Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

From WOKV.com

Customer shoots robber dead

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Instead of saving money at a Northside dollar store, a 57-year-old grandfather ends up saving the day.

The man was doing some late-night shopping at the Dollar General store on Dunn Avenue when all of the sudden, two men stormed in and tried robbing it.

Unfortunately for one of them, the man happens to have a concealed weapons permit, and Lt. Rob Schoonover with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says the man wasted no time springing into action.

Read more: http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/cus ... ead/nRLjK/

Hmmm.... It's not clear the shooter reasonably thought his life was in danger. Looks like he may have volunteered to place himself into harm's way, then wound up killing somebody. Wonder why he hasn't been Zimmermanned?

What would have been the consequences under VA law?

dorminWS wrote:
Hmmm.... It's not clear the shooter reasonably thought his life was in danger.

According to NBC, the robbers were armed. There were two employees who witnessed the whole thing. I suspect that the events may have also been recorded on the CCTV system inside the store.

Unfortunately for Mr. Zimmerman, he had none of these things in his favor.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08 ... g-him?lite

OakRidgeStars wrote:From WOKV.com

Customer shoots robber dead

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Instead of saving money at a Northside dollar store, a 57-year-old grandfather ends up saving the day.

The man was doing some late-night shopping at the Dollar General store on Dunn Avenue when all of the sudden, two men stormed in and tried robbing it.

Unfortunately for one of them, the man happens to have a concealed weapons permit, and Lt. Rob Schoonover with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says the man wasted no time springing into action.

Read more: http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/cus ... ead/nRLjK/

Any attorneys out there that would like to weigh in and tell us why this is a justifiable self defense/ shooting in defense of a third party case?

Meanwhile, Washington, D. C. Is experiencing a spike in violent crime. Hmm.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

IANAL, but it's my understanding that in VA it's perfectly within the law to stop an armed robbery with force. if anyone is being threatened unlawfully (as in an armed robbery) you are legally able to step in and defend them.

zerodown1 wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:From WOKV.com

Customer shoots robber dead

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Instead of saving money at a Northside dollar store, a 57-year-old grandfather ends up saving the day.

The man was doing some late-night shopping at the Dollar General store on Dunn Avenue when all of the sudden, two men stormed in and tried robbing it.

Unfortunately for one of them, the man happens to have a concealed weapons permit, and Lt. Rob Schoonover with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says the man wasted no time springing into action.

Read more: http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/cus ... ead/nRLjK/

Any attorneys out there that would like to weigh in and tell us why this is a justifiable self defense/ shooting in defense of a third party case?

Florida law:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/27/florid ... ense-laws/

My point is that when you intervene to rescue another or even when you act in your own self-defense, you are liable to be second-guessed by some Commonwealth's attorney and/or some dead shooter's family as to whether you believed reasonably and in good faith that someone's life was in danger and the situation warranted the use of deadly force. This may result in the rest of your life hanging in the balance based upon who can win a "swearing match".

It matters next to nothing WHAT the facts actually

WERE. It matters VERY MUCH what a slick lawyer and a lying witness can convince a jury the facts were.

and here's what happens when lawfully carrying folks ignore an obvious situation where they could help.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/con ... -ihop.html

yes, there's plenty of greasy lawyers out there but they should never stop you from doing the right thing.

papasan wrote:and here's what happens when lawfully carrying folks ignore an obvious situation where they could help.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/con ... -ihop.html

yes, there's plenty of greasy lawyers out there but they should never stop you from doing the right thing.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sound point well made. But delve a little deeper. Say the BBQ guy takes a shot across a street (50 feet? - 75 feet? - 100 feet?) at the shooter as he enters the IHOP. What happens if some of those long-for-many-folks-with-a-pistol shots go a little wide, pass through the glass in the front of the building, and kill innocent bystanders? Will our BBQ guy get a pass like as if he were a NYC cop, or is he guilty of negligent homicide? What if the shooter returns fire with the AK, killing or wounding bystanders at the BBQ place? Is the BBQ guy the proximate cause of their injury? There's just no certainty in "shouldas".

I wonder if there has been any situations in va where a legal gun carrying citizen chose not to stop an armed robberyoccurring in their presence out of fear of prosecution, then that armed robber left and later that day week month year whatever, the same robber attacked & raped, murdered etc a family member wife, daughter son brother etc of the original person who had chose not to stop them when able.

hmmm

...and what if his name was Peter Parker?? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

papasan wrote:IANAL, but it's my understanding that in VA it's perfectly within the law to stop an armed robbery with force. if anyone is being threatened unlawfully (as in an armed robbery) you are legally able to step in and defend them.

My understanding, though I don't have a cite for it, is that you can defend yourself or a third party from grave bodily harm, or shoot to stop a felony in progress. Robbery is a felony.

I'm not arguing that you can't legally do it. I'm just pointing out that someone may come along later and cause you untold grief by questioning your judgement as to what the facts were when you did. Just like with poor old Zimmerman.

dorminWS wrote:Sound point well made. But delve a little deeper. Say the BBQ guy takes a shot across a street (50 feet? - 75 feet? - 100 feet?) at the shooter as he enters the IHOP. What happens if some of those long-for-many-folks-with-a-pistol shots go a little wide, pass through the glass in the front of the building, and kill innocent bystanders? Will our BBQ guy get a pass like as if he were a NYC cop, or is he guilty of negligent homicide? What if the shooter returns fire with the AK, killing or wounding bystanders at the BBQ place? Is the BBQ guy the proximate cause of their injury? There's just no certainty in "shouldas".

I wasn't there and there are various accounts of the story that differ in the facts, so the specifics of this I'd rather not get into. there's much grey area, but the BBQ guy didn't seem very interested in getting involved at all which is why I pointed out the story.

but what the story, and the following conversations about it, hopefully does is prompt you to ask yourself "why do I carry?"

Zimmermans' mistake was in not eating the Skittles and drinking the tea while awaiting police.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

dorminWS wrote:I'm not arguing that you can't legally do it. I'm just pointing out that someone may come along later and cause you untold grief by questioning your judgement as to what the facts were when you did. Just like with poor old Zimmerman.

There is a big difference between shooting an armed robber and the Zimmerman case, too many to point out.

marked8 wrote:

dorminWS wrote:I'm not arguing that you can't legally do it. I'm just pointing out that someone may come along later and cause you untold grief by questioning your judgement as to what the facts were when you did. Just like with poor old Zimmerman.

There is a big difference between shooting an armed robber and the Zimmerman case, too many to point out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

True, but your actions and the circumstances are still subject to distortion and second-guessing by people with ulertior motives.

I'm not saying one should never intervene unless their own or a family member's life is in danger. All I'm saying is that to do so may have a downside.

dorminWS wrote:I'm not arguing that you can't legally do it. I'm just pointing out that someone may come along later and cause you untold grief by questioning your judgement as to what the facts were when you did. Just like with poor old Zimmerman.

I see what you mean, South West. It's truly a hard and impossible position to be in.

I think the best we can do is mentally and physically prepare ourselves, make wise choices in where we go and how we conduct ourselves, and to try keeping our heads in the game when things go south. As others are pointing out there are differences in the situations between Mr. Zimmerman and the Dollar General robbery intervention. There isn't much time to think the situation through but some of the quick critical thought process before engaging could include the following questions:

"Do I need to act now?"

"Can I safely act now without hurting others myself or placing them in further danger if I get taken out?"

"What happens if I act now and the takedown men get away armed, angry, and panicked?"

"What happens if I don't act now?"

And the thinking and wise choice making shouldn't stop after the shooting, either. That's where a lot of the trouble actually begins.