Philly Firearms Dealer Kills Looter, Another Wounded

Discussion in 'Firearms in the Media' started by alsaqr, Jun 3, 2020.

  1. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim Well-Known Member

    1,414
    2,589
    113
    Agreed but it's the LEO's handlers that take the ball and tell the PC what to and what not enforce. Kinda like the politicians who ran the war in Vietnam, they didn't want to win, they were just playing the game...:mad::mad::mad:
     
    JimRau, ellis36 and towboater like this.
  2. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    633
    885
    93
    Plenty of "businesses" are topped, for example, by a small residence in a couple rooms above the thing. (In lots of aged mixed "business districts" around the country.) Used to be the way of things, with "mom & pop" shops. Fact is, a person has every right to be there. Being there to ensure protection isn't unwarranted or unjustified, merely because there's not a bed and a restroom. Hardly the same as, say, setting a "booby" trap for a person, just in case someone will step in it. But in the face of rioting and looting, it's a fair bet someone's property or business is going to get fired or ransacked and looted, and it's not unreasonable to take the least step to guard that no felonies are committed against a person.

    Indeed, the hired help have, over the years, so finely sliced "the law" as to all but ensure John Q. Public gets screwed in the end out of his right to protect his family, his life, his property. Fact remains, a person has every right to guard against violent forcible felonies ... which in a rioting/looting situation is indeed likely. Little different than, say, the Koreatown property owners in the Los Angeles area in the post-Rodney King rioting. Yes, they were there, in anticipation of some idiots deciding to torch or loot their (often mixed-mode) residences and businesses. They refused forcible entry to them, and all arson and looting of them. Perfectly justifiable, despite their being there falling into the category of "anticipating," despite in many case not living there.

    Using the degree of force one reasonably deems necessary to halt violence upon them, others and property. Pretty much what authority is justifiable and in-force in nearly every state in the country. Despite the little "gotchas" the "law" makers have crafted to ensnare otherwise upstanding people into a terrible tangle over taking the law "into their own hands." Protecting people and property. Something nobody else is going to do but the person there, but the property owner. The person with every authority to do just that, once upon a time.
     
    Ghost1958 and Nmwabbit like this.

  3. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,526
    5,961
    113
    One would think anti-gun polytishuns would want those evil guns secured by any means necessary.
     
    Caveman Jim and Ghost1958 like this.
  4. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,405
    7,037
    113
    Oh, but when the guns are doing their bidding, they are not evil guns. They are considered evil only when they are in the hands of persons they don't or can't control.

    ellis
     
    Caveman Jim and Ghost1958 like this.
  5. Shopfox

    Shopfox Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,865
    1,713
    113
    I think you're bastardizing laying in wait by assuming the robber is/was a victim, when in fact they are a perpetrator, and also confusing murder with self-defense.

    The store owner was acting defensively in both terms of his property and his life.

    Lying in wait is an offensive action to attack an innocent person.
     
    Caveman Jim, G66enigma and tac foley like this.
  6. winds-of-change

    winds-of-change The Balota's Staff Member Admin Moderator Lifetime Supporter

    33,105
    8,369
    113
    No insults. Each to his own opinion. You don’t have to force anyone to think exactly as you do. Stop the insults or there will be time outs. And I see about 3-4 this applies to.
     
    G66enigma likes this.
  7. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,405
    7,037
    113
    ?????? This is a calmer thread than many.

    bastardize |ˈbastərˌdīz|
    verb [ with obj. ]
    1 (often as adj. bastardized) corrupt or debase (something such as a language or art form), typically by adding new elements: a strange, bastardized form of French.

    ellis
     
    Caveman Jim, Gatoragn and Ghost1958 like this.
  8. F4U

    F4U Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,248
    1,591
    113
    I honestly think the guy can't win either way in the media. He does what he did and is a vigilante according to the lib establishment.

    He locks the door sets the alarm and goes home and the place gets ransacked. 10 or 50 or more of his guns get used by the goblins to kill some cops and citizens and he didn't do enough to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.

    I kinda see a lawsuit either way for the guy, but personally I think he chose the right way for his property, and his cities safety. Time and maybe a jury of "12 good men and true" will tell.
     
  9. tac foley

    tac foley Well-Known Member

    991
    1,955
    93
    A vigilante is usually somebody who goes looking for somebody who needs a .50c solution. The store-keeper here was on his own property, aware that he had already been targetted several times by BGs. They turned up, tooled up, and he got his licks in quicker, resulting in one BG put into permanent sleep mode and the rest in need of fresh underwear/and/or body repairs.

    I see no problem whatsoever with that, even from a distance of 4500 miles. I, too, have a little experience of waiting for BGs to turn up, as they did, based on previous form. They, too, were armed, and they too, ALL got slotted on a permanent basis. Shots WERE fired in each direction, just that ours were somewhat better aimed.

    If people take it upon themselves to engage in gunfights or even the likelihood of a gunfight, they must expect to have them used against them by people legally armed for the purpose of protecting themselves and their property on which they are standing.

    As the case judge said here in yUK a few years ago, when sentencing a bunch of gypsy would-be house-breakers who had taken on a farmer and his wife and gotten themselves shot to sh*t by the occupants of the house - 'If you are going to be stupid enough to try to violently invade a farm property where there is an extreme likelihood that the occupants have access to legally-held firearms, that extreme likelihood extends to the distinct possibility that you are going to get shot for it'.
     
  10. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,933
    4,753
    113
    primer1 likes this.
  11. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,933
    4,753
    113
    There is this over reaction by gunowners on the subject prosecution for self defense, especially when it comes to defense of the home.

    Very few states prosecute folks who injure or kill armed robbers/ home invaders, in their places of business or homes.

    The case of OK pharmacist Duane Ersland was different. He administered a coup de gras to an unconscious robber. The act was caught on a business camera.

    https://oklahoman.com/article/35846...life-judge-refuses-to-suspend-any-prison-time
     
  12. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    12,770
    2,256
    113
    Monitoring security cameras is the cover story. He was staking them out. And did a great job.
     
  13. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    633
    885
    93
    Silly, isn't it? Such unjustifiable and ignorant labeling.

    I despise it when the media and otherwise intelligent people call such acts of defense "vigilantism." As though there's some other authority, and then there's us.

    Well, WE are that authority. WE are where it comes from. WE are the holders of those liberties and rights, as citizens, and "the law" was created by us to help protect those liberties and rights. Our mutually agreed-upon standards of behavior are by us, for helping to ensure the rule of law exists.

    Hard to see how guarding one's own property and life equals taking unwarranted authority from somebody else, as though one's overstepping.

    That said, I'd agree that going out and "on the hunt" to track down people should raise an eyebrow or two. Not hardly the same thing, though, sitting in one's home, office, farm or shop, there to guard and protect one's livelihood and very life. Little different than being armed while walking down the street, really, in prep with precaution against what might occur.
     
    Caveman Jim, tac foley and ellis36 like this.