gets stretched a little bit further. I walk in someone's house and shoot them because he was getting up to get the gun he had stored in his bedroom. >>



The law states that you may shoot a person if you genuinely fear for your life, or the life of another person. It says nothing about weapons, or giving criminals a "fair chance."

This isn't a quick draw game.

Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

*trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
*trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Someone reaching for a gun while in the commission of a robbery fits the standard to a T
 


<< Ok, so now you gun control fanatics, tell me how the laws kept the gun out of these 2 criminal's hands.

They did not, these predators had no respect for the rule of law, so what is the solution here, Allow law abiding citizens to carry weapons so that they may use them in self defense, and in defense of others who cannot. >>



I bet 50$ they didn't buy the gun legely if they bought it at all.. like most criminal's they probalby stole it from some one. the screwd up gun laws we have now aren't gong to help at all. they just hurt the lawfull citizens.

put the auther guy in that situation and let him see what it feels like to wait for a guy to pick up a gun to shoot him. if he would let him do it and they guy shot auther then... oh well..
 


<< The law states that you may shoot a person if you genuinely fear for your life, or the life of another person. It says nothing about weapons, or giving criminals a "fair chance."

This isn't a quick draw game. >>



It's true, but what threat was this guy? I mean, he wasn't holding a gun, his buddy is laying dead next to him. He wasn't holding a gun. He was "reaching for the rifle," which could mean a lot of things. He could have been reaching to save his buddy. He could have been trying to lay down on the ground and surrender. He could have been reaching down to grab the gun and blow his head off, but you don't know.

All I'm saying is that there would have been plenty of time to shoot this guy after he had his hand on the gun. It's a technicallity, but a neccessary one. There is no way this guy could have grabbed the gun and shot Joe Citizen before Joe Citizen could shoot him. As soon as his hand touches the gun, it's a threat against your life. Until that point, he wasn't really a threat.

You asked me to put myself in Joe Citizen's shoes. I'll ask you to put yourself in the robbers shoes. You are robbing this place and think it's going to be a piece of cake. Your buddy is then shot and is laying on the floor in front of you. There is a possability that you go insane and don't know what to do. You may want to check on your buddy who is bleeding in front of you. You may want to run out of the store. You may decide that laying on the floor would be safer. Only, when you go to lay on the floor, you are then wasted.

I'm glad these guys were shot, but I'm not sure it's completely legal. I think Joe Citizen should get off, but people should at least look at it from the other perspective.
 


<<

<< The law states that you may shoot a person if you genuinely fear for your life, or the life of another person. It says nothing about weapons, or giving criminals a "fair chance."

This isn't a quick draw game. >>



It's true, but what threat was this guy? I mean, he wasn't holding a gun, his buddy is laying dead next to him. He wasn't holding a gun. He was "reaching for the rifle," which could mean a lot of things. He could have been reaching to save his buddy. He could have been trying to lay down on the ground and surrender. He could have been reaching down to grab the gun and blow his head off, but you don't know.

All I'm saying is that there would have been plenty of time to shoot this guy after he had his hand on the gun. It's a technicallity, but a neccessary one. There is no way this guy could have grabbed the gun and shot Joe Citizen before Joe Citizen could shoot him. As soon as his hand touches the gun, it's a threat against your life. Until that point, he wasn't really a threat.

You asked me to put myself in Joe Citizen's shoes. I'll ask you to put yourself in the robbers shoes. You are robbing this place and think it's going to be a piece of cake. Your buddy is then shot and is laying on the floor in front of you. There is a possability that you go insane and don't know what to do. You may want to check on your buddy who is bleeding in front of you. You may want to run out of the store. You may decide that laying on the floor would be safer. Only, when you go to lay on the floor, you are then wasted.

I'm glad these guys were shot, but I'm not sure it's completely legal. I think Joe Citizen should get off, but people should at least look at it from the other perspective. >>



Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

*trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
*trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Someone reaching for a gun while in the commission of a robbery fits the standard to a T

 
On a side note, here in Columbus, we have a mother suing, in civil court, because her innocent son was shot to death by the police. The fact that he was holding a sawed-off 12 gauge apparently is one of those annoying little facts that she refuses to be troubled by. The officer saw him holding someone at gunpoint. The officer approached from behind with his weapon drawn, and told the guy "This is a police officer, put the gun down". Now, the mother is upset because, when her son turned, gun in hand, the policeman opened fire, and "shot her son in the back". Well, its true the guy was hit 3 times, 2 times in the back. However, the angle at which these penetrated was <25 degrees from the plane formed by his shoulder blades. In other words, he was turning. Furthermore, the fatal shot hit him in the neck, slightly to the front of the side of his neck. But, obviously, this poor victim was trying to shake the officer's hand to congratulate him on a job well done
rolleye.gif
 


<<
Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

*trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
*trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Someone reaching for a gun while in the commission of a robbery fits the standard to a T >>



Hey, we both agree that these two guys that were shot deserved it. I don't think we'll convince each other that the second guy could have been a mistake or avoided. Agree to disagree.
 
The other perspective is there are people in the store ' they are called witnesses'. IF the guy was trying to surrender 'and I doubt he was' then yes Mr CC permit should be charged. You are pushing a perspective that is unlikely. Don't try to 'what ifs' on real life scenarios.
It happened this way and there were enough witnesses to coroberate that. The criminals, career criminals as by fact probably have harmed many other citizens in their short lives. Just more bad choices that cost them their lives.
 


<<

<< The law states that you may shoot a person if you genuinely fear for your life, or the life of another person. It says nothing about weapons, or giving criminals a "fair chance." This isn't a quick draw game. >>

It's true, but what threat was this guy? I mean, he wasn't holding a gun, his buddy is laying dead next to him. He wasn't holding a gun. He was "reaching for the rifle," which could mean a lot of things. He could have been reaching to save his buddy. He could have been trying to lay down on the ground and surrender. He could have been reaching down to grab the gun and blow his head off, but you don't know. All I'm saying is that there would have been plenty of time to shoot this guy after he had his hand on the gun. It's a technicallity, but a neccessary one. . >>



Have you ever fire a gun before? I doubt there will be plenty of time to shoot the predator once he got his hand on the rifle cuz unless if you're an excellent 'excellent' marksman, than you can shoot at ease, otherwise, it is very difficult to point and shoot accurately at a moving target ... considering many life at stakes and your adrenaline is pumping, ohh ... isnt his son with him at that time? You wouldnt think twice when it's involve the safety of your family.

IMO, you're wrong here, MR. Shockley is right .. he did what's the best for everyone in the Blockbuster, even for the two predators .. yupp, it's the best for them to be removed from the gene pool.
 


<<

<< The law states that you may shoot a person if you genuinely fear for your life, or the life of another person. It says nothing about weapons, or giving criminals a "fair chance."

This isn't a quick draw game. >>



It's true, but what threat was this guy? I mean, he wasn't holding a gun, his buddy is laying dead next to him. He wasn't holding a gun. He was "reaching for the rifle," which could mean a lot of things. He could have been reaching to save his buddy. He could have been trying to lay down on the ground and surrender. He could have been reaching down to grab the gun and blow his head off, but you don't know.

All I'm saying is that there would have been plenty of time to shoot this guy after he had his hand on the gun. It's a technicallity, but a neccessary one. There is no way this guy could have grabbed the gun and shot Joe Citizen before Joe Citizen could shoot him. As soon as his hand touches the gun, it's a threat against your life. Until that point, he wasn't really a threat.

You asked me to put myself in Joe Citizen's shoes. I'll ask you to put yourself in the robbers shoes. You are robbing this place and think it's going to be a piece of cake. Your buddy is then shot and is laying on the floor in front of you. There is a possability that you go insane and don't know what to do. You may want to check on your buddy who is bleeding in front of you. You may want to run out of the store. You may decide that laying on the floor would be safer. Only, when you go to lay on the floor, you are then wasted.

I'm glad these guys were shot, but I'm not sure it's completely legal. I think Joe Citizen should get off, but people should at least look at it from the other perspective. >>



I hate to say this, RoyalDank, but you're being extremely ignorant here. "Put yourself in the robber's shoes..." WHY? Why should I give a damn about some scum robbers? They are criminals; the second they walked into that store with the intention of committing armed robbery and possibly murder/manslaughter they lost their rights to live.

You're gonna tell me that if you were there, a legally armed citizen there to pick up your wife/son/mother and you saw two guys with a gun robbing the place, that you would've only shot the one guy actually holding the gun, then you would've waited for the other guy to pick up the dropped gun before you shot him? You are lying, Sir.

That sounds like what happens in the cartoons where two guys are dueling and one of them drops his gun and the other guy picks it up for him, hands it back to him and says "here you go, Sir, you seem to have dropped your weapon." And the other guy says "thank you, Sir" and then they continue shooting at each other.

So, I've come to the conclusion that you are either really ignorant or you want people to flame you. Oh well.
 


<<

<<
Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

*trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
*trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Someone reaching for a gun while in the commission of a robbery fits the standard to a T >>



Hey, we both agree that these two guys that were shot deserved it. I don't think we'll convince each other that the second guy could have been a mistake or avoided. Agree to disagree. >>



The burden is on the criminal (or the state in his stead) to prove that he wasn't reaching for a gun. Since there is no corroboration to this accusation, I think we can all safely assume he WAS reaching for the gun. Who are you going to believe? The law abiding guy protecting himself and his son or an accomplice to an armed robbery who has been accused of trying to arm himself?

I'll give the law abiding guy the benefit of the doubt until you prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the robber did not present a clear and present danger.
 


<< It's true, but what threat was this guy? I mean, he wasn't holding a gun, his buddy is laying dead next to him. He wasn't holding a gun. He was "reaching for the rifle," which could mean a lot of things. He could have been reaching to save his buddy. He could have been trying to lay down on the ground and surrender. He could have been reaching down to grab the gun and blow his head off, but you don't know.

All I'm saying is that there would have been plenty of time to shoot this guy after he had his hand on the gun. It's a technicallity, but a neccessary one. There is no way this guy could have grabbed the gun and shot Joe Citizen before Joe Citizen could shoot him. As soon as his hand touches the gun, it's a threat against your life. Until that point, he wasn't really a threat. >>



People do stupid things, and we penalize then all the time for it. This guy made, at the minimum, a movement towards a firearm when in a combat scenario. This guy was stupid in a situation (when people have already been shot) where stupidity tends to be fatal. People have been shot for a lot less. I remember a shooting in Cleveland, if was discovered afterwards that the thief was unarmed, but 3 witnesses saw him reach for something in his waistband, and the officer saw a flash of, again, something, and so the officer shot him. The officer was cleared of any wrongdoing, because when someone (lawfully) trains a gun on you and tells you to freeze, you had better do just that. Several police officers are friends of the family, and they've told me, if I get stopped for a traffic violation, keep my hands in sight at all times (top of the steering wheel is best), ask for permission to move them, announce where you are going to reach to (when getting liscense and registration), move your hands slowly, and the officer will usually appreciate this courtsey, and it might tip the balance into you getting a warning rather than a ticket. They dont want to have to worry about you shooting them to get out of a ticket, or if you have stolen the vehicle and dont want to be arrested.

EDIT: to get to my original point in this post, what if "Joe Citizen's" first shot missed or failed to incapacitate the criminal? If its a choice between my life and that of a armed robber, the robber is going to feel the fickle finger of fate come down from on high and jam itself somewhere unpleasant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top